-
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Jun 2020Although nebulized corticosteroids (NebCSs) are a key treatment option for young children with asthma or viral-induced wheezing (VIW), there are no uniform... (Review)
Review
Although nebulized corticosteroids (NebCSs) are a key treatment option for young children with asthma or viral-induced wheezing (VIW), there are no uniform recommendations on their best use. This systematic review aimed to clarify the role of NebCSs in children 5 years or younger for the management of acute asthma exacerbations, asthma maintenance therapy, and the treatment of VIW. Electronic databases were used to identify relevant English language articles with no date restrictions. Studies reporting efficacy data in children 5 years or younger, with a double-blind, placebo- or open-controlled, randomized design, and inclusion of 40 or more participants (no lower patient limit for VIW) were included. Ten articles on asthma exacerbation, 9 on asthma maintenance, and 7 on VIW were identified. Results showed NebCSs to be at least as efficacious as oral corticosteroids in the emergency room for the management of mild to moderate asthma exacerbations. In asthma maintenance, nebulized budesonide, the agent of focus in all trials analyzed, significantly reduced the risk of further asthma exacerbations compared with placebo, cromolyn sodium, and montelukast. Intermittent NebCS treatment of VIW was as effective as continuous daily treatment. In summary, NebCSs are effective and well tolerated in patients 5 years or younger for the management of acute and chronic asthma.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Budesonide; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Sounds
PubMed: 32006721
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.01.042 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is characterised by partial or complete upper airway obstruction during sleep. Approximately 1% to 4% of children are affected by OSA,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is characterised by partial or complete upper airway obstruction during sleep. Approximately 1% to 4% of children are affected by OSA, with adenotonsillar hypertrophy being the most common underlying risk factor. Surgical removal of enlarged adenoids or tonsils is the currently recommended first-line treatment for OSA due to adenotonsillar hypertrophy. Given the perioperative risk and an estimated recurrence rate of up to 20% following surgery, there has recently been an increased interest in less invasive alternatives to adenotonsillectomy. As the enlarged adenoids and tonsils consist of hypertrophied lymphoid tissue, anti-inflammatory drugs have been proposed as a potential non-surgical treatment option in children with OSA.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of OSA in children.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified trials from searches of the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL and MEDLINE (1950 to 2019). For identification of ongoing clinical trials, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti-inflammatory drugs against placebo in children between one and 16 years with objectively diagnosed OSA (apnoea/hypopnoea index (AHI) ≥ 1 per hour).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently performed screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. We separately pooled results for the comparisons 'intranasal steroids' and 'montelukast' against placebo using random-effects models. The primary outcomes for this review were AHI and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes included the respiratory disturbance index, desaturation index, respiratory arousal index, nadir arterial oxygen saturation, mean arterial oxygen saturation, avoidance of surgical treatment for OSA, clinical symptom score, tonsillar size, and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five trials with a total of 240 children aged one to 18 years with mild to moderate OSA (AHI 1 to 30 per hour). All trials were performed in specialised sleep medicine clinics at tertiary care centres. Follow-up time ranged from six weeks to four months. Three RCTs (n = 137) compared intranasal steroids against placebo; two RCTs compared oral montelukast against placebo (n = 103). We excluded one trial from the meta-analysis since the patients were not analysed as randomised. We also had concerns about selective reporting in another trial. We are uncertain about the difference in AHI (MD -3.18, 95% CI -8.70 to 2.35) between children receiving intranasal corticosteroids compared to placebo (2 studies, 75 participants; low-certainty evidence). In contrast, children receiving oral montelukast had a lower AHI (MD -3.41, 95% CI -5.36 to -1.45) compared to those in the placebo group (2 studies, 103 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether the secondary outcomes are different between children receiving intranasal corticosteroids compared to placebo: desaturation index (MD -2.12, 95% CI -4.27 to 0.04; 2 studies, 75 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), respiratory arousal index (MD -0.71, 95% CI -6.25 to 4.83; 2 studies, 75 participants; low-certainty evidence), and nadir oxygen saturation (MD 0.59%, 95% CI -1.09 to 2.27; 2 studies, 75 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Children receiving oral montelukast had a lower respiratory arousal index (MD -2.89, 95% CI -4.68 to -1.10; 2 studies, 103 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and nadir of oxygen saturation (MD 4.07, 95% CI 2.27 to 5.88; 2 studies, 103 participants; high-certainty evidence) compared to those in the placebo group. We are uncertain, however, about the difference in desaturation index (MD -2.50, 95% CI -5.53 to 0.54; 2 studies, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence) between the montelukast and placebo group. Adverse events were assessed and reported in all trials and were rare, of minor nature (e.g. nasal bleeding), and evenly distributed between study groups. No study examined the avoidance of surgical treatment for OSA as an outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence for the efficacy of intranasal corticosteroids for the treatment of OSA in children; they may have short-term beneficial effects on the desaturation index and oxygen saturation in children with mild to moderate OSA but the certainty of the benefit on the primary outcome AHI, as well as the respiratory arousal index, was low due to imprecision of the estimates and heterogeneity between studies. Montelukast has short-term beneficial treatment effects for OSA in otherwise healthy, non-obese, surgically untreated children (moderate certainty for primary outcome and moderate and high certainty, respectively, for two secondary outcomes) by significantly reducing the number of apnoeas, hypopnoeas, and respiratory arousals during sleep. In addition, montelukast was well tolerated in the children studied. The clinical relevance of the observed treatment effects remains unclear, however, because minimal clinically important differences are not yet established for polysomnography-based outcomes in children. Long-term efficacy and safety data on the use of anti-inflammatory medications for the treatment of OSA in childhood are still not available. In addition, patient-centred outcomes like concentration ability, vigilance, or school performance have not been investigated yet. There are currently no RCTs on the use of other kinds of anti-inflammatory medications for the treatment of OSA in children. Future RCTs should investigate sustainability of treatment effects, avoidance of surgical treatment for OSA, and long-term safety of anti-inflammatory medications for the treatment of OSA in children and include patient-centred outcomes.
Topics: Acetates; Adenoidectomy; Adolescent; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Cyclopropanes; Female; Humans; Infant; Male; Quinolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Sulfides; Tonsillectomy
PubMed: 31978261
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007074.pub3 -
Pulmonary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Feb 2020Montelukast the leukotriene receptor antagonist is an anti-inflammatory drug that causes bronchodilation and for this reason it is used to improve inflammatory states in... (Review)
Review
Montelukast the leukotriene receptor antagonist is an anti-inflammatory drug that causes bronchodilation and for this reason it is used to improve inflammatory states in asthma and allergic rhinitis. Montelukast is generally considered a safe drug with the occurrence of a few adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and anti-leucotrienes are usually well-tolerated by adults and young patients. Starting from these premises the purpose of this review is so give un up-to-date scenario about skin adverse reactions due to Montelukast administration. Only few cases were reported during last years, however interestingly some recent reports let us enlarging our ADR data about Montelukast. We decided to divide the paragraph into sections evaluating the following skin lesions: vasculitic lesions, rash, urticaria and angioedema. As described in the results, CSS were the most frequent cases reported, belonging to the Vasculitis category. We speculated several mechanisms leading to the spread of the skin reactions. Montelukast still remains a safe drug used for the treatment of severe and moderate asthma. However, for some reasons still in course of analysis, in rare cases patients could develop ADR. Among these, about half of the patients show skin signs as rash, vescicles, bullous skin, purpura, maculopapular cutis, erythematous exanthema, urticaria and angioedema. Most of these symptoms are a consequence of the onset of a vasculitis as CSS and allergic granulomatous angiitis. In many cases the onset of the reactions happen within the first months of intake. For this reason, the prescribing physicians should be alert for signs, symptoms and genetic predisposition of these skin diseases.
Topics: Acetates; Adult; Aged; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Cyclopropanes; Female; Humans; Leukotriene Antagonists; Male; Middle Aged; Quinolines; Skin; Sulfides
PubMed: 31837440
DOI: 10.1016/j.pupt.2019.101875 -
Otolaryngology--head and Neck Surgery :... Apr 2019To systematically review the literature on anti-inflammatory medications for treating pediatric obstructive sleep apnea and perform meta-analysis of the available data. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the literature on anti-inflammatory medications for treating pediatric obstructive sleep apnea and perform meta-analysis of the available data.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed/MEDLINE and 4 additional databases.
REVIEW METHODS
Three authors independently and systematically searched through June 28, 2018, for studies that assessed anti-inflammatory therapy for treatment of pediatric obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Data were compiled and analyzed using Review Manager 5.3 (Nordic Cochrane Centre).
RESULTS
After screening 135 studies, 32 were selected for review with 6 meeting inclusion criteria. In total, 668 patients aged 2 to 5 years met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Of these, 5 studies (166 children) that evaluated montelukast alone as treatment for pediatric OSA found a 55% improvement in the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) (mean [SD] 6.2 [3.1] events/h pretreatment and 2.8 [2.7] events/h posttreatment; mean difference [MD] of -2.7 events/h; 95% confidence interval [CI], -5.6 to 0.3) with improvement in lowest oxygen saturation (LSAT) from 89.5 (6.9) to 92.1 (3.6) (MD, 2.2; 95% CI, 0.5-4.0). Two studies (502 children) observing the effects of montelukast with intranasal corticosteroids on pediatric OSA found a 70% improvement in AHI (4.7 [2.1] events/h pretreatment and 1.4 [1.0] events/h posttreatment; MD of -4.2 events/h; 95% CI, -6.3 to -2.0), with an improvement in LSAT from 87.8 (3.1) to 92.6 (2.2) (MD, 4.8; 95% CI, 4.5-5.1).
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment with montelukast and intranasal steroids or montelukast alone is potentially beneficial for short-term management of mild pediatric OSA.
Topics: Acetates; Administration, Intranasal; Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Cyclopropanes; Humans; Quinolines; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Sulfides
PubMed: 30513051
DOI: 10.1177/0194599818815683 -
Pediatric Pulmonology Dec 2018Most international asthma guidelines recommend that children ≤5 years with asthma or recurrent wheezing be treated with daily low- moderate dose inhaled...
BACKGROUND
Most international asthma guidelines recommend that children ≤5 years with asthma or recurrent wheezing be treated with daily low- moderate dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as the preferred controller and leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) as alternative therapy. There is no systematic review comparing the efficacy of ICS versus LTRA monotherapy in this age group.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy of daily ICS versus LTRA in preschoolers with asthma or recurrent wheezing.
METHODS
Randomized, prospective, controlled trials published by December 2017, with a minimum of 3-month therapy with daily ICS versus LTRA were identified. The co-primary outcomes were the number of wheezing episodes and daily symptom score. Secondary outcomes included unscheduled emergency visits, need of rescue systemic corticosteroids (SC), hospitalization for exacerbations, lung function, and adverse effects.
RESULTS
Of 29 trials identified, six studies (n = 3204 patients, 62% males, age range: 6-54 months) met the inclusion criteria; two were at low risk of bias. Five pertained to children with asthma; one to those with recurrent wheezing. No outcomes were similarly reported in the six studies, preventing meta-analysis. Based on trials at lowest risk of bias and the largest open-labelled studies, ICS was associated with better control of symptoms and less exacerbations than LTRA. And also less need for rescue SC. Insufficient data of high quality prevented firm conclusions on other secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
In preschoolers with asthma or recurrent wheezing, daily ICS appears more effective than daily LTRA for improving symptom control and decreasing exacerbations, particularly those requiring rescue SC, although the magnitude of benefit remains to be quantified.
Topics: Acetates; Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Child, Preschool; Cyclopropanes; Drug Therapy, Combination; Hospitalization; Humans; Infant; Leukotriene Antagonists; Prospective Studies; Quinolines; Recurrence; Respiratory Sounds; Sulfides
PubMed: 30394700
DOI: 10.1002/ppul.24176 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018Eczema is a common, chronic, inflammatory skin condition that is frequently associated with atopic conditions, including asthma. Leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs)...
BACKGROUND
Eczema is a common, chronic, inflammatory skin condition that is frequently associated with atopic conditions, including asthma. Leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) have a corticosteroid-sparing role in asthma, but their role in eczema remains controversial. Currently available topical therapies for eczema are often poorly tolerated, and use of systemic agents is restricted by their adverse effect profile. A review of alternative treatments was therefore warranted.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the possible benefits and harms of leukotriene receptor antagonists for eczema.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases to September 2017: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the GREAT database. We also searched five trial registries, and handsearched the bibliographies of all extracted studies for further relevant trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of LTRAs alone or in combination with other (topical or systemic) treatments compared with other treatments alone such as topical corticosteroids or placebo for eczema in the acute or chronic (maintenance) phase of eczema in adults and children.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome measures were change in disease severity, long-term symptom control, and adverse effects of treatment. Secondary outcomes were change in corticosteroid requirement, reduction of pruritis, quality of life, and emollient requirement. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
Only five studies (including a total of 202 participants) met the inclusion criteria, all of which assessed oral montelukast; hence, we found no studies assessing other LTRAs. Treatment ranged from four to eight weeks, and outcomes were assessed at the end of treatment; therefore, we could only report short-term measurements (defined as less than three months follow-up from baseline). Montelukast dosing was 10 mg for adults (age 14 years and above) and 5 mg for children (age 6 years to 14 years). One study included children (aged 6 years and above) among their participants, while the remaining studies only included adults (participant age ranged from 16 to 70 years). The participants were diagnosed with moderate-to-severe eczema in four studies and moderate eczema in one study. The study setting was unclear in two studies, multicentre in two studies, and single centre in one study; the studies were conducted in Europe and Bangladesh. Two studies were industry funded. The comparator was placebo in three studies and conventional treatment in two studies. The conventional treatment comparator was a combination of antihistamines and topical corticosteroids (plus oral antibiotics in one study).Four of the studies did not adequately describe their randomisation or allocation concealment method and were considered as at unclear risk of selection bias. Only one study was at low risk of performance and detection bias. However, we judged all studies to be at low risk of attrition and reporting bias.We found no evidence of a difference in disease severity of moderate-to-severe eczema after short-term use of montelukast (10 mg) when compared with placebo. The outcome was assessed using the modified EASI (Eczema Area and Severity Index) score and SASSAD (Six Area, Six Sign Atopic Dermatitis) severity score (standardised mean difference 0.29, with a positive score showing montelukast is favoured, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.23 to 0.81; 3 studies; n = 131; low-quality evidence).When short-term montelukast (10 mg) treatment was compared with conventional treatment in one study, the mean improvement in severity of moderate-to-severe eczema was greater in the intervention group (measured using SCORAD (SCORing of Atopic Dermatitis) severity index) (mean difference 10.57, 95% CI 4.58 to 16.56; n = 31); however, another study of 32 participants found no significant difference between groups using the same measure (mean improvement was 25.2 points with montelukast versus 23.9 points with conventional treatment; no further numerical data provided). We judged the quality of the evidence as very low for this outcome, meaning the results are uncertain.All studies reported their adverse event rate during treatment. Four studies (136 participants) reported no adverse events. In one study of 58 participants with moderate eczema who received montelukast 10 mg (compared with placebo), there was one case of septicaemia and one case of dizziness reported in the intervention group, both resulting in study withdrawal, although whether these effects were related to the medication is unclear. Mild side effects (e.g. headache and mild gastrointestinal disturbances) were also noted, but these were fairly evenly distributed between the montelukast and placebo groups. The quality of evidence for this outcome was low.No studies specifically evaluated emollient requirement or quality of life. One study that administered treatment for eight weeks specifically evaluated pruritus improvement at the end treatment and topical corticosteroid use during treatment. We found no evidence of a difference between montelukast (10 mg) and placebo for both outcomes (low-quality evidence, n = 58). No other study assessed these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this review are limited to montelukast. There was a lack of evidence addressing the review question, and the quality of the available evidence for most of the measured outcomes was low. Some primary and secondary outcomes were not addressed at all, including long-term control.We found no evidence of a difference between montelukast (10 mg) and placebo on disease severity, pruritus improvement, and topical corticosteroid use. Very low-quality evidence means we are uncertain of the effect of montelukast (10 mg) compared with conventional treatment on disease severity. Participants in only one study reported adverse events, which were mainly mild (low-quality evidence).There is no evidence that LTRA is an effective treatment for eczema. Serious limitations were that all studies focused on montelukast and only included people with moderate-to-severe eczema, who were mainly adults; and that each outcome was evaluated with a small sample size, if at all.Further large randomised controlled trials, with a longer treatment duration, of adults and children who have eczema of all severities may help to evaluate the effect of all types of LTRA, especially on eczema maintenance.
Topics: Acetates; Administration, Oral; Cyclopropanes; Eczema; Humans; Leukotriene Antagonists; Quinolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfides
PubMed: 30343498
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011224.pub2 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Feb 2019Urticarial vasculitis (UV) is a difficult-to-treat condition characterized by long-lasting urticarial rashes and histopathologic findings of leukocytoclastic vasculitis....
Urticarial vasculitis (UV) is a difficult-to-treat condition characterized by long-lasting urticarial rashes and histopathologic findings of leukocytoclastic vasculitis. Treatment is dictated by the severity of skin and systemic involvement and the underlying systemic disease. This is a comprehensive systematic review of the efficacy of current UV treatment options. We searched for relevant studies in 7 databases, including MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science. In total, 261 eligible studies and 789 unique patients with UV were included in the systematic review. Most patients with UV are adult women with chronic (≥6 weeks) and systemic disease. UV is mostly idiopathic but can be associated with drugs, malignancy, autoimmunity, and infections. It usually resolves with their withdrawal or cure. Corticosteroids are effective for the treatment of skin symptoms in more than 80% of patients with UV. However, their long-term administration can lead to potentially serious adverse effects. The addition of immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive agents often allows corticosteroid tapering and improves the efficacy of therapy. Biologicals, including omalizumab, as well as corticosteroids, cyclophosphamide, dapsone, mycophenolate mofetil, plasmapheresis, colchicine, hydroxychloroquine, intravenous immunoglobulin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and cyclosporine, can be effective for both skin and systemic symptoms in patients with UV. H-antihistamines, montelukast, danazol, H-antihistamines, pentoxifylline, doxepin, and tranexamic acid are not effective in most patients with UV. As of yet, no drugs have been approved for UV, and management recommendations are based mostly on case reports and retrospective studies. Prospective studies investigating the effects of treatment on the signs and symptoms of UV are needed.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Animals; Biological Therapy; Female; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Male; Omalizumab; Skin; Urticaria; Vasculitis
PubMed: 30268388
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2018.09.007 -
The British Journal of General Practice... Oct 2018Subacute cough following a non-specific viral infection lasting 3-8 weeks is common. However, despite many treatment options there are no systematic reviews evaluating... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Subacute cough following a non-specific viral infection lasting 3-8 weeks is common. However, despite many treatment options there are no systematic reviews evaluating these.
AIM
To provide a systematic overview of treatment options and outcomes evaluated in randomised clinical trials (RCTs).
DESIGN AND SETTING
Systematic review and meta-analyses assessing the overall effects of any treatment for subacute cough.
METHOD
The authors systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (last search March 2017) for RCTs in adult patients with subacute cough. The authors considered trials evaluating any outcome of any drug or non-drug treatments, apart from traditional Chinese and Asian medicines. They combined treatment effects on cough-related outcomes in random effects meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Six eligible RCTs including 724 patients were identified. These assessed montelukast, salbutamol plus ipratropium bromide, gelatine, fluticasone propionate, budesonide, and nociception opioid 1 receptor agonist and codeine. Five studies reported effects on various cough severity scores at various timepoints. No treatment option was associated with a clear benefit on cough recovery or other patient-relevant outcomes in any of the studies or in meta-analyses for cough outcomes at 14 days and 28 days. Reported adverse events were rather mild and reported for 14% of patients across all treatments.
CONCLUSION
Evidence on treatment options for subacute cough is weak. There is no treatment showing clear patient-relevant benefits in clinical trials.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Antitussive Agents; Cough; Humans; Primary Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30201828
DOI: 10.3399/bjgp18X698885 -
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy =... Oct 2018Leukotrienes are important lipid mediators of inflammation arising from arachidonic acid cascade. They are implicated in vascular inflammation and produced in different... (Review)
Review
Potential role of leukotriene receptor antagonists in reducing cardiovascular and cerbrovascular risk: A systematic review of human clinical trials and in vivo animal studies.
BACKGROUND
Leukotrienes are important lipid mediators of inflammation arising from arachidonic acid cascade. They are implicated in vascular inflammation and produced in different pathologic conditions as atherosclerosis, stroke and myocardial infarction. Different studies have investigated the role of leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) in reducing some cardiovascular events, especially in animals. We conducted a systematic review of both in vivo animal and human studies to determine the potential role of leukotriene receptor antagonist in reducing cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events.
METHODS
Data sources: Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane database.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles and extracted relevant data.
RESULTS
A total of 28 studies were included, of which 26 were conducted in animals, and 2 in humans.
CONCLUSIONS
All animal studies reported that using a leukotriene receptor antagonist brings to a reduction of either myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or atherosclerosis risk. Similar results were obtained from two clinical trials on humans, suggesting a potential role of montelukast in reducing some cardiovascular diseases.
Topics: Acetates; Animals; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cardiovascular System; Cerebrovascular Disorders; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cyclopropanes; Humans; Leukotriene Antagonists; Quinolines; Risk Factors; Sulfides
PubMed: 30119268
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2018.07.033 -
International Journal of Clinical... Oct 2018Background Atopic dermatitis (AD) is the most common form of eczema. As leukotriene mediators are involved in the inflammatory phase of atopic dermatitis, montelukast...
Background Atopic dermatitis (AD) is the most common form of eczema. As leukotriene mediators are involved in the inflammatory phase of atopic dermatitis, montelukast has been suggested as a possible therapy. Aim of the review To evaluate the safety and efficacy of montelukast off-label use for the treatment atopic dermatitis. Method A search was performed from database inception until March 2018 in six electronic databases for randomized-controlled-trials examining the use of montelukast for AD. Results Among 301 articles screened, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The study populations consist of paediatric and adult subjects with moderate-to-severe AD. Montelukast use was shown to improve symptoms such as pruritus in four studies. Another 2 studies reported that montelukast could improve symptoms similar to the standard regimen of topical steroid and oral antihistamine. However, five studies reported that montelukast had no effects in symptoms alleviation. The use of montelukast was associated with a similar safety profile to placebo and well-tolerated with minimal adverse effects. Conclusion There is limited evidence to suggest that the off-label use of montelukast is effective in treating moderate-to-severe AD. Further research with larger study populations employing standardized endpoint measuring instrument is warranted to further investigate the off-label use of montelukast in AD treatment. Until then, the use of conventional treatments including optimal daily skin hydration should remain the mainstay in the management of atopic dermatitis. In fact, for moderate-to-severe condition, steroid sparing immune-suppressants should still be used clinically until more effective and safer alternative is discovered.
Topics: Acetates; Cyclopropanes; Dermatitis, Atopic; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Leukotriene Antagonists; Off-Label Use; Quinolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfides
PubMed: 29777328
DOI: 10.1007/s11096-018-0655-3