-
Skin Appendage Disorders Jan 2020Hair graying is a common sign of aging resulting from complex regulation of melanogenesis. Currently, there is no medical treatment available for hair repigmentation. In... (Review)
Review
Hair graying is a common sign of aging resulting from complex regulation of melanogenesis. Currently, there is no medical treatment available for hair repigmentation. In this article we review the literature on medication-induced hair repigmentation, discuss the potential mechanisms of action, and review the quality of the literary data. To date, there have been 27 studies discussing medication-induced gray hair repigmentation, including 6 articles on gray hair repigmentation as a primary objective, notably with psoralen treatment or vitamin supplementation, and 21 reports on medication-induced gray hair repigmentation as an incidental finding. Medications noted in the literature include anti-inflammatory medications (thalidomide, lenalidomide, adalimumab, acitretin, etretinate, prednisone, cyclosporin, cisplatinum, interferon-α, and psoralen), stimulators of melanogenesis (latanoprost, erlotinib, imatinib, tamoxifen, and levodopa), vitamins (calcium pantothenate and -amino benzoic acid), a medication that accumulates in tissues (clofazimine), and a medication with an undetermined mechanism (captopril). Diffuse repigmentation of gray hair can be induced by certain medications that inhibit inflammation or stimulate melanogenesis. There is also low-quality evidence that some vitamin B complex supplementation can promote gray hair darkening. While these compounds are not currently indicated for the treatment of gray hair, their mechanisms shed light on targets for future medications for hair repigmentation.
PubMed: 32021854
DOI: 10.1159/000504414 -
Revue Neurologique Sep 2022Rasmussen's encephalitis (RE) is a severe, rare, chronic inflammatory brain disease resulting in drug-resistant epilepsy and progressive destruction of one hemisphere... (Review)
Review
Rasmussen's encephalitis (RE) is a severe, rare, chronic inflammatory brain disease resulting in drug-resistant epilepsy and progressive destruction of one hemisphere with loss of neurological function. RE is associated with a deterioration of background electroencephalography (EEG) activity, a progressive atrophy on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) imaging and an extensive positron emission tomography hypometabolism over the affected hemisphere. RE is an immune-mediated disease, with a predominant role of CD8+ T cytotoxic cells, microglial cells, and activation of inflammasome pathway. The diagnosis of RE is based on clinical (intractable epilepsy and neurological deterioration), electrophysiological (unilateral EEG slowing) and MRI (hemiatrophy) criteria. Antiseizure medications are generally unable to stop seizures. The most effective procedure is hemispherotomy (surgical disconnection of one cerebral hemisphere), but this is associated with permanent motor and neurological deficits. Treatments targeting the immune system are recommended especially in the early stages of the disease or in patients with slow disease progression and mild deficits and/or not eligible for surgery. Based on the pathophysiology, several immunotherapies have been tried in RE (none exhaustively: corticosteroid, intravenous immunoglobulins, tacrolimus, azathioprine, adalimumab, mycophenolate mofetil, natalizumab). However, only small cohorts have been reported without comparative study. In this review, we will summarise some pathophysiological mechanisms of RE, before reporting the literature data concerning immunotherapies. We then discuss the limitations of these studies and the prospects for further research.
Topics: Atrophy; Brain; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Electroencephalography; Encephalitis; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging
PubMed: 35131107
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurol.2022.01.007 -
Journal of Crohn's & Colitis Oct 2016Adalimumab is well-established therapy for adults with Crohn's disease [CD]. The aim of the study was to systematically assess the published evidence on the efficacy and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Adalimumab is well-established therapy for adults with Crohn's disease [CD]. The aim of the study was to systematically assess the published evidence on the efficacy and safety of adalimumab for Crohn's disease in children.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and abstracts from the main gastroenterological meetings in the past 5 years were systematically searched up to July 2015 for randomised controlled trials and observational studies on the efficacy and safety of adalimumab for Crohn's treatment in children and adolescents.
RESULTS
A total of 14 studies [1 randomised controlled trial, 13 case series], altogether including 664 patients [age: 1.9 to 21 years] were available for analysis. The studies differed with respect to patients' characteristics, including percentage of infliximab-naïve patients, disease duration, site of the disease, adalimumab doses, treatment duration, and follow-up period. The pooled remission rates were: 30% [n = 93/309] at 4 weeks, 54% [n = 79/145] at 3 months, 45% [n = 18/40] at 4 months, 42% [n = 146/345] at 6 months, 57% [n = 20/35] at 8 months, and 44% [n = 169/383] at 12 months. Of the total patients, 6% [n = 13/207] were classified as primary non-responders and 12% [n = 69/599] had severe adverse events reported including 2 deaths and 1 medulloblastoma. Withdrawal rate due to adverse events reported in one study was 35% [n = 64/182].
CONCLUSION
According to low-quality evidence based mainly on case series, approximately half of children with Crohn's disease on adalimumab therapy achieve remission during the first year of the therapy with reasonable safety profile. There is still a need for high-quality evidence on effectiveness and safety of adalimumab for paediatric Crohn's disease.
Topics: Adalimumab; Adolescent; Child; Crohn Disease; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Induction Chemotherapy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26995184
DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjw077 -
BioDrugs : Clinical Immunotherapeutics,... Aug 2017A systematic review was conducted to explore the immunogenicity of biologic agents across inflammatory diseases and its potential impact on efficacy/safety. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
A systematic review was conducted to explore the immunogenicity of biologic agents across inflammatory diseases and its potential impact on efficacy/safety.
METHODS
Literature searches were conducted through November 2016 to identify controlled and observational studies of biologics/biosimilars administered for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), psoriasis (Ps), Crohn's disease, and ulcerative colitis.
RESULTS
Of >21,000 screened publications, 443 were included. Anti-drug antibody (ADAb) rates varied widely among biologics across diseases (and are not directly comparable because of immunoassay heterogeneity); the highest overall rates were reported with infliximab (0-83%), adalimumab (0-54%), and infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 (21-52%), and the lowest with secukinumab (0-1%), ustekinumab (1-11%), etanercept (0-13%), and golimumab (0-19%). Most ADAbs were neutralizing, except those to abatacept and etanercept. ADAb+ versus ADAb- patients had lower rates of clinical response to adalimumab (RA, PsA, JIA, AS, Ps), golimumab (RA), infliximab (RA, PsA, AS, Ps), rituximab (RA), ustekinumab (Ps), and CT-P13 (RA, AS). Higher rates of infusion-related reactions were reported in infliximab- and CT-P13-treated ADAb+ patients. Background immunosuppressives/anti-proliferatives reduced biologic immunogenicity across diseases.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on reviewed reports, biologic/biosimilar immunogenicity differs among agents, with the highest rates observed with infliximab and adalimumab. As ADAb formation in biologic-/biosimilar-treated patients may increase the risk of lost response, the immunogenicity of these agents is an important (albeit not the only) consideration in the treatment decision-making process.
Topics: Abatacept; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Juvenile; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; Colitis, Ulcerative; Crohn Disease; Etanercept; Humans; Infliximab; Spondylitis, Ankylosing; Ustekinumab
PubMed: 28612180
DOI: 10.1007/s40259-017-0231-8 -
BioDrugs : Clinical Immunotherapeutics,... Jan 2021The reported immunogenicity rates of adalimumab differ significantly between studies because of a wide variety of factors related to the disease, patients, study design,...
BACKGROUND
The reported immunogenicity rates of adalimumab differ significantly between studies because of a wide variety of factors related to the disease, patients, study design, and products.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to characterize this variability and identify the major factors that contribute to these fluctuations.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted using the MEDLINE, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies that reported the immunogenicity rates of adalimumab were selected, and data pertaining to publication details, study characteristics, characteristics of the cohort at baseline, and immunogenicity were extracted. Records were sorted according to the immunogenicity assay type, and mean immunogenicity values for each assay type were calculated. Normalised immunogenicity was calculated for each report by subtracting the appropriate mean immunogenicity value. Collected data were subjected to statistical analysis, namely analysis of variance (ANOVA) and principal component analysis, to unveil immunogenicity rate patterns across studies from a multivariate perspective.
RESULTS
In total, 130 publications were identified, from which 165 data records were extracted and included in the analysis. The immunogenicity rates of adalimumab averaged 24.9% across studies and varied significantly over time, ranging between 0 and 87%. An increase across time in the reported immunogenicity rates was detected, and the assay used to detect anti-adalimumab antibodies was a significant (but not exclusive) contributor to this trend. Furthermore, the principal components analysis revealed that the type of study and the exposure time were associated with the assay-normalised immunogenicity rates of adalimumab. Nonetheless, neither these nor the remaining factors included in this analysis seem to contribute to the temporal increase in reported immunogenicity rates.
CONCLUSIONS
Future studies that evaluate the patient-, product-, and disease-related factors behind the immunogenicity of adalimumab are required because the evidence published so far does not completely explain the temporal increase in immunogenicity rates detected in this analysis.
Topics: Adalimumab; Humans; Infliximab; Principal Component Analysis
PubMed: 33301077
DOI: 10.1007/s40259-020-00458-3 -
Adalimumab Effect on Pain in Hidradenitis Suppurativa Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Dermatology Practical & Conceptual May 2022Pain is experienced by most patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) and has a severe impact on their quality of life. Its management still presents a challenge.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Pain is experienced by most patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) and has a severe impact on their quality of life. Its management still presents a challenge. Adalimumab, a TNF-a antagonist, has shown promising results in HS-related pain reduction.
OBJECTIVES
To aggregate and synthesize all existing evidence regarding the effect of adalimumab on HS-associated pain.
METHODS
We identified original controlled and uncontrolled studies with participants receiving adalimumab, which included change in pain score post-treatment compared to baseline as an end-point. We searched MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The primary endpoint of our study was the mean change (continuous variable) of pain scores at week 12 compared to baseline.
RESULTS
We performed a meta-analysis of 4 randomized controlled trials (282 patients in the intervention group and 266 patients in the control group). Adalimumab brought about a 0.418 reduction in mean pain score at its worst with 95%CI [-0.588, -0.248] and P = 0.000 at 12 weeks after treatment commencement. Four more studies were included in a qualitative synthesis, 2 of which reported statistically significant reduction in pain scores at week 12.
CONCLUSIONS
Adalimumab could be prescribed more readily in cases of HS associated with significant pain.
PubMed: 35646432
DOI: 10.5826/dpc.1202a99 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2022Focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) can be separated into primary, genetic or secondary causes. Primary disease results in nephrotic syndrome while genetic and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) can be separated into primary, genetic or secondary causes. Primary disease results in nephrotic syndrome while genetic and secondary forms may be associated with asymptomatic proteinuria or with nephrotic syndrome. Overall only about 20% of patients with FSGS experience a partial or complete remission of nephrotic syndrome with treatment. FSGS progresses to kidney failure in about half of the cases. This is an update of a review first published in 2008.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of immunosuppressive and non-immunosuppressive treatment regimens in adults with FSGS.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies to 21 June 2021 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of any intervention for FSGS in adults were included. Studies comparing different types, routes, frequencies, and duration of immunosuppressive agents and non-immunosuppressive agents were assessed.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model and results were expressed as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, or mean difference (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifteen studies (560 participants) were included. No studies specifically evaluating corticosteroids compared with placebo or supportive therapy were identified. Studies evaluated participants with steroid-resistant FSGS. Five studies (240 participants) compared cyclosporin with or without prednisone with different comparators (no specific treatment, prednisone, methylprednisolone, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), dexamethasone). Three small studies compared monoclonal antibodies (adalimumab, fresolimumab) with other agents or placebo. Six single small studies compared rituximab with tacrolimus, cyclosporin plus valsartan with cyclosporin alone, MMF with prednisone, chlorambucil plus methylprednisolone and prednisone with no specific treatment, different regimens of dexamethasone and CCX140-B (an antagonist of the chemokine receptor CCR2) with placebo. The final study (109 participants) compared sparsentan, a dual inhibitor of endothelin Type A receptor and of the angiotensin II Type 1 receptor, with irbesartan. In the risk of bias assessment, seven and five studies were at low risk of bias for sequence generation and allocation concealment, respectively. Four studies were at low risk of performance bias and 14 studies were at low risk of detection bias. Thirteen, six and five studies were at low risk of attrition bias, reporting bias and other bias, respectively. Of five studies evaluating cyclosporin, four could be included in our meta-analyses (231 participants). Cyclosporin with or without prednisone compared with different comparators may increase the likelihood of complete remission (RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.73; I² = 1%; low certainty evidence) and of complete or partial remission (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.44; I² = 19%) but not of partial remission (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.39, I² = 22%). In Individual studies, cyclosporin with prednisone versus prednisone may increase the likelihood of partial (49 participants: RR 7.96, 95% CI 1.09 to 58.15) or complete or partial remission (49 participants: RR 8.85, 95% CI 1.22 to 63.92) but not of complete remission. The remaining individual comparisons may make little or no difference to the likelihood of complete remission, partial remission or complete or partial remission compared with no treatment, methylprednisolone, MMF, or dexamethasone. Individual study data and combined data showed that cyclosporin may make little or no difference to the outcomes of chronic kidney disease or kidney failure. It is uncertain whether cyclosporin compared with these comparators in individual or combined analyses makes any difference to the outcomes of hypertension or infection. MMF compared with prednisone may make little or no difference to the likelihood of complete remission (33 participants: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.88; low certainty evidence), partial remission, complete or partial remission, glomerular filtration rate, or infection. It is uncertain whether other interventions make any difference to outcomes as the certainty of the evidence is very low. It is uncertain whether sparsentan reduces proteinuria to a greater extent than irbesartan.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No RCTs, which evaluated corticosteroids, were identified although the KDIGO guidelines recommend corticosteroids as the first treatment for adults with FSGS. The studies identified included participants with steroid-resistant FSGS. Treatment with cyclosporin for at least six months was more likely to achieve complete remission of proteinuria compared with other treatments but there was considerable imprecision due to few studies and small participant numbers. In future studies of existing or new interventions, the investigators must clearly define the populations included in the study to provide appropriate recommendations for patients with primary, genetic or secondary FSGS.
Topics: Adult; Cyclosporine; Glomerulosclerosis, Focal Segmental; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Mycophenolic Acid; Prednisone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35224732
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003233.pub3 -
Biomedicines Jun 2022The treatment guidelines for hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) vary among different countries, and several biologics and small molecule inhibitors have been tested for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The treatment guidelines for hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) vary among different countries, and several biologics and small molecule inhibitors have been tested for treating moderate-to-severe HS over the past few years. However, treatment guidelines for HS vary among different countries.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to exam the efficacy and serious adverse events (SAEs) of biologics and small-molecule inhibitors in treating moderate-to-severe HS. Binary outcomes were presented as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
We included 16 RCTs with a total of 2076 participants on nine biologics and three small-molecule inhibitors for treating moderate-to-severe HS, including adalimumab, anakinra, apremilast, avacopan, bimekizumab, CJM112, etanercept, guselkumab, IFX-1, INCB054707, infliximab, and MABp1. The meta-analysis revealed only adalimumab (RR 1.77, 95% CI, 1.44-2.17) and bimekizumab (RR 2.25, 95% CI, 1.03-4.92) achieved significant improvement on hidradenitis suppurativa clinical response (HiSCR), and adalimumab was superior to placebo in achieving dermatology life quality index (DLQI) 0/1 (RR 3.97; 95% CI, 1.70-9.28). No increase in SAEs was found for all included active treatments when compared with placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Adalimumab and bimekizumab are the only two biologics effective in achieving HiSCR with acceptable safety profile, whereas adalimumab is the only biologic effective in achieving DLQI 0/1.
PubMed: 35740325
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10061303 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases May 2024To obtain an overview of recent evidence on efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments in psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
Efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature research informing the 2023 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis.
OBJECTIVES
To obtain an overview of recent evidence on efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments in psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
METHODS
This systematic literature research (SLR) investigated the efficacy and safety of conventional synthetic (cs), biological (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with PsA. A systematic database search using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL was conducted to identify relevant articles published since the previous update in 2019 until 28 December 2022. Efficacy was assessed in trials while for safety observational data were also considered. Adverse events of special interest were infections (including herpes zoster, influenza and tuberculosis), malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolisms, liver disease, laboratory changes and psychiatric adverse events. No meta-analyses were performed.
RESULTS
For efficacy, of 3946 articles screened, 38 articles (30 trials) were analysed. The compounds investigated included csDMARDs (leflunomide, methotrexate), bDMARDs inhibiting IL17 (bimekizumab, brodalumab, ixekizumab, izokibep, secukinumab,), IL-23 (guselkumab, risankizumab, tildrakizumab), IL-12/23 (ustekinumab) as well as TNF (adalimumab, certolizumab-pegol, etanercept, infliximab, golimumab) and Janus Kinase inhibitors (JAKi) (brepocitinib, deucravacitinib, tofacitinib, upadacitinib). The compounds investigated were efficacious in improving signs and symptoms of PsA, improving physical functioning and quality of life. For safety, 2055 abstracts were screened, and 24 articles analysed: 15 observational studies and 9 long-term follow-ups of trials, assessing glucocorticoids, TNFi, IL-17i, JAKi, IL-12/23i and PDE4i (apremilast). Safety indicators were generally coherent with the previous SLR in 2019.
CONCLUSION
The results of this SLR informed the task force responsible for the 2023 update of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for pharmacological management of PsA.
Topics: Arthritis, Psoriatic; Humans; Antirheumatic Agents; Treatment Outcome; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Biological Products
PubMed: 38503473
DOI: 10.1136/ard-2024-225534 -
BMC Ophthalmology May 2023To compare the efficacy and safety of infliximab with that of adalimumab in the treatment of non-infectious uveitis (NIU). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To compare the efficacy and safety of infliximab with that of adalimumab in the treatment of non-infectious uveitis (NIU).
METHODS
We searched for relevant studies in the PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library databases, Grey Matters, Grey Literature Report, OpenGrey, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wan Fang databases up to September 2022. The incidences of complete remission of inflammation, response to therapy, adverse events and corticosteroid-sparing effect were evaluated.
RESULTS
Eleven clinical trials covering 1459 NIU patients were included. Complete remission of inflammation after therapy was achieved in 161 (37.5%) patients in the infliximab group and 151 (39.6%) patients in the adalimumab group. These two groups were not significantly different (P = 0.37). Four studies reported response to anti-TNF therapy involving 449 patients, of whom 241/272 (88.6%) treated with infliximab and 153/177 (86.4%) treated with adalimumab achieved partial or complete remission of inflammation. No significant difference was observed between the two cohorts in terms of response to therapy (P = 0.86). There was no significant difference between infliximab and adalimumab with regard to corticosteroid-sparing effect (P = 0.58). The pooled effect size (P = 0.001) showed a statistically significant difference, with the incidence of adverse events being 17.91% for infliximab and 12.12% for adalimumab.
CONCLUSION
Our systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 studies suggests that infliximab and adalimumab have similar therapeutic efficacy and corticosteroid-sparing effect in patients with NIU. However, adalimumab has a marginal advantage over infliximab in terms of adverse events. Large-scale RCTs with a longer follow-up are required to further evaluate these two anti-TNF-α agents in patients with NIU.
Topics: Humans; Adalimumab; Infliximab; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha; Uveitis; Inflammation
PubMed: 37248486
DOI: 10.1186/s12886-023-02987-1