Dataset Information

Safety Profile and Tolerability of Topical Phosphodiesterase 4 Inhibitors for the Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Evaluate the safety profile and tolerability of topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitors versus vehicle as treatment for atopic dermatitis in published studies.

Methods

A search was performed in Medline/PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases on September 27, 2021, by 1 evaluator, without restrictions on publication dates or languages. Terms such as atopic dermatitis, phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors, calcineurin inhibitors, and randomized controlled trials were included. The database searches were carried out by 1 evaluator. The titles and abstracts were reviewed for the identification and evaluation of potentially eligible studies. Study selection was made by two reviewers, so there was no intra-examiner statistic at the study selection step. The full-text articles were reviewed to determine whether or not they would be included in the systematic review. Global analyses, which included studies with both unclear and low risk of bias and subanalyses of studies with a low risk of bias were performed.

Results

Out of 237 identified articles, 14 clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis. In global analyses of studies with low and unclear risk of bias, topical treatment with PDE4 inhibitors did not differ from vehicle treatment in global treatment emergent adverse events (relative risk = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.87–1.14; P = 0.94) or in serious emergent adverse events appearance (relative risk = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.39–2.20; P = 0.86). In subanalyses of studies with a low risk of bias, a reduced rate of atopic dermatitis exacerbation was observed in PDE4 inhibitors compared with the vehicle (relative risk = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.98; P = 0.04) and risk of pain at the application site was confirmed (relative risk = 2.59; 95% CI, 1.27–5.28; P = 0.01).

Conclusions

PDE4 inhibitors did not show differences from vehicle treatment in treatment emergent adverse events or serious emergent adverse events incidence. In studies with low risk of bias, PDE4 inhibitors had a statistically significant risk of producing pain and reduced occurrence of atopic dermatitis exacerbation.

SUBMITTER: Martin-Santiago A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9278032 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Topical medication is the central treatment for patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), but the options are limited. Phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitors are a new candidate for AD therapy. Objective:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of topical PDE4 inhibitors in mild to moderate AD. Data Sources:Clinical trials were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Chinese medical databases (Wanfang, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and China Science and Technology Journal Database), ClinicalTrials.gov, and other trial registries from inception to August 15, 2018. No restrictions on languages were placed. Study Selection:Only double-blind randomized clinical trials with topical PDE4 inhibitors vs topical vehicle treatment for patients with mild to moderate AD were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Two reviewers independently extracted study features, intervention details, and outcomes. A meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model. The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias assessment tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Funnel plots and Egger tests were used to assess the publication bias. Main Outcomes and Measures:Changes from baseline in target lesion score were expressed in terms of standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs. Outcomes of investigators' assessment and safety were expressed in terms of relative risk with 95% CIs. Results:Seven studies were identified, which included 1869 patients with mild to moderate AD. Overall, compared with the topical vehicle control, topical application of PDE4 inhibitors was associated with a significant decrease in target lesion score (SMD -0.40; 95% CI, -0.61 to -0.18; P < .001) and a higher response rate in investigators' assessment of clear or almost clear skin (relative risk, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.33-1.70; P < .001). There was no difference in treatment-related adverse events or in adverse events that required discontinuation of therapy. Subgroup analyses indicated that after 14 and 28 days of therapy with PDE4 inhibitors, target lesion score was significantly decreased. However, these beneficial effects were displayed only for the PDE4 inhibitors crisaborole and AN2898 (crisaborole at day 14: SMD, -0.59; 95% CI, -1.15 to -0.02; P = .04; AN2898 at day 14: SMD, -0.76; 95% CI, -1.38 to -0.13; P = .02; crisaborole at day 28: SMD, -0.86; 95% CI, -1.44 to -0.28; P = .004; AN2898 at day 28: SMD, -0.68; 95% CI, -1.30 to -0.05; P = .03). Heterogeneity was not significant across studies. Conclusions and Relevance:This meta-analysis suggests that topical PDE4 inhibitors are a safe and effective treatment for mild to moderate AD. Current evidence supports the use of crisaborole or AN2898 as the choice of maintenance or sequential therapy for mild to moderate AD.

Project description:OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and tolerability of topical pimecrolimus and tacrolimus compared with other treatments for atopic dermatitis. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches of the Cochrane Library, Medline, and Embase. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials of topical pimecrolimus or tacrolimus reporting efficacy outcomes or tolerability. DATA EXTRACTION: EFFICACY: investigators' global assessment of response; patients' global assessment of response; proportions of patients with flares of atopic dermatitis; and improvements in quality of life. Tolerability: overall rates of withdrawal; withdrawal due to adverse events; and proportions of patients with burning of the skin and skin infections. DATA SYNTHESIS: 4186 of 6897 participants in 25 randomised controlled trials received pimecrolimus or tacrolimus. Both drugs were significantly more effective than a vehicle control. Tacrolimus 0.1% was as effective as potent topical corticosteroids at three weeks and more effective than combined treatment with hydrocortisone butyrate 0.1% (potent used on trunk) plus hydrocortisone acetate 1% (weak used on face) at 12 weeks (number needed to treat (NNT) = 6). Tacrolimus 0.1% was also more effective than hydrocortisone acetate 1% (NNT = 4). In comparison, tacrolimus 0.03% was more effective than hydrocortisone acetate 1% (NNT = 5) but less effective than hydrocortisone butyrate 0.1% (NNT = -8). Direct comparisons of tacrolimus 0.03% and tacrolimus 0.1% consistently favoured the higher strength formulation, but efficacy differed significantly between the two strengths only after 12 weeks' treatment (rate ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 0.99). Pimecrolimus was far less effective than betamethasone valerate 0.1% (NNT = -3 at three weeks). Pimecrolimus and tacrolimus caused significantly more skin burning than topical corticosteroids. Rates of skin infections in any of the comparisons did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: Both topical pimecrolimus and topical tacrolimus are more effective than placebo treatments for atopic dermatitis, but in the absence of studies that show long term safety gains, any advantage over topical corticosteroids is unclear. Topical tacrolimus is similar to potent topical corticosteroids and may have a place for long term use in patients with resistant atopic dermatitis on sites where side effects from topical corticosteroids might develop quickly. In the absence of key comparisons with mild corticosteroids, the clinical need for topical pimecrolimus is unclear. The usefulness of either treatment in patients who have failed to respond adequately to topical corticosteroids is also unclear.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent therapeutic options for atopic dermatitis (AD) are limited. Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors may be viable alternatives.ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors for AD treatment.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Web of Science, Global Resource of Eczema Trials database, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to September 1, 2020. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing JAK inhibitors with placebo/vehicle treatment for AD patients were included. The primary study outcomes included (1) the change (%) from the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) baseline expressed as weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI), and (2) the Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) response and safety outcomes expressed as relative risk (RR) and 95% CI.ResultsWe included 14 RCTs published in 13 studies (3,822 patients). Treatment with JAK inhibitors significantly improved IGA response (RR 2.83, 95% CI 2.25-3.56, p < 0.001) and EASI score (WMD -28.82, 95% CI -34.48 to -23.16, p < 0.001). JAK inhibitor treatment achieved the largest improvement in both IGA response (RR 3.59, 95% CI 2.66-4.84, p < 0.001) and EASI score (WMD -42.00, 95% CI -48.64 to -35.36, p < 0.001) by week 4 of treatment. Topical JAK inhibitors were significantly more efficacious than oral inhibitors. Upadacitinib treatment for 4 weeks was most effective in reducing EASI score (WMD -53.92, 95% CI -69.26 to -38.58, p < 0.001), while abrocitinib for 4 weeks led to the most effective IGA response (RR 5.47, 95% CI 2.74-10.93, p < 0.001). There was no difference in the frequency of adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation; however, JAK inhibitors use, especially abrocitinib, led to a higher incidence of treatment-emergent AEs (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.10-1.42, p = 0.001).ConclusionOur results imply that JAK inhibitors are an effective and safe AD treatment. Nevertheless, further trials with longer duration and head-to-head comparisons of different JAK inhibitors are needed.

Project description:BackgroundAtopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory chronic condition that affects the skin of children and adults and has an important impact on the quality of life. Treatments for AD are based on environmental controls, topical and systemic therapies, and allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT). However, it remains unclear the effectiveness and adverse events of AIT and all conventional topical treatments compared with placebo and each other for AD.MethodsWe will search five electronic databases [Central Cochrane register of controlled trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and LILACS] from inception until November 2019 with no language restriction, and we will include experimental studies [randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and quasi-RCTs]. The primary outcome is global and specific skin symptoms assessment. Secondary outcomes are hospital length of stay, quality of life, and adverse events. Reviewers independently will extract data from the studies that meet our inclusion criteria and will assess the risk of bias of individual primary studies. We will conduct random effects pairwise meta-analyses for the observed pairwise comparisons with at least two trials. Then, we will perform random-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to obtain treatment effects for all possible comparisons and to provide a hierarchy of all interventions for each outcome. Possible incoherence between direct and indirect sources of evidence will be investigated locally (if possible) and globally. To investigate sources of statistical heterogeneity, we will perform a series of meta-regression analyses based on pre-specified important effect modifiers. Two authors will appraise the certainty of the evidence for each outcome applying the GRADE's framework for NMA.DiscussionThe findings of this systematic review will shed the light on the effectiveness and adverse events of all possible comparisons for treating AD and on the quality of the collated evidence for recommendations. It will also provide critical information to health care professionals to comprehend and manage this disease at different age stages, treatment type, duration, and severity of atopic dermatitis.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO Protocol ID CRD42019147106.