Systemic treatments for eczema: a network meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sawangjit R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8128359 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Systemic treatments for eczema: a network meta-analysis.
Sawangjit Ratree R Dilokthornsakul Piyameth P Lloyd-Lavery Antonia A Lai Nai Ming NM Dellavalle Robert R Chaiyakunapruk Nathorn N
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20200914
<h4>Background</h4>Eczema is a common and chronic, relapsing, inflammatory skin disorder. It seriously impacts quality of life and economic outcomes, especially for those with moderate to severe eczema. Various treatments allow sustained control of the disease; however, their relative benefit remains unclear due to the limited number of trials directly comparing treatments.<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of different types of systemic immunosuppressive treatments ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9125768 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6486272 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8408312 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6956468 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThere are multiple approved systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis. Lebrikizumab is a newly licensed biologic medication that has been compared to placebo in clinical trials but not to other systemic treatments.ObjectiveTo compare reported measures of efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab to other systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis in a living systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesThe Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database, the Global Resource of Eczema Trials database, and trial registries were searched from inception through November 3, 2023.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials evaluating 8 or more weeks of treatment with systemic immunomodulatory medications for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened in duplicate.Data extraction and synthesisData were abstracted in duplicate and random-effects bayesian network meta-analyses were performed. Minimal important differences were used to define important differences between medications. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). The updated analysis was completed from December 13, 2023, to February 20, 2024.Main outcome measuresEfficacy outcomes were the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), the Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scales (PP-NRS) and were compared using mean difference (MD) with 95% credible intervals (CrI). Safety outcomes were serious adverse events and withdrawal due to adverse events. Other outcomes included the proportion of participants with 50%, 75%, and 90% improvement in EASI (EASI-50, -75, -90) and the proportion with success on the Investigator Global Assessment compared using odds ratios with 95% CrI.ResultsThe study sample included 97 eligible trials, with a total of 24 679 patients. Lebrikizumab was associated with no important difference in change in EASI (MD, -2.0; 95% CrI, -4.5 to 0.3; moderate certainty), POEM (MD, -1.1; 95% CrI -2.5 to 0.2; moderate certainty), DLQI (MD, -0.2; 95% CrI -2.1 to 1.6; moderate certainty), or PP-NRS (MD, 0.1; 95% CrI -0.4, 0.6; high certainty) compared to dupilumab among adults with atopic dermatitis who were treated for up to 16 weeks. Dupilumab was associated with higher odds of efficacy in binary outcomes compared with lebrikizumab. The relative efficacy of other approved systemic medications was similar to that found by previous updates of this living study, with high-dose upadacitinib and abrocitinib demonstrating numerically highest relative efficacy. For safety outcomes, low event rates limited useful comparisons.Conclusions and relevanceIn this living systematic review and network meta-analysis, lebrikizumab was similarly effective to dupilumab for the short-term treatment of atopic dermatitis in adults. Clinicians and patients can use these comparative data to inform treatment decisions.
| S-EPMC11255974 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMany onychomycosis treatments have not been directly compared in head-to-head clinical trials.ObjectiveTo determine the relative efficacy of onychomycosis treatments using network meta-analysis (NMA).MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and NMA of mycological cure rates.ResultsNineteen trials were included in the network. Terbinafine 250 mg was significantly superior to all treatments except itraconazole 400 mg pulse therapy. The itraconazole 400 mg pulse regimen was significantly superior to all topicals except efinaconazole 10% nail solution. Itraconazole 200 mg was significantly superior to all topical treatments, while fluconazole 150-450 mg, efinaconazole 10% nail solution, tavaborole 5% nail solution, ciclopirox nail lacquer 8%, terbinafine nail solution, and amorolfine 5% nail lacquer were significantly superior to placebo.ConclusionsNewly developed topicals have improved the odds ratios (ORs) of mycological cure, yet these ORs were not significantly greater than preexisting topical treatments. Further experience with these agents will reveal their clinical significance, and head-to-head trials are warranted. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.
| S-EPMC4857825 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThere are numerous new systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis in various stages of development and most are being compared with placebo rather than active comparators. In order to understand the relative efficacy and safety of existing and new treatments for atopic dermatitis, robust mixed comparisons (ie, direct and indirect) would be beneficial. To address this gap, this protocol describes methods for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis.Methods and analysisWe will update the search of a previous systematic review, including searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database and the Global Resource of EczemA Trials database in addition to clinical trial protocol registries. Title, abstract and full paper screening as well as data extraction will be conducted in duplicate by independent researchers. Primary outcomes include efficacy with regards to clinician-reported signs and patient-reported symptoms and safety with regards to withdrawal from treatment due to adverse events and the occurrence of serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will include change in quality of life and itch severity. Where possible and appropriate, network meta-analysis will be performed for each outcome using a random-effects model within a Bayesian framework. If appropriate, the review will be transitioned to a living review with continuous updating of the analysis.Ethics and disseminationDissemination in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is planned.Prospero registration numberCRD42018088112; Pre-results.
| S-EPMC6119412 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMost clinical trials assessing systemic immunomodulatory treatments for patients with atopic dermatitis are placebo-controlled.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety of systemic immunomodulatory treatments for patients with atopic dermatitis in a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesThe Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database, Global Resource of Eczema Trials database, and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to October 28, 2019.Study selectionEnglish-language randomized clinical trials of 8 weeks or more of treatment with systemic immunomodulatory medications for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis were included. Titles, abstracts, and articles were screened in duplicate. Of 10 324 citations, 39 trials were included.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted in duplicate, and the review adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Network Meta-Analyses guidelines. Random-effects bayesian network meta-analyses were performed and certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria.Main outcomes and measuresPrespecified outcomes were change in signs of disease, symptoms, quality of life, itch, withdrawals, and serious adverse events.ResultsA total of 39 trials with 6360 patients examining 20 medications and placebo were included. Most trials were conducted for adults receiving up to 16 weeks of therapy. Dupilumab, 300 mg every 2 weeks, was associated with improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score vs placebo (mean difference, 11.3-point reduction; 95% credible interval [CrI], 9.7-13.1 [high certainty]). Cyclosporine (standardized mean difference, -1.1; 95% CrI, -1.7 to -0.5 [low certainty]) and dupilumab (standardized mean difference, -0.9; 95% CrI, -1.0 to -0.8 [high certainty]) were similarly effective vs placebo in clearing clinical signs of atopic dermatitis and may be superior to methotrexate (standardized mean difference, -0.6; 95% CrI, -1.1 to 0.0 [low certainty]) and azathioprine (standardized mean difference, -0.4; 95% CrI, -0.8 to -0.1 [low certainty]). Several investigational medications for atopic dermatitis are promising, but data to date are limited to small early-phase trials. Safety analyses were limited by low event rates.Conclusions and relevanceDupilumab and cyclosporine may be more effective for up to 16 weeks of treatment than methotrexate and azathioprine for treating adult patients with atopic dermatitis. More studies directly comparing established and novel treatments beyond 16 weeks are needed and will be incorporated into future updates of this review.
| S-EPMC7177646 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceSystemic treatments for atopic dermatitis are being evaluated primarily in placebo-controlled trials; network meta-analysis can provide relative efficacy and safety estimates for treatments that have not been compared head to head.ObjectiveTo compare reported measures of efficacy and assessments of safety in clinical trials of systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis in a living systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesThe Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database, Global Resource of EczemA Trials database, and trial registries were searched through June 15, 2021.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials examining 8 or more weeks of treatment with systemic immunomodulatory medications for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis were included after screening titles, abstracts, and papers in duplicate.Data extraction and synthesisData were abstracted in duplicate. Bayesian network meta-analyses and assessed Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation certainty of evidence were performed. The updated analysis was completed from June to December 2021.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes include change in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scales (PP-NRS).ResultsSince October 2019, 21 new studies were added, for a total of 60 trials with 16 579 patients. Up to 16 weeks of treatment in adults, abrocitinib, 200 mg daily (mean difference [MD], 2.2; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.2-4.0; high certainty) and upadacitinib, 30 mg daily (MD, 2.7; 95% CrI, 0.6-4.7; high certainty) were associated with reduced EASI slightly more than dupilumab, 600 mg then 300 mg every 2 weeks. Abrocitinib, 100 mg daily (MD, -2.1; 95% CrI, -4.1 to -0.3; high certainty), baricitinib, 4 mg daily (MD, -3.2; 95% CrI, -5.7 to -0.8; high certainty), baricitinib, 2 mg daily (MD, -5.2; 95% CrI, -7.5 to -2.9; high certainty) and tralokinumab, 600 mg then 300 mg every 2 weeks (MD, -3.5; 95% CrI, -5.8 to -1.3; high certainty) were associated with reduced EASI slightly less than dupilumab. There was little or no difference between upadacitinib, 15 mg daily, and dupilumab (MD, 0.2; 95% CrI, -1.9 to 2.2; high certainty). The pattern of results was similar for POEM, DLQI, and PP-NRS.Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, abrocitinib, 200 mg; and upadacitinib, 30 mg daily, were associated with slightly better scores than dupilumab, and upadacitinib, 15 mg daily, was associated with similar scores to dupilumab. Abrocitinib, 100 mg daily, baricitinib, 4 mg and 2 mg daily, and tralokinumab, 300 mg, every 2 weeks were associated with slightly worse scores.
| S-EPMC8928094 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrently, 6-month oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy has been recommended as the preferred adjuvant treatment against high-risk stage 2 and stage 3 colon cancer patients.MethodsRecord retrieval was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology meeting libraries from inception to November 2019. Regarding survival and tolerability, randomized controlled trials comparing different adjuvant systemic regimens against high-risk stage 2 and stage 3 colon cancer were eligible. Disease-free survival was primary endpoint. Network calculation was based on a random-effects model, and relative ranking of each node was numerically indicated by p score.ResultsA total of 30 trials were included, corresponding to 54,109 patients. Regarding disease-free survival, none of the analyzed regimens displayed significant superiority against common comparator 6-month capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX), while 12-month [network hazard ratio (HR) 0.81 (0.60-1.10); 0.79 (0.57-1.10)] and 3-month XELOX [0.95 (0.86-1.04); 0.93 (0.83-1.05)] were top-ranking regimens showing non-inferiority among overall and stage 3 patients. Moreover, by pairwise meta-analysis, 3-month XELOX demonstrated significant superiority against 6-month XELOX among low-risk stage 3 patients [pairwise HR 0.78 (0.63-0.97)]. Concerning adverse events, 3-month oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy was significantly better than the 6-month counterpart with respect to peripheral sensory neuropathy, thrombocytopenia and fatigue. The 12-month capecitabine monotherapy failed to display non-inferiority among other major adverse events.ConclusionsThe 3-month XELOX treatment could be an alternative option of the 6-month regimen among low-risk stage 3 patients. Among high-risk stage 3 patients, 6-month oxaliplatin-based regimens still seem more competitive. In addition, clinical application of 12-month capecitabine monotherapy should be cautious, despite its top rankings, especially among non-Asian countries.
| S-EPMC7739130 | biostudies-literature