-
Health Science Reports Sep 2023Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a well-known noncommunicable disease that plays a significant role in emerging other chronic disorders and following complications. MetS is...
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a well-known noncommunicable disease that plays a significant role in emerging other chronic disorders and following complications. MetS is also involved in the pathophysiology of numerous dermatological diseases. We aim to evaluate the association of MetS with the most prevalent dermatological diseases.
METHODS
A systematic search was carried out on PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, Cochrane, as well as the Google Scholar search engine. Only English case-control studies regarding MetS and any skin disease from the beginning of 2010 up to November 15, 2022, were selected. The study was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA).
RESULTS
A total of 37 studies (13,830 participants) met the inclusion criteria. According to our result, patients with psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), vitiligo, androgenetic alopecia (AGA), and lichen planus (LP) have a higher chance of having MetS compared to the general population. Furthermore, people with seborrheic dermatitis (SED) and rosacea are more prone to insulin resistance, high blood pressure (BP), and higher blood lipids. After pooling data, the meta-analysis revealed a significant association between MetS and skin diseases (pooled odds ratio [OR]: 3.28, 95% confidence interval: 2.62-4.10). Concerning the type of disease, MetS has been correlated with AGA (OR: 11.86), HS (OR: 4.46), LP (OR: 3.79), and SED (OR: 2.45). Psoriasis also showed a significant association but with high heterogeneity (OR: 2.89). Moreover, skin diseases and MetS are strongly associated in Spain (OR: 5.25) and Thailand (OR: 11.86). Regarding the metaregression model, the effect size was reduced with increasing age (OR: 0.965), while the size increased with AGA (OR: 3.064).
CONCLUSIONS
MetS is closely associated with skin complications. Dermatologists and other multidisciplinary teams should be cautious while treating these patients to prevent severe complications resulting from MetS.
PubMed: 37752973
DOI: 10.1002/hsr2.1576 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023Cutaneous melanoma is amongst the most aggressive of all skin cancers. Neoadjuvant treatment is a form of induction therapy, given to shrink a cancerous tumour prior to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cutaneous melanoma is amongst the most aggressive of all skin cancers. Neoadjuvant treatment is a form of induction therapy, given to shrink a cancerous tumour prior to the main treatment (usually surgery). The purpose is to improve survival and surgical outcomes. This review systematically appraises the literature investigating the use of neoadjuvant treatment for stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of neoadjuvant treatment in adults with stage III or stage IV melanoma according to the seventh edition American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 10 August 2021 inclusive: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and four trials registers, together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We also handsearched proceedings from specific conferences from 2016 to 2020 inclusive.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with stage III and IV melanoma, comparing neoadjuvant treatment strategies (using targeted treatments, immunotherapies, radiotherapy, topical treatments or chemotherapy) with any of these agents or current standard of care (SOC), were eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and adverse effects (AEs). Secondary outcomes included time to recurrence (TTR), quality of life (QOL), and overall response rate (ORR). We used GRADE to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs involving 402 participants. Studies enrolled adults, mostly with stage III melanoma, investigated immunotherapies, chemotherapy, or targeted treatments, and compared these with surgical excision with or without adjuvant treatment. Duration of follow-up and therapeutic regimens varied, which, combined with heterogeneity in the population and definitions of the endpoints, precluded meta-analysis of all identified studies. We performed a meta-analysis including three studies. We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases OS when compared to no neoadjuvant treatment (hazard ratio (HR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.21; 2 studies, 171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neoadjuvant treatment may increase the rate of AEs, but the evidence is very uncertain (26% versus 16%, risk ratio (RR) 1.58, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.55; 2 studies, 162 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases TTR (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17; 2 studies, 171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report ORR as a comparative outcome or measure QOL data. We are very uncertain whether neoadjuvant targeted treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib increases OS (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.25; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or TTR (HR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.22; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence) when compared to surgery. The study did not report comparative rates of AEs and overall response, and did not measure QOL. We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant immunotherapy with talimogene laherparepvec increases OS when compared to no neoadjuvant treatment (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.64; 1 study, 150 participants, very low-certainty evidence). It may have a higher rate of AEs, but the evidence is very uncertain (16.5% versus 5.8%, RR 2.84, 95% CI 0.96 to 8.37; 1 study, 142 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if it increases TTR (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.79; 1 study, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report comparative ORRs or measure QOL. OS was not reported for neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) when compared to the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab as adjuvant treatment. There may be little or no difference in the rate of AEs between these treatments (9%, RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.34; 1 study, 20 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not report comparative ORRs or measure TTR and QOL. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) likely results in little to no difference in OS when compared to neoadjuvant nivolumab monotherapy (P = 0.18; 1 study, 23 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase the rate of AEs, but the certainty of this evidence is very low (72.8% versus 8.3%, RR 8.73, 95% CI 1.29 to 59; 1 study, 23 participants); this trial was halted early due to observation of disease progression preventing surgical resection in the monotherapy arm and the high rate of treatment-related AEs in the combination arm. Neoadjuvant combination treatment may lead to higher ORR, but the evidence is very uncertain (72.8% versus 25%, RR 2.91, 95% CI 1.02 to 8.27; 1 study, 23 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It likely results in little to no difference in TTR (P = 0.19; 1 study, 23 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure QOL. OS was not reported for neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) when compared to neoadjuvant sequential immunotherapy (ipilimumab then nivolumab). Only Grade 3 to 4 immune-related AEs were reported; fewer were reported with combination treatment, and the sequential treatment arm closed early due to a high incidence of severe AEs. The neoadjuvant combination likely results in a higher ORR compared to sequential neoadjuvant treatment (60.1% versus 42.3%, RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.32; 1 study, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure TTR and QOL. No data were reported on OS, AEs, TTR, or QOL for the comparison of neoadjuvant interferon (HDI) plus chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Neoadjuvant HDI plus chemotherapy may have little to no effect on ORR, but the evidence is very uncertain (33% versus 22%, RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 4.95; 1 study, 36 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases OS or TTR compared with no neoadjuvant treatment, and it may be associated with a slightly higher rate of AEs. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of neoadjuvant treatment in clinical practice. Priorities for research include the development of a core outcome set for neoadjuvant trials that are adequately powered, with validation of pathological and radiological responses as intermediate endpoints, to investigate the relative benefits of neoadjuvant treatment compared with adjuvant treatment with immunotherapies or targeted therapies.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antineoplastic Agents; Ipilimumab; Melanoma; Nivolumab; Skin Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Neoplasm Staging; Melanoma, Cutaneous Malignant
PubMed: 36648215
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012974.pub2 -
Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical... Sep 2021Atopic dermatitis is the most common chronic inflammatory skin disease and presents a major public health burden worldwide. Recent observational studies revealed the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis is the most common chronic inflammatory skin disease and presents a major public health burden worldwide. Recent observational studies revealed the potential association between atopic dermatitis with autoimmune disorders. However, there is no meta-analysis of the prevalence or incidence of autoimmune diseases in atopic dermatitis. Therefore, considering the potential clinical implications of these associations, we aimed to assess the risk of autoimmune diseases in patients with atopic dermatitis using this method.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception to October, 2020. Observational studies which provided estimate effects with 95% CI or raw data were included. The quality of selected studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Odds ratio and relative risks were pooled using a random effects model and expressed with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
Fourteen observational studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The random-effects meta-analysis of case-control and cross-sectional studies showed a significant association of atopic dermatitis with mutiple autoimmune diseases, including alopecia areata, celiac disease, Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, systematic lupus erythematosus, ulcerative colitis and vitiligo. Furthermore, pooling of the results of cohort studies showed that patients with atopic dermatitis were more likely to develop these autoimmune diseases.
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis showed that patients with atopic dermatitis were at higher risk of multiple autoimmune diseases including alopecia areata, celiac disease, Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, systematic lupus erythematosus, ulcerative colitis and vitiligo. It is important for early detection of the affected group so that timely management can be initiated. Dermatologists and allergists should be aware of the autoimmune diseases in patients with atopic dermatitis and develop interventions if necessary. Also, limited by the present research, we still require more large-scale studies to further establish the association between atopic dermatitis and autoimmune diseases.
PubMed: 34563251
DOI: 10.1186/s13223-021-00597-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022Eczema is a common skin condition. Although topical corticosteroids have been a first-line treatment for eczema for decades, there are uncertainties over their optimal... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Eczema is a common skin condition. Although topical corticosteroids have been a first-line treatment for eczema for decades, there are uncertainties over their optimal use.
OBJECTIVES
To establish the effectiveness and safety of different ways of using topical corticosteroids for treating eczema.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched databases to January 2021 (Cochrane Skin Specialised Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; GREAT) and five clinical trials registers. We checked bibliographies from included trials to identify further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials in adults and children with eczema that compared at least two strategies of topical corticosteroid use. We excluded placebo comparisons, other than for trials that evaluated proactive versus reactive treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods, with GRADE certainty of evidence for key findings. Primary outcomes were changes in clinician-reported signs and relevant local adverse events. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported symptoms and relevant systemic adverse events. For local adverse events, we prioritised abnormal skin thinning as a key area of concern for healthcare professionals and patients.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 104 trials (8443 participants). Most trials were conducted in high-income countries (81/104), most likely in outpatient or other hospital settings. We judged only one trial to be low risk of bias across all domains. Fifty-five trials had high risk of bias in at least one domain, mostly due to lack of blinding or missing outcome data. Stronger-potency versus weaker-potency topical corticosteroids Sixty-three trials compared different potencies of topical corticosteroids: 12 moderate versus mild, 22 potent versus mild, 25 potent versus moderate, and 6 very potent versus potent. Trials were usually in children with moderate or severe eczema, where specified, lasting one to five weeks. The most reported outcome was Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) of clinician-reported signs of eczema. We pooled four trials that compared moderate- versus mild-potency topical corticosteroids (420 participants). Moderate-potency topical corticosteroids probably result in more participants achieving treatment success, defined as cleared or marked improvement on IGA (52% versus 34%; odds ratio (OR) 2.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 3.04; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled nine trials that compared potent versus mild-potency topical corticosteroids (392 participants). Potent topical corticosteroids probably result in a large increase in number achieving treatment success (70% versus 39%; OR 3.71, 95% CI 2.04 to 6.72; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled 15 trials that compared potent versus moderate-potency topical corticosteroids (1053 participants). There was insufficient evidence of a benefit of potent topical corticosteroids compared to moderate topical corticosteroids (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.89; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled three trials that compared very potent versus potent topical corticosteroids (216 participants). The evidence is uncertain with a wide confidence interval (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.09; low-certainty evidence). Twice daily or more versus once daily application We pooled 15 of 25 trials in this comparison (1821 participants, all reported IGA). The trials usually assessed adults and children with moderate or severe eczema, where specified, using potent topical corticosteroids, lasting two to six weeks. Applying potent topical corticosteroids only once a day probably does not decrease the number achieving treatment success compared to twice daily application (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.38; 15 trials, 1821 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Local adverse events Within the trials that tested 'treating eczema flare-up' strategies, we identified only 26 cases of abnormal skin thinning from 2266 participants (1% across 22 trials). Most cases were from the use of higher-potency topical corticosteroids (16 with very potent, 6 with potent, 2 with moderate and 2 with mild). We assessed this evidence as low certainty, except for very potent versus potent topical corticosteroids, which was very low-certainty evidence. Longer versus shorter-term duration of application for induction of remission No trials were identified. Twice weekly application (weekend, or 'proactive therapy') to prevent relapse (flare-ups) versus no topical corticosteroids/reactive application Nine trials assessed this comparison, generally lasting 16 to 20 weeks. We pooled seven trials that compared weekend (proactive) topical corticosteroids therapy versus no topical corticosteroids (1179 participants, children and adults with a range of eczema severities, though mainly moderate or severe). Weekend (proactive) therapy probably results in a large decrease in likelihood of a relapse from 58% to 25% (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.57; 7 trials, 1149 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Local adverse events We did not identify any cases of abnormal skin thinning in seven trials that assessed skin thinning (1050 participants) at the end of treatment. We assessed this evidence as low certainty. Other comparisons Other comparisons included newer versus older preparations of topical corticosteroids (15 trials), cream versus ointment (7 trials), topical corticosteroids with wet wrap versus no wet wrap (6 trials), number of days per week applied (4 trials), different concentrations of the same topical corticosteroids (2 trials), time of day applied (2 trials), topical corticosteroids alternating with topical calcineurin inhibitors versus topical corticosteroids alone (1 trial), application to wet versus dry skin (1 trial) and application before versus after emollient (1 trial). No trials compared branded versus generic topical corticosteroids and time between application of emollient and topical corticosteroids.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Potent and moderate topical corticosteroids are probably more effective than mild topical corticosteroids, primarily in moderate or severe eczema; however, there is uncertain evidence to support any advantage of very potent over potent topical corticosteroids. Effectiveness is similar between once daily and twice daily (or more) frequent use of potent topical corticosteroids to treat eczema flare-ups, and topical corticosteroids weekend (proactive) therapy is probably better than no topical corticosteroids/reactive use to prevent eczema relapse (flare-ups). Adverse events were not well reported and came largely from low- or very low-certainty, short-term trials. In trials that reported abnormal skin thinning, frequency was low overall and increased with increasing potency. We found no trials on the optimum duration of treatment of a flare, branded versus generic topical corticosteroids, and time to leave between application of topical corticosteroids and emollient. There is a need for longer-term trials, in people with mild eczema.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Child; Dermatologic Agents; Eczema; Emollients; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Immunoglobulin A; Recurrence
PubMed: 35275399
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013356.pub2 -
Archives of Dermatological Research Oct 2023Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) is a cicatricial alopecia affecting the frontotemporal hairline. Given that this scarring, immune-mediated follicular destruction most... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) is a cicatricial alopecia affecting the frontotemporal hairline. Given that this scarring, immune-mediated follicular destruction most commonly affects postmenopausal Caucasian women, researchers have postulated that there are hormonal and genetic components; however, the etiology of FFA is still unknown. Recently, dermatologists have reported cases of FFA as being potentially caused by cosmetic products, such as sunscreen and shampoo. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis intend to be the first to analyze the relationship between FFA and cosmetic/personal care products and treatments, including sunscreen, moisturizer, foundation, shampoo, conditioner, hair mousse, hair gel, hair dye, hair straightening/rebonding, chemical/laser facial resurfacing, aftershave, and facial cleanser.
METHODS
The Cochrane, PubMed, EMBASE, and Medline (Ovid) databases were searched for the relevant studies from the date of inception to August 2022. Case-control, cross-sectional, and cohort studies examining the effects of cosmetic/personal care product use on FFA, available in English full-text, were included. Analyses were performed using Review Manager, version 5.4. Results were reported as an odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI); p values < 0.05 were considered significant.
RESULTS
Nine studies were included in our quantitative analyses, totaling 1,248 FFA patients and 1,459 controls. There were significant positive associations found for FFA and sunscreen (OR 3.02, 95% CI 1.67-5.47; p = 0.0003) and facial moisturizer (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.51-3.20; p < 0.0001) use. Gender sub-analyses demonstrated a positive association for FFA and facial moisturizer in men (OR 5.07, 95% CI 1.40-18.32; p = 0.01), but not in women (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.83-2.98; p = 0.16). Both gender sub-analyses were significantly positive for the association with facial sunscreen (Male OR 4.61, 95% CI 1.54-13.78, p = 0.006; Female OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.32-5.70, p = 0.007). There was no association found for a facial cleanser (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.33-1.52; p = 0.51), foundation (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.83-1.55; p = 0.21), shampoo (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.22-1.10; p = 0.08), hair conditioner (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.52-1.26; p = 0.35), hair mousse (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.75-2.51; p = 0.31), and hair gel (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.48-1.69; p = 0.74), hair dye (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.69-1.64; p = 0.77), hair straightening/rebonding (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.08-9.32; p = 0.92), hair perming (OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.89-2.23; p = 0.14), facial toner (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.12-2.21; p = 0.37), or aftershave (OR 1.64, 95% CI 0.28-9.49; p = 0.58).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis strongly suggests that leave-on facial products, facial sunscreen and moisturizer, are associated with FFA. While the association with facial moisturizer did not persist when stratifying for female populations, gender sub-analyses remained significant for a facial sunscreen. There was no significant relationship found with hair products or treatments. These findings suggest a potential environmental etiology in the development of FFA, particularly UV-protecting chemicals.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Sunscreening Agents; Cross-Sectional Studies; Forehead; Alopecia; Cosmetics; Dermatologic Agents; Cicatrix; Hair Dyes; Lichen Planus
PubMed: 37014396
DOI: 10.1007/s00403-023-02604-7 -
Dermatology and Therapy Jan 2023Beta-blockers are proven to be safe and cost-effective agents in treating multiple dermatological conditions, which is why they are considered as an interesting and good... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Beta-blockers are proven to be safe and cost-effective agents in treating multiple dermatological conditions, which is why they are considered as an interesting and good alternative therapeutic agent by dermatologists. To our knowledge, there has been no comprehensive systematic review to date summarizing the role of both systemic and topical beta-blockers in dermatology.
METHODS
In this systematic review, we aim to review recent and relevant published literature in order to provide a comprehensive evidence-based summary to inform dermatologists.
RESULTS
An electronic-based literature search was carried out during October-December 2021 in the databases PubMed (MEDLINE), SCOPUS (EMBASE), and Cochrane Library. Furthermore, bibliographic sources were also reviewed for the selected articles. We followed The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses 2020 (PRISMA) guidelines. We reviewed published literature about the role of beta-blockers in dermatology for the time period (January 2016 to December 2021).
CONCLUSIONS
A total of 126 publications were retrieved from different databases, of which 59 studies were finally included in our review after excluding non-eligible literature in accordance with our inclusion and exclusion criteria. The included articles consisted of meta-analyses, systematic reviews, clinical trials, retrospective and prospective cohort studies, case-control studies, case series, and case reports. In general, data in reviewed literature showed that both systemic and topical beta-blockers were reliable and safe therapeutic options in treating different dermatoses. Their effect has been studied as a mono-therapy, also as an adjuvant therapy combined with other current disease-specific therapeutic modalities such as lasers, radiation, chemotherapy, corticosteroids, or other beta-blockers options. Local and systemic adverse effects were mainly minor and non-significant.
PubMed: 36414845
DOI: 10.1007/s13555-022-00848-1 -
Journal of the European Academy of... Apr 2023Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a rare and highly heterogeneous skin disease, characterized by flares of neutrophilic pustules and erythema. As a rare disease...
BACKGROUND
Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a rare and highly heterogeneous skin disease, characterized by flares of neutrophilic pustules and erythema. As a rare disease with few clinical studies and no standardized management approaches, there is a paucity of knowledge regarding GPP.
OBJECTIVES
Conduct a Delphi panel study to identify current evidence and gain advanced insights into GPP.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was used to identify published literature and develop statements categorized into four key domains: clinical course and flare definition; diagnosis; treatment goals; and holistic management. Statements were rated on a Likert scale by a panel of dermatologists in two rounds of online questionnaires; the threshold for consensus was agreement by ≥80%.
RESULTS
Twenty-one panellists reached consensus on 70.9%, 61.8%, 100.0% and 81.8% of statements in the 'clinical course and flare definition', 'diagnosis', 'treatment goals' and 'holistic management of GPP' domains, respectively. There was clear consensus on GPP being phenotypically, genetically and immunologically distinct from plaque psoriasis. Clinical course is highly variable, with an extensive range of complications. Clinical and histologic features supporting GPP diagnosis reached high levels of agreement, and although laboratory evaluations were considered helpful for diagnosis and monitoring disease severity, there was uncertainty around the value of individual tests. All acute and long-term treatment goals reached consensus, including rapid and sustained clearance of pustules, erythema, scaling and crust, clearance of skin lesions and prevention of new flares. Potential triggers, associated comorbidities and differential diagnoses achieved low rates of consensus, indicating that further evidence is needed.
CONCLUSIONS
Global consensus between dermatologists was reached on clinically meaningful goals for GPP treatment, on key features of GPP flares and on approaches for assessing disease severity and multidisciplinary management of patients. On this basis, we present a management algorithm for patients with GPP for use in clinical practice.
Topics: Humans; Consensus; Delphi Technique; Goals; Psoriasis; Disease Management; Disease Progression
PubMed: 36606566
DOI: 10.1111/jdv.18851 -
Journal of the European Academy of... Dec 2022Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory disease, driven by type 2 inflammation. The condition manifests as moderate-to-severe disease in approximately 20% of... (Review)
Review
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory disease, driven by type 2 inflammation. The condition manifests as moderate-to-severe disease in approximately 20% of adults with AD across Europe and is associated with a substantial burden on patients, society and healthcare systems. However, systematic assessments capturing the totality of disease burden associated with moderate-to-severe AD are limited; therefore, the overall impacts of the disease may be underestimated. A systematic literature review (SLR) was carried out to assess the overall costs of moderate-to-severe AD across Europe, including the financial, societal and humanistic impacts. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched to identify relevant studies published between 1 January 2010 and 2 June 2020. Scientific conference proceedings, health technology assessment websites and patient association group websites were also searched for relevant information. Twenty-seven publications, corresponding to 22 unique studies, were included in the analysis. Total costs (direct and productivity losses) reached €20 695 per-person-per-year (PPPY) for adults with uncontrolled symptoms of moderate-to-severe AD. Direct medical costs ranged between €307 and €6993 PPPY; prescription medications and specialist dermatologist visits were the main contributors. Costs increased with disease severity or with uncontrolled disease. Patients with AD also incurred personal costs of €927 per year for healthcare items not reimbursed, which increased by 9% for those with moderate-to-severe forms. Annual work productivity losses comprised most of the total costs reported for adults with moderate-to-severe AD (up to 60.8% of the total burden) and were highest in those with uncontrolled disease (€13 702 PPPY). Patients with moderate-to-severe disease also experienced physical, emotional, and social impacts. The overall costs of moderate-to-severe AD greatly impact on healthcare systems, patients and society. Sustained control of moderate-to-severe AD, through effective treatment and care management, is essential to limit the burden caused by the disease.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Dermatitis, Atopic; Cost of Illness; Severity of Illness Index; Europe; Work Performance; Health Care Costs
PubMed: 35920758
DOI: 10.1111/jdv.18481 -
The Journal of Dermatological Treatment Jun 2022Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition characterized by painful nodules, abscesses, sinus tract formation and scarring. The relationship... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition characterized by painful nodules, abscesses, sinus tract formation and scarring. The relationship between HS and strokes is not well established. To assess this potential association, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Electronic searches were performed from six online databases. All eligible case-control studies comparing patients with HS versus non-HS were included. All studies must have included either the proportion of patients with strokes (identified ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes) in each group, or the summary effect size for association between HS and strokes. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used as the effect size.
RESULTS
Through our search, we identified six case-control studies for inclusion. From pooled data, we found a significantly higher proportion of strokes in HS cases compared with controls (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.45-2.09; < .00001). Limitations included those studies reviewed were observational by design which are susceptible to bias and lack of randomization.
CONCLUSION
Our pooled findings demonstrate that the odds of stroke are increased in patients with HS when compared with controls. Dermatologists and other clinicians should be vigilant cerebrovascular risk assessment and risk mitigation in patients with HS.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Hidradenitis Suppurativa; Humans; Inflammation; Odds Ratio; Stroke
PubMed: 34289795
DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2021.1959502 -
The Journal of Dermatology Jul 2021While many patients with psoriasis are candidates for topical agents, long-term treatment effects are unclear. This systematic review evaluated global findings from... (Review)
Review
Systematic review and practical guidance on the use of topical calcipotriol and topical calcipotriol with betamethasone dipropionate as long-term therapy for mild-to-moderate plaque psoriasis.
While many patients with psoriasis are candidates for topical agents, long-term treatment effects are unclear. This systematic review evaluated global findings from clinical trials and real-world studies of topical calcipotriol and the two-compound formulation of calcipotriol and betamethasone dipropionate for mild-to-moderate plaque psoriasis (including scalp psoriasis). PubMed, Embase and MEDLINE were searched for relevant English-language publications along with Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Latin American publication databases. Identified articles were screened by title and abstract against predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. A narrative synthesis of key efficacy and safety findings from the full papers of selected publications was developed. Thirty-seven relevant papers were identified (25 English, 11 Chinese and one Japanese-language study) including 28 randomized controlled trials. While there was significant heterogeneity in study length, treatment intensity and clinical measures, following a critical review of the published data combined with expert opinion, the following clinical practice recommendations were agreed in order to assist healthcare providers: in adults, long-term treatment with calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate is well tolerated and efficacious for up to 1 year on an 'as needed' basis, and for up to 16 weeks on a fixed-treatment regimen. Calcipotriol is also well tolerated and efficacious when used long term (up to 52 weeks) 'as needed' and for up to 20 weeks on a fixed-treatment regimen. Used on an 'as needed' basis for up to 1 year, the safety and efficacy profile of fixed-dose combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate is more favorable than calcipotriol alone; regular consultation between patients and their dermatologist/primary care physician is required to review psoriasis symptoms and adjust treatment accordingly; a specific treatment goal should be agreed on initiation of topical agent(s) to determine when long-term treatment can begin or if a regimen change is warranted; and application frequency during the continued treatment phase should consider the patients' treatment expectations and goals.
Topics: Adult; Betamethasone; Calcitriol; Dermatologic Agents; Drug Combinations; Humans; Psoriasis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34036631
DOI: 10.1111/1346-8138.15806