Dataset Information

Association between Dupilumab and Conjunctivitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: Conjunctivitis is commonly reported in dupilumab users with atopic dermatitis (AD), and few studies have compared the risk of conjunctivitis among patients with different indications. This study aimed to investigate the association between dupilumab and conjunctivitis in various diseases. The protocol of this study was registered on PROSPERO (ID CRD42023396204). The electronic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted for the period from their inception to January 2023. Only placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The main outcome was the incidence of conjunctivitis during the study period. The subgroup analysis was performed for patients with AD and non-AD indications, which include asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and eosinophilic esophagitis. In total, 23 RCTs involving 9153 patients were included for meta-analysis. Dupilumab users exhibited significantly higher risk of conjunctivitis (risk ratio [RR], 1.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34-2.67) than placebo users. Notably, significantly increased incidence of conjunctivitis was observed in the dupilumab group relative to the placebo group among patients with AD (RR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.84-3.12) but not among patients with non-AD indications (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.43-1.13). In conclusion, only dupilumab users with AD but not those with non-AD indications reported an elevated incidence of conjunctivitis.

SUBMITTER: Lin TY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10145140 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association between Dupilumab and Conjunctivitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Lin Tzu-Yi TY Wang Ching-Ya CY Wang Fang-Ying FY Kang Eugene Yu-Chuan EY Hwang Yih-Shiou YS

Pharmaceutics 20230323 4

Conjunctivitis is commonly reported in dupilumab users with atopic dermatitis (AD), and few studies have compared the risk of conjunctivitis among patients with different indications. This study aimed to investigate the association between dupilumab and conjunctivitis in various diseases. The protocol of this study was registered on PROSPERO (ID CRD42023396204). The electronic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted for the period from their inception to ...[more]

PMID: 37111517

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDupilumab blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13. It is approved in the U.S.A. for patients aged ≥ 12 years with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) uncontrolled by topical prescription medicines or who cannot use topical medicines, for patients in Japan whose AD is uncontrolled with existing therapies, for patients with moderate-to-severe AD in Europe who are candidates for systemic therapy and for patients aged ≥ 12 years for maintenance treatment of moderate-to-severe asthma uncontrolled with their current medicines. AD trials have reported increased incidence of conjunctivitis for dupilumab vs. placebo.ObjectivesTo characterize further the occurrence and risk factors of conjunctivitis in dupilumab clinical trials.MethodsWe evaluated randomized placebo-controlled trials of dupilumab in AD (n = 2629), asthma (n = 2876), chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) (n = 60) and eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) (n = 47).ResultsIn most AD trials, dupilumab-treated patients had higher conjunctivitis incidence than placebo controls. Higher baseline AD severity and previous history of conjunctivitis were associated with increased conjunctivitis incidence. Conjunctivitis was mostly mild to moderate. Most cases recovered or resolved during the treatment period; two patients permanently discontinued dupilumab due to conjunctivitis or keratitis. Common treatments included ophthalmic corticosteroids, antibiotics, and antihistamines or mast cell stabilizers. Most cases were diagnosed by the investigators. In asthma and CRSwNP trials, the incidence of conjunctivitis was lower for both dupilumab and placebo than in AD trials; dupilumab did not increase the incidence compared with placebo. In the EoE trial, no patients had conjunctivitis.ConclusionsConjunctivitis was more frequent with dupilumab treatment in most AD trials. In dupilumab trials in other type 2 diseases, incidence of conjunctivitis was overall very low, and was similar for dupilumab and placebo. In AD, the incidence of conjunctivitis was associated with AD severity and prior history of conjunctivitis. The aetiology and treatment of conjunctivitis in dupilumab-treated patients require further study. What's already known about this topic? Ocular disorders, including allergic conjunctivitis, are common in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD). In most dupilumab AD trials, dupilumab-treated patients had higher conjunctivitis incidence than those receiving placebo. Most cases were mild to moderate and recovered or were recovering during study treatment; study treatment discontinuation due to conjunctivitis was rare. Conjunctivitis incidence was very low and similar for dupilumab and placebo in clinical trials in asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and eosinophilic oesophagitis. What does this study add? This analysis confirms and extends the results of the individual clinical trials. Baseline disease-related factors, including AD severity, prior conjunctivitis history and certain biomarkers (thymus and activation-regulated chemokine, IgE, eosinophils), were associated with increased incidence of conjunctivitis. Patients who responded well to dupilumab had reduced incidence of conjunctivitis. Further study is needed to elucidate the aetiology and treatment of conjunctivitis in dupilumab-treated patients with AD.

Project description:In 2012, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning regarding potential adverse effects of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) on cognition, based on the Adverse Events Reporting System and a review of the medical literature. We aimed to synthesize randomized clinical trial (RCTs) evidence on the association between statin therapy and cognitive outcomes.We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL through December 2012, and reviewed published systematic reviews of statin treatment. We sought RCTs that compared statin treatment versus placebo or standard care, and reported at least one cognitive outcome (frequency of adverse cognitive events or measurements using standard neuropsychological cognitive test scores). Studies reporting sufficient information to calculate effect sizes were included in meta-analyses. Standardized and unstandardized mean differences were calculated for continuous outcomes for global cognition and for pre-specified cognitive domains. The main outcome was change in cognition measured by neuropsychological tests; an outcome of secondary interest was the frequency of adverse cognitive events observed during follow-up.We identified 25 RCTs (all placebo-controlled) reporting cognitive outcomes in 46,836 subjects, of which 23 RCTs reported cognitive test results in 29,012 participants. Adverse cognitive outcomes attributable to statins were rarely reported in trials involving cognitively normal or impaired subjects. Furthermore, meta-analysis of cognitive test data (14 studies; 27,643 participants) failed to show significant adverse effects of statins on all tests of cognition in either cognitively normal subjects (standardized mean difference 0.01, 95% confidence interval, CI, -0.01 to 0.03, p?=?0.42) or Alzheimer's disease subjects (standardized mean difference -0.05, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10, p?=?0.38).Statin therapy was not associated with cognitive impairment in RCTs. These results raise questions regarding the continued merit of the FDA warning about potential adverse effects of statins on cognition.

Project description:BackgroundAging is a phenomenon universally involving all organisms, genetically determined, and epigenetically influenced by the environment. Numerous observational studies have shown the positive impact of non-pharmacological approaches started in younger age on chronic conditions affecting the elderly health and survival. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effect of beta-carotene on the total and cause-specific mortality as reported by randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsWe searched Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL Cochrane from inception to September 2021. Studies were eligible if enrolled adults with any health condition, compared beta-carotene supplements at any dose with placebo or no intervention, provided information on deaths from any cause, and were RCTs, in English. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the GRADE. Risk ratios and their 95% confidence intervals were used and a P-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsAmong 3,942 articles searched, 44 articles on 31 RCTs, which included 216,734 total subjects, 108,622 in beta-carotene supplement groups, and 108,112 in the placebo or no-intervention groups, were involved in the final analyses. In a random-effects meta-analysis of all 31 trials, beta-carotene supplements were found to have no preventive effect on mortality (risk ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.98-1.05, I 2 = 42%). Further, the analysis showed no preventive effect on cancer, cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and other mortality causes. Instead, beta-carotene supplementation significantly increased the risk of lung cancer mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02, 1.27, I 2 = 3%) but decreased the risk of human immunodeficiency virus-related mortality (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33, 0.92, I 2 = 0).ConclusionMore studies should be performed to better define the role of beta-carotene on survival, to confirm or deny our results. Therefore, the possible beneficial or harmful effects of the beta-carotene supplementation on mortality must not be overstated.Systematic review registration[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=259354], identifier [CRD42021259354].

Project description:Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a distinctive modality commonly used by osteopathic physicians to complement their conventional treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. Previous reviews and meta-analyses of spinal manipulation for low back pain have not specifically addressed OMT and generally have focused on spinal manipulation as an alternative to conventional treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.Computerized bibliographic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, OSTMED, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were supplemented with additional database and manual searches of the literature. Six trials, involving eight OMT vs control treatment comparisons, were included because they were randomized controlled trials of OMT that involved blinded assessment of low back pain in ambulatory settings. Data on trial methodology, OMT and control treatments, and low back pain outcomes were abstracted by two independent reviewers. Effect sizes were computed using Cohen's d statistic and meta-analysis results were weighted by the inverse variance of individual comparisons. In addition to the overall meta-analysis, stratified meta-analyses were performed according to control treatment, country where the trial was conducted, and duration of follow-up. Sensitivity analyses were performed for both the overall and stratified meta-analyses.Overall, OMT significantly reduced low back pain (effect size, -0.30; 95% confidence interval, -0.47 - -0.13; P = .001). Stratified analyses demonstrated significant pain reductions in trials of OMT vs active treatment or placebo control and OMT vs no treatment control. There were significant pain reductions with OMT regardless of whether trials were performed in the United Kingdom or the United States. Significant pain reductions were also observed during short-, intermediate-, and long-term follow-up.OMT significantly reduces low back pain. The level of pain reduction is greater than expected from placebo effects alone and persists for at least three months. Additional research is warranted to elucidate mechanistically how OMT exerts its effects, to determine if OMT benefits are long lasting, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.

Dataset Information

Association between Dupilumab and Conjunctivitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Publications

Association between Dupilumab and Conjunctivitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets