Effect of treatments on skin microbiota in patients with atopic dermatitis: a protocol for systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease and skin microbiota dysbiosis shows an important role in the pathogenesis of AD. Effects of treatment on skin microbiota for patients with AD have been evaluated in recent years; however, the results remained controversial across studies. This systematic review will summarise studies evaluating the effect of treatments on skin microbiota among patients with AD.Methods and analysis
We will search PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry in November 2021; other data sources will also be considered, including searching specific authors and screening references cited in the enrolled articles. Interventional studies, which enrolled patients with AD receiving treatments and reported treatment-related skin microbiota changes, will be included. Our primary outcomes include skin microbiota diversity and treatment-related differential microbes; the secondary outcomes include microbiota functions and microbial interactions. Risk of bias assessment will be performed using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials, risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions and methodological index for non-randomised studies. Two researchers will independently perform study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment, with disagreements resolved by group discussions. Subgroup analyses will be performed according to different types of treatment for AD.Ethics and dissemination
Ethics approval is not required for this systematic review. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication or conference proceedings.Prospero registration number
CRD42021246566.
SUBMITTER: Guo Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8744091 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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:IntroductionAtopic dermatitis (AD) is one of the most common skin diseases, and it may be associated with skin cancer risk. However, there is a controversy pertaining to whether it implies a greater or decreased risk of skin cancers. We aimed to study the relationship between AD and skin cancer risk.MethodsPubMed and Embase databases from their inception to 4 August 2021 were systematically searched.ResultsWe evaluated 16 studies involving a total of 9,638,093 participants examining the contribution of AD to skin cancers. Random-effects model was applied to estimate the overall effect sizes. The pooled analysis of 16 studies indicated that AD was significantly associated with an overall increased risk of skin cancer. Subgroup pooled analyses showed that AD was statistically associated with an increased risk of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). With regard to cohort study, AD was statistically associated with an increased risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC), BCC, and SCC, but not melanoma risk. Sensitivity analysis revealed that excluding each study in turn did not alter the overall combined results. No publication bias existed among the studies.ConclusionIt can be concluded that AD is associated with risk of skin cancers; however, this association still needs to be verified in well-designed, worldwide trials (especially prospective, non-Western studies). The mechanism of AD leading to skin cancer is not clear, and further research is needed to explore the possibility of a potential pathogenesis.
| S-EPMC9110609 | biostudies-literature
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).
| S-EPMC10570180 | 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:Atopic dermatitis (AD) is characterized by reduced barrier function, reduced innate immune activation, and susceptibility to Staphylococcus aureus. Host susceptibility factors are suggested by monogenic disorders associated with AD-like phenotypes and can be medically modulated. S. aureus contributes to AD pathogenesis and can be mitigated by antibiotics and bleach baths. Recent work has revealed that the skin microbiome differs significantly between healthy controls and patients with AD, including decreased Gram-negative bacteria in AD. However, little is known about the potential therapeutic benefit of microbiome modulation. To evaluate whether parameters of AD pathogenesis are altered after exposure to different culturable Gram-negative bacteria (CGN) collected from human skin, CGN were collected from healthy controls and patients with AD. Then, effects on cellular and culture-based models of immune, epithelial, and bacterial function were evaluated. Representative strains were evaluated in the MC903 mouse model of AD. We found that CGN taken from healthy volunteers but not from patients with AD were associated with enhanced barrier function, innate immunity activation, and control of S. aureus. Treatment with CGN from healthy controls improved outcomes in a mouse model of AD. These findings suggest that a live-biotherapeutic approach may hold promise for treatment of patients with AD.
| S-EPMC4963067 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Atopic dermatitis (AD) is one of the most common chronic inflammatory skin diseases that affect both children and adults with a prevalence of 30% and 10%, respectively. Even though most of patients respond satisfactory to topical anti-inflammatory drugs, about 10% require one or more systemic treatments to achieve good control of their illness. The progressive and increasingly detailed knowledge in the immunopathogenesis of AD has allowed research on new therapeutic targets with very promising results in the field of biological therapy. In this article, we will review the different biological treatments with a focus on novel drugs. Their mechanism of action, current status and results from clinical trials and observational studies will be specified.
| S-EPMC4470158 | 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:Atopic dermatitis is a chronic inflammatory disease that can arise during the first months of life or at maturity and have a significant negative impact on the quality of life. The main pathogenic mechanism is the breakdown of cutaneous barrier integrity, which is associated with systemic inflammatory immunologic disorders. Atopic dermatitis involves numerous immunologic, allergic, respiratory, and ophthalmologic comorbidities that develop through similar intricate pathogenic phenomena. The atopic march represents the evolution in time of various allergic diseases, of which food allergies often cause the first manifestations of atopy, even from a very young age. Chronic inflammation translated through specific markers, next to increased immunoglobulin E (IgE) serum levels and heterogenous clinical manifestations, argue for the inclusion of atopic dermatitis in the systemic disease category.
| S-EPMC8464732 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAtopic dermatitis is a complex disease with differing clinical presentations. Many attempts have been made to identify uniform subtypes, or phenotypes, of atopic dermatitis in order to identify different aetiologies, improve diagnosis, estimate more accurate clinical prognoses, inform treatment andmanagement or predict treatment efficacy andeffectiveness. However, no consensus yet exists on exactly what defines these phenotypes or how many there are and whether they are genuine or statistical artefacts. This review aims to identify previously reported phenotypes of atopic dermatitis, the features used to define them and any characteristics or clinical outcomes significantly associated with them.Methods and analysisWe will search Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE and Web of Science from inception to the latest available date at the time of the search for studies attempting to classify atopic dermatitis in humans using any cross-sectional or longitudinal epidemiological or interventional design. Primary outcomes are atopic dermatitis phenotypes, features used to define them and characteristics associated with them in subsequent analyses. A secondary outcome is the methodological approach used to derive them. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts for inclusion, extract data and assess study quality. We will present the results of this review descriptively and with frequencies where possible.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this study as it is a systematic review. We will report results from this systematic review in a peer-reviewed journal. The main value of this study will be to inform further research.Prospero registration numberCRD42018087500.
| S-EPMC6144401 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The lack of standardized nomenclature for atopic dermatitis (AD) creates unnecessary confusion for patients, healthcare providers, and researchers. It also negatively impacts accurate communication of research in the scientific literature. We sought to determine the most commonly used terms for AD.A systematic review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS (1945-2016) for the terms AD, atopic eczema (AE), and multiple other eczematous disorders.In MEDLINE, 33 060 were identified, of which 21 299 (64.4%) publications used the term 'AD', 15 510 (46.9%) 'eczema', and only 2471 (7.5%) AE. Most of these publications used the term AD (82.0%) or eczema (70.8%) without additional nomenclature; only 1.2% used AE alone. Few publications used the terminology 'childhood eczema', 'flexural eczema', 'infantile eczema', 'atopic neurodermatitis', or 'Besnier's prurigo'. AD was rarely used until the late 1970s, after which it became the most commonly used of the three terms and continuously increased until 2015. Atopic eczema decreased between 2008 and 2015. Atopic dermatitis was the most commonly used term in studies across almost all publication types, languages, and journals.Atopic dermatitis is the most commonly used term and appears to be increasing in popularity. Given that eczema is a nonspecific term that describes the morphological appearance of several forms of dermatitis, we strongly suggest the use of a more specific term, AD, in publications, healthcare clinician training, and patient education. Support from researchers, reviewers, and editors is key to success.
| S-EPMC5228598 | biostudies-literature