-
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Topical cyclosporine A (also known as ciclosporin A) (CsA) is an anti-inflammatory that has been widely used to treat inflammatory ocular surface diseases. Two CsA...
BACKGROUND
Topical cyclosporine A (also known as ciclosporin A) (CsA) is an anti-inflammatory that has been widely used to treat inflammatory ocular surface diseases. Two CsA eyedrops have been approved by US Food and Drug Administration for managing dry eye: Restasis (CsA 0.05%, Allergan Inc, Irvine, CA, USA), approved in 2002, and Cequa (CsA 0.09%, Sun Pharma, Cranbury, NJ, USA), approved in 2018. Numerous clinical trials have been performed to assess the effectiveness and safety of CsA for dry eye; however, there is no universal consensus with regard to its effect.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of topical CsA in the treatment of dry eye.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 16 February 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of people with dry eye regardless of age, sex, severity, etiology, or classification of dry eye. We included RCTs in which different concentrations of topical CsA were compared with one another or with artificial tears, placebo, or vehicle. We also included RCTs in which CsA in combination with artificial tears was compared to artificial tears alone.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed the standard Cochrane methodology and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 30 RCTs (4009 participants) with follow-up periods ranging from 6 weeks to 12 months. We studied dry eye of various severity and underlying causes. The interventions investigated also varied across RCTs: CsA versus artificial tears; CsA with artificial tears versus artificial tears alone; and in some studies, more than one concentration of CsA. Artificial tears were used as adjunctive to study medication in all but five trials. Almost all trials had deficiencies in the reporting of results (e.g. reporting P values or direction only), precluding the calculation of between-group estimates of effect or meta-analysis.Eighteen trials compared topical CsA 0.05% plus artificial tears versus vehicle plus artificial tears or artificial tears alone. One trial reported subjective symptoms of dry eye at 6 months and the results were in favor of CsA (mean difference (MD) -4.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.41 to -3.19; low-certainty evidence). Two trials reported MD in ocular surface dye staining at 6 months, but the results were inconsistent in these two trials (MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.01 in one and MD 0.58, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.10 in the other; low-certainty evidence). Four trials reported MD in Schirmer test scores at 6 months and the estimates ranged from -4.05 (95% CI -6.67 to -1.73) to 3.26 (95% CI -1.52 to 5.00) (low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported risk ratio (RR) of improved Schirmer test scores at 6 months; estimates ranged from 0.98 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.17) to 3.50 (95% CI 2.09 to 5.85) (low-certainty evidence). Four trials reported MD in tear film stability measured by tear break-up time at 6 months and the estimates ranged from -1.98 (95% CI -3.59 to -0.37) to 1.90 (95% CI 1.44 to 2.36) (low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported RR of improved tear break-up time at 6 months and the estimates ranged from 0.90 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.04) to 4.00 (95% CI 2.25 to 7.12) (low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported frequency of artificial tear usage at 6 months without providing any estimates of effect; the direction of effect seem to be in favor of CsA (low-certainty evidence). Because of incomplete reporting of the results data or considerable statistical heterogeneity, we were only able to perform a meta-analysis on mean conjunctival goblet cell density. Mean conjunctival goblet cell density in the CsA treated group may be greater than that in the control group at the end of follow-up at four and 12 months (MD 22.5 cells per unit, 95% CI 16.3 to 28.8; low-certainty evidence). All but two trials reported adverse events that included burning and stinging. Participants treated with CsA may be more likely to have treatment-related adverse events than those who treated with vehicle (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.78; low-certainty evidence).Other comparisons evaluated were CsA 0.05% plus artificial tears versus higher concentrations of CsA plus artificial tears (4 trials); CsA 0.05% versus placebo or vehicle (4 trials); CsA 0.1% plus artificial tears versus placebo or vehicle plus artificial tears (2 trials);CsA 0.1% cationic emulsion plus artificial tears versus vehicle plus artificial tears (2 trials); CsA 1% plus artificial tears versus placebo plus artificial tears (3 trials); and CsA 2% plus artificial tears versus placebo plus artificial tears (3 trials). Almost all of these trials reported P value or direction of effect only (mostly in favor of CsA), precluding calculation of between-group effect estimates or meta-analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite the widespread use of topical CsA to treat dry eye, we found that evidence on the effect of CsA on ocular discomfort and ocular surface and tear film parameters such as corneal fluorescein staining, Schirmer's test, and TBUT is inconsistent and sometimes may not be different from vehicle or artificial tears for the time periods reported in the trials. There may be an increase in non-serious, treatment-related adverse effects (particularly burning) in the CsA group. Topical CsA may increase the number of conjunctival goblet cells. However, current evidence does not support that improvements in conjunctival mucus production (through increased conjunctival goblet cells) translate to improved symptoms or ocular surface and tear film parameters. All published trials were short term and did not assess whether CsA has longer-term disease-modifying effects. Well-planned, long-term, large clinical trials are needed to better assess CsA on long-term dry eye-modifying effects. A core outcome set, which ideally includes both biomarkers and patient-reported outcomes in the field of dry eye, is needed.
Topics: Cyclosporine; Dry Eye Syndromes; Humans; Lubricant Eye Drops; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31517988
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010051.pub2 -
Canadian Family Physician Medecin de... Apr 1998To examine the relationship between benzodiazepine (BZD) use and motor vehicle accidents (MVAs). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To examine the relationship between benzodiazepine (BZD) use and motor vehicle accidents (MVAs).
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE was searched from 1980 to 1997 using the key words traffic accidents or motor vehicle accidents and benzodiazepines (and alternative terms and outcomes) in English, German, French, or Italian.
STUDY SELECTION
Case-control studies of BZDs and MVAs; police or emergency studies of BZD use among travelers; driving tests with subjects taking BZDs. Outcomes were impaired driving, accidents; mortality; postaccident medical attention, emergency ward care, or hospitalization. Quality criteria were whether all driving BZD users and non-users had an equal chance of entering the study; whether medication dosage and timing were ascertained; whether all kilometres driven by BZD users and non-users were studied; whether all types of accidents were ascertained; and whether medical conditions were controlled for.
SYNTHESIS
In case-control studies, the odds ratios for mortality and emergency medical treatment ranged from 1.45 to 2.4 in relation to time of use and quantity of drug taken. In police and emergency ward studies, BZD use was a factor in 1% to 65% of accidents (usually 5% to 10%). In two studies where subjects had blood alcohol concentrations less than the legal limit, BZDs were found in 43% and 65% of subjects. In one study with controls, 5% of drivers and 2% of controls in accidents had used BZDs.
CONCLUSIONS
Case-control studies suggest using BZDs approximately doubles the risk of motor vehicle accidents. The risk for drivers older than 65 of being involved in reported motor vehicle collisions is higher when they take longer-acting and larger quantities of BZDs.
Topics: Accidents, Traffic; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Anti-Anxiety Agents; Benzodiazepines; Case-Control Studies; Emergency Medical Services; Female; Hospitalization; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Research Design; Risk Factors
PubMed: 9585853
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Pediatric Nursing 2019To determine the safety and efficacy of topical corticosteroid versus vehicle/moisturizer in children under 2 years old (<2 y). (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
PROBLEM
To determine the safety and efficacy of topical corticosteroid versus vehicle/moisturizer in children under 2 years old (<2 y).
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
A systematic review and meta-analysis searching PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE, NHS Economic Evaluation, CINAHL, GREAT, and Clinicaltrials.gov. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical corticosteroids to vehicle/moisturizer and included children <2 y. Two authors extracted data.
SAMPLE
Only one study limited analyses to children <2 y, so our review included participants older than 2 years. Twelve RCTs were included with 2224 participants. Ten studies were industry-sponsored.
RESULTS
The proportion of responders to topical corticosteroid across studies was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.54-0.74), as compared to vehicle/moisturizer 0.32 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20-0.48). The proportion of adverse events were similar between groups (topical steroids 0.17 (95% CI, 0.08-0.33) vs. vehicle/moisturizer 0.12 (CI 0.02-0.42)). High heterogeneity in treatment response occurred across studies that could not be explained by potential moderators. Mild adrenal suppression occurred in 4 of 157 measured participants (3%) receiving topical corticosteroids. Limitations include the few RCTs on this topic, the inclusion of participants >2 y and outcome measures and reporting methods rarely met CONSORT guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS
Topical corticosteroids trended to being more effective and equally safe to vehicle/moisturizers, but generalizability is limited given the dearth of well-designed studies focused on children <2 y. Adverse events from vehicle/moisturizer may be greater than topical corticosteroid due to under treatment.
IMPLICATIONS
Further work is needed in this age group.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Child; Dermatitis, Atopic; Humans; Pharmaceutical Vehicles; Skin Cream
PubMed: 31026679
DOI: 10.1016/j.pedn.2019.03.018 -
The Journal of Dermatology Apr 2023Intra- and transdermal administration of substances via percutaneous injection is effective but considered painful, and inconvenient in addition to bringing forth... (Review)
Review
Intra- and transdermal administration of substances via percutaneous injection is effective but considered painful, and inconvenient in addition to bringing forth biohazardous waste material. In contrast to injection, topical drug application, which includes ointments, creams and lotions, increases the local drug load. Moreover, it has reduced side effects compared to systemic administration. However, the epidermis poses a barrier to high molecular weight substances, limiting the delivery efficiency. Dissolving microneedles (DMN) are hydrophilic, mostly polymer-based constructs that are capable of skin penetration and were developed to provide painless and direct dermal drug delivery. This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of the available clinical evidence for the use of DMN to treat various skin conditions. According to the PRISMA statement, a systematic search for articles on the use of DMN for dermatological indications was conducted on three different databases (Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane library). Only human clinical trials were considered. Qualitative assessment was done by two separate reviewers using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB 2) and Chambers' criteria assessment tools. The search yielded 1090 articles. After deduplication and removal of ineligible records, 889 records were screened on title and abstract. Full text screening was done for 18 articles and ultimately 17 articles were included of which 15 were randomized controlled trials and two were case series. The quality assessment showed that the majority of included studies had low to no risk of bias. Clinical data supports that DMN are an excellent, effective, and pain free drug delivery method for multiple dermatological disorders including skin aging, hyperpigmentation, psoriasis, warts, and keloids by supplying a painless and effective vehicle for intradermal/intralesional drug administration. Microneedle technology provides a promising non- to minimally-invasive alternative to percutaneous injection.
Topics: Humans; Microinjections; Skin; Administration, Cutaneous; Drug Delivery Systems; Epidermis; Needles; Pain
PubMed: 36700529
DOI: 10.1111/1346-8138.16732 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Feb 2012To determine whether the acute consumption of cannabis (cannabinoids) by drivers increases the risk of a motor vehicle collision. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether the acute consumption of cannabis (cannabinoids) by drivers increases the risk of a motor vehicle collision.
DESIGN
Systematic review of observational studies, with meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
We did electronic searches in 19 databases, unrestricted by year or language of publication. We also did manual searches of reference lists, conducted a search for unpublished studies, and reviewed the personal libraries of the research team. Review methods We included observational epidemiology studies of motor vehicle collisions with an appropriate control group, and selected studies that measured recent cannabis use in drivers by toxicological analysis of whole blood or self report. We excluded experimental or simulator studies. Two independent reviewers assessed risk of bias in each selected study, with consensus, using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Risk estimates were combined using random effects models.
RESULTS
We selected nine studies in the review and meta-analysis. Driving under the influence of cannabis was associated with a significantly increased risk of motor vehicle collisions compared with unimpaired driving (odds ratio 1.92 (95% confidence interval 1.35 to 2.73); P=0.0003); we noted heterogeneity among the individual study effects (I(2)=81). Collision risk estimates were higher in case-control studies (2.79 (1.23 to 6.33); P=0.01) and studies of fatal collisions (2.10 (1.31 to 3.36); P=0.002) than in culpability studies (1.65 (1.11 to 2.46); P=0.07) and studies of non-fatal collisions (1.74 (0.88 to 3.46); P=0.11).
CONCLUSIONS
Acute cannabis consumption is associated with an increased risk of a motor vehicle crash, especially for fatal collisions. This information could be used as the basis for campaigns against drug impaired driving, developing regional or national policies to control acute drug use while driving, and raising public awareness.
Topics: Accidents, Traffic; Acute Disease; Automobile Driving; Bias; Cannabinoids; Cannabis; Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic; Data Collection; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Dronabinol; Humans; Marijuana Smoking; Risk Factors
PubMed: 22323502
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.e536 -
Drug and Alcohol Dependence May 2023Methadone maintenance therapy is a leading treatment strategy for stabilizing and rehabilitating patients with opioid dependence; however, findings related to the risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Methadone maintenance therapy is a leading treatment strategy for stabilizing and rehabilitating patients with opioid dependence; however, findings related to the risk of motor vehicle collisions after methadone use have been conflicting. In the present study, we compiled the available evidence on the risk of motor vehicle collisions after methadone use.
METHODS
We completed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies identified on six databases. Two reviewers independently screened the identified epidemiological studies, extracted data, and used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the quality of the studies. Risk ratios were retrieved for analysis, conducted using random-effects model. Sensitivity analyses, subgroup analyses, and tests for publication bias were conducted.
RESULTS
Among 1446 identified relevant studies, a total of 7 epidemiological studies enrolling 33226142 participants met the inclusion criteria. Overall, study participants with methadone use had a higher risk of motor vehicle collisions than did those without methadone use (pooled relative risk 1.92, 95% CI 1.25-2.95; number needed to harm 11.3, 95% CI 5.3-41.6); the I statistic was 95.1%, indicating substantial heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses revealed that database type explained 95.36% of the between-study variance (p = 0.008). Egger's (p = 0.376) and Begg's (p = 0.293) tests revealed no evidence of publication bias. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the pooled results were robust.
CONCLUSION
The present review revealed that methadone use is significantly associated with a nearly doubled risk of motor vehicle collisions. Therefore, clinicians should exercise caution in implementing methadone maintenance therapy for drivers.
Topics: Humans; Methadone; Opioid-Related Disorders; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Accidents, Traffic; Motor Vehicles
PubMed: 36933540
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2023.109832 -
Current Drug Delivery 2017In recent years, colloidal delivery systems based on nano-emulsion are gaining popularity; being used for encapsulation and delivery of many drugs. This review therefore... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In recent years, colloidal delivery systems based on nano-emulsion are gaining popularity; being used for encapsulation and delivery of many drugs. This review therefore aims at summarizing various methods of nano-emulsion formulation and their use as a topical and transdermal delivery vehicle for a number of active pharmaceutical ingredients from different pharmacological classes.
METHODS
This article represents a systematic review of nano-emulsions for topical and transdermal drug delivery. A vast literature was searched and critically analysed.
RESULTS
Nano-emulsions are thermokinetically stable dispersion systems, which have been used in topical and transdermal delivery of a number of pharmaceutically active compounds. Nano-emulsions have a narrow droplet size range with tuneable surface properties, which make them an ideal delivery vehicle. Nanoemulsions have a number of advantages over conventional emulsions, including easy preparation using various low and high energy methods, optical transparency, high solubilisation capacity, high stability to droplet aggregation and the ability to penetrate the skin; thus allowing the transdermal delivery of drugs.
CONCLUSION
This review indicated that nano-emulsions are promising vehicle for entrapping various drugs and are suitable for traversing the skin barrier for systemic effects.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Chemistry, Pharmaceutical; Emulsions; Humans; Nanoparticles; Skin; Skin Absorption
PubMed: 27557672
DOI: 10.2174/1567201813666160824125444 -
Journal of Nanobiotechnology Jan 2024Exosomes are nanoscale extracellular vesicles secreted by cells and enclosed by a lipid bilayer membrane containing various biologically active cargoes such as proteins,... (Review)
Review
Exosomes are nanoscale extracellular vesicles secreted by cells and enclosed by a lipid bilayer membrane containing various biologically active cargoes such as proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids. Engineered exosomes generated through genetic modification of parent cells show promise as drug delivery vehicles, and they have been demonstrated to have great therapeutic potential for treating cancer, cardiovascular, neurological, and immune diseases, but systematic knowledge is lacking regarding optimization of drug loading and assessment of delivery efficacy. This review summarizes current approaches for engineering exosomes and evaluating their drug delivery effects, and current techniques for assessing exosome drug loading and release kinetics, cell targeting, biodistribution, pharmacokinetics, and therapeutic outcomes are critically examined. Additionally, this review synthesizes the latest applications of exosome engineering and drug delivery in clinical translation. The knowledge compiled in this review provides a framework for the rational design and rigorous assessment of exosomes as therapeutics. Continued advancement of robust characterization methods and reporting standards will accelerate the development of exosome engineering technologies and pave the way for clinical studies.
Topics: Humans; Exosomes; Tissue Distribution; Drug Delivery Systems; Extracellular Vesicles; Neoplasms; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 38172932
DOI: 10.1186/s12951-023-02259-6 -
European Journal of Dermatology : EJD Oct 2023This systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of pimecrolimus vs other topical treatments in patients with mild-to-moderate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of pimecrolimus vs other topical treatments in patients with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD), focusing on children and sensitive skin areas. An SLR was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases on January 15th, 2020, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with pimecrolimus as a study arm. Another SLR performed on October 5th, 2020 identified RCTs with a crisaborole study arm. Direct pair-wise meta-analysis was used to compare pimecrolimus with vehicle, tacrolimus or topical corticosteroids (TCS; n = 27 studies). Outcomes included Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score 0/1 up to week 6 and adverse events. Pimecrolimus was more efficacious than vehicle in achieving IGA 0/1 up to week 6 in children, and similar safety profiles were observed with pimecrolimus and vehicle in children and the mixed population, including on sensitive skin. No significant differences in efficacy and safety were observed between pimecrolimus and tacrolimus 0.03%. Efficacy and safety were similar for pimecrolimus and mild medium potency TCS; mildly potent steroids caused transient epidermal thinning in sensitive skin areas (not seen with pimecrolimus). Pimecrolimus can be considered as a first-line option for mild-to-moderate AD, particularly in children and sensitive skin areas.
Topics: Child; Humans; Tacrolimus; Dermatitis, Atopic; Dermatologic Agents; Immunoglobulin A; Treatment Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38297923
DOI: 10.1684/ejd.2023.4556