Dataset Information

Systemic Immunomodulatory Treatments for Patients With Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Importance:Most clinical trials assessing systemic immunomodulatory treatments for patients with atopic dermatitis are placebo-controlled. Objective:To compare the effectiveness and safety of systemic immunomodulatory treatments for patients with atopic dermatitis in a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data Sources:The 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 Selection:English-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 Synthesis:Data 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 Measures:Prespecified outcomes were change in signs of disease, symptoms, quality of life, itch, withdrawals, and serious adverse events. Results:A 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 Relevance:Dupilumab 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.

SUBMITTER: Drucker AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7177646 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systemic Immunomodulatory Treatments for Patients With Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Drucker Aaron M AM Ellis Alexandra G AG Bohdanowicz Michal M Mashayekhi Soudeh S Yiu Zenas Z N ZZN Rochwerg Bram B Di Giorgio Sonya S Arents Bernd W M BWM Burton Tim T Spuls Phyllis I PI Küster Denise D Siegels Doreen D Schmitt Jochen J Flohr Carsten C

JAMA dermatology 20200601 6

<h4>Importance</h4>Most clinical trials assessing systemic immunomodulatory treatments for patients with atopic dermatitis are placebo-controlled.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the effectiveness and safety of systemic immunomodulatory treatments for patients with atopic dermatitis in a systematic review and network meta-analysis.<h4>Data sources</h4>The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database, Global Resource ...[more]

PMID: 32320001

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundNumerous therapies have recently emerged for treatment of patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), a common skin disease, and understanding their cost-effectiveness is of high importance for policy makers. This systematic literature review (SLR) aimed to provide an overview of full economic evaluations that assessed cost-effectiveness of emerging AD treatments.MethodsThe SLR was conducted in Medline, Embase, UK National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and EconLit. Reports published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health were manually searched. Economic evaluations published from 2017 to September 2022 that compared emerging AD treatments with any comparator were included. Quality assessment was conducted by using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list.ResultsA total of 1333 references were screened after removing duplicates. Among those references, 15 that conducted a total of 24 comparisons were included. Most studies were from the USA, UK or Canada. Seven different emerging treatments were compared, mostly with usual care. In 15 comparisons (63%), the emerging treatment was cost-effective, and 11 out of 14 dupilumab comparisons (79%) reported that dupilumab was cost-effective. Upadacitinib was the only emerging therapy that was never classified as cost-effective. On average, 13 out of 19 quality criteria (68%) per reference were rated as fulfilled while manuscripts and health technology reports received generally higher quality assessment scores than published abstracts.DiscussionThis study revealed some discrepancies in the cost-effectiveness of emerging therapies for AD. A variety of designs and guidelines made comparison difficult. Therefore, we recommend that future economic evaluations use more similar modelling approaches to improve comparability of results.OthersThe protocol was published in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022343993).

Project description:IntroductionThe comparative efficacy of targeted systemic therapies for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) has not been systematically assessed using recent phase 3 data. This network meta-analysis assesses the comparative efficacy of targeted systemic therapies without the addition of topical corticosteroids (TCS) and/or topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI) in adults with moderate to severe AD.MethodsThe systematic literature review searched through 17 May 2021 for phase 3/4 trials with upadacitinib, interleukin-4 (IL-4), interleukin-13 (IL-13), or JAK inhibitors compared with placebo or active intervention for adults and adolescents with moderate to severe AD with inadequate response to TCS/TCI or for whom TCS/TCI was medically inadvisable, without restrictions on year or region. Researchers assessed data using PRISMA guidelines. The proportion of patients achieving trial co-primary endpoints [Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) and reduction of ≥ 2 points from baseline; proportion of patients achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) improvement ≥ 75% from baseline (EASI-75)]; EASI improvement ≥ 90% from baseline (EASI-90); and ≥ 4-point improvement on Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale from baseline (ΔNRS ≥ 4) were evaluated using Bayesian network meta-analysis.ResultsOf 3415 initially identified records, network meta-analysis (NMA) ultimately included 6 records representing 9 unique studies. Two upadacitinib trials were also included. Eleven clinical trials including 6254 patients were analyzed. Upadacitinib 30 mg daily was the most efficacious therapy across all endpoints at the primary endpoint (week 12 or 16) and at earlier timepoints, followed by upadacitinib 15 mg daily and abrocitinib 200 mg daily.DiscussionMany factors need to be considered for treatment selection for AD. These findings can help healthcare providers when personalizing a patient's treatment.ConclusionUpadacitinib 30 mg daily, upadacitinib 15 mg daily, and abrocitinib 200 mg daily may be the most efficacious targeted systemic therapies over 12-16 weeks of therapy in AD.

Project description:Given the lack of head-to-head studies of systemic therapies in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD), network meta-analyses (NMAs) can provide comparative efficacy and safety data to inform clinical decision-making. In this NMA, eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before 24 October 2019 were identified by a systematic literature review. Short-term (12-16 weeks) efficacy (Investigator's Global Assessment [IGA] and Eczema Area and Severity Index [EASI] responses), patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and safety data from each trial were abstracted and analysed separately for monotherapy and combination therapy (systemic plus topical anti-inflammatory therapy). RCTs were analysed in fixed-effects and random-effects Bayesian NMA models. Overall, 19 phase 2 and phase 3 RCTs of abrocitinib, baricitinib, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, nemolizumab, tralokinumab and upadacitinib were included. In monotherapy RCTs, upadacitinib 30 mg once daily (QD) had the numerically highest efficacy (83.6% achieved ≥50% improvement in EASI [EASI-50 response]), followed by abrocitinib 200 mg QD (74.6%), upadacitinib 15 mg QD (70.5%), dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) (63.4%) and abrocitinib 100 mg QD (56.7%). Similar trends in EASI-75 and EASI-90 response were observed. In combination therapy RCTs, abrocitinib 200 mg QD had the highest EASI-50 (86.6%), followed by dupilumab 300 mg Q2W (82.4%) and abrocitinib 100 mg QD (79.7%). Similar findings were observed for IGA response and PROs. In monotherapy and combination therapy RCTs, the probability of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was higher among all active treatments than with placebo (except for dupilumab 300 mg Q2W [odds ratio (OR), 0.96; 95% credible interval (CrI), 0.45-2.18] and abrocitinib 100 mg QD [OR, 0.95; 95% CrI, 0.35-2.66] in combination therapy RCTs), although active treatments did not significantly differ from one another. Abrocitinib, dupilumab and upadacitinib were consistently the most effective systemic therapies in adult and adolescent patients with AD, with no significant TEAE differences in short-term RCTs.

Project description:IntroductionThere is a need to compare efficacy and safety profiles of crisaborole ointment, 2%, versus other topical treatments across randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We performed this review/network meta-analysis to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of crisaborole versus other topical pharmacologic therapies for mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) among patients aged ≥ 2 years.MethodsSearches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Collection Central Register of Clinical Trials, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects using Ovid to identify English language articles reporting RCTs of topical anti-inflammatory agents in patients aged ≥ 2 years with mild-to-moderate AD published between inception and 10 March 2020. This review used a prespecified protocol with eligibility criteria for population, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design. Efficacy was evaluated using the Investigator's Static Global Assessment (ISGA) of clear (0) or almost clear (1) and expressed by hazard ratios (HR) with 95% credible intervals.ResultsPatients treated with crisaborole or tacrolimus ointment, 0.1% or 0.03%, versus vehicle alone were significantly more likely to achieve ISGA 0/1 at 28-42 days, with the greatest point estimate observed for the crisaborole comparison (hazard ratio: 2.07; 95% credible interval 1.76 to - 2.36; probability HR above 1 [p better]: 100.0%). Patients were also more likely to achieve ISGA 0/1 with crisaborole than with pimecrolimus cream, 1% (HR: 1.62; 95% credible interval 1.04-2.48; p better: 98.3%). While network meta-analysis for safety was not feasible because of data limitations, crisaborole pivotal studies (AD-301/AD-302) showed crisaborole was well tolerated.ConclusionsCrisaborole was shown to be superior to vehicle and pimecrolimus and comparable to tacrolimus, 0.1% or 0.03%, with respect to ISGA 0/1 at 28-42 days in patients aged ≥ 2 years with mild-to-moderate AD. This evaluation of comparative efficacy of crisaborole further supports use of crisaborole as an effective therapeutic option in this population.

Dataset Information

Systemic Immunomodulatory Treatments for Patients With Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Publications

Systemic Immunomodulatory Treatments for Patients With Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets