Topical pimecrolimus for eczema

The treatment of refractory periorbital dermatitis

Purpose

Refractory periorbital dermatitis has a chronic course with exacerbations leading to discomfort and cosmetic issues, yet characterization of treatment options is limited.

Aims

The objective was to present comprehensive demographic data and medical management of a series of patients with refractory periorbital dermatitis.

Settings and Design

Retrospective review identified patients treated at a single institution from January 2010 to August 2020.

Methods

Descriptive analyses were performed. Demographic data and treatment history were reviewed and data including medication, use, date of use and discontinued use, reason for discontinuation (if applicable), refractory status, formulation, concentration, and dose frequency were extracted.

Statistical Analysis Used

Descriptive analyses.

Results

Forty-five patients were included. The average age at first diagnosis was 60.3 years (sd 14.9). 82.2% were women and 84.4% identified as Caucasian. Triamcinolone cream was most frequently used followed by tobramycin-dexamethasone, tacrolimus, and neomycin-polymyxin-dexamethasone. Less than 30% of patients on triamcinolone were refractory. 13.3% of patients used topical hydrocortisone, with over 80% of these patients experiencing refractory episodes of persistent irritation and erythema. Most patients were refractory during initial use or the first recurrence of periorbital dermatitis flare.

Conclusions

By better characterizing the diverse treatment regimens in a unique subset of refractory patients, we hope to better inform potential courses of medical management for periorbital dermatitis.

A comparative randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus versus hydrocortisone as a topical treatment of atopic dermatitis in children

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) aetiology is not exactly identified, but it is characterized by pruritic skin reactions with elevation in the levels of inflammatory markers. Despite the fact that Corticosteroids are the mainstay therapy in the management of AD, they have many local and systemic adverse effects. Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of topical tacrolimus ointment in comparison to topical hydrocortisone cream in the management of the AD of children diagnosed with AD. Patients and Methods: This study was conducted on 200 children with AD. They were simply randomized into two groups, the tacrolimus group treated with 0.03% topical tacrolimus ointment and the hydrocortisone group treated with 1% hydrocortisone cream twice daily during the 3 weeks study period. Results: At the end of the study, both the tacrolimus and hydrocortisone groups showed a significant decline in the mean serum level of IL-10, IL-17, and IL-23 (p < 0.05) when compared to their baseline levels. However, the tacrolimus group showed a more significant decrease (p < 0.05) in the mean serum level of IL-10, IL-17, and IL-23 as compared to the hydrocortisone group [Mean differences = 1.600, 95% CI: 0.9858-2.214; 1.300, 95% CI: 1.086-1.514 and 4.200, 95% CI: 3.321-5.079]. Moreover, the median mEASI decreased similarly from 32 to 21 in the tacrolimus group and from 30 to 22 in the hydrocortisone group (p > 0.05) [Median difference = -2.000, 95% CI: -2.651 to -1.349; Median difference = 1.000, 95% CI: 0.3489-1.651]. Mild to moderate transient stinging and erythema were the main adverse effects that showed higher incidence in the tacrolimus group than in the hydrocortisone group (p < 0.05). In most cases, they resolved within 3-4 days. Besides, tacrolimus ointment did not cause skin atrophy as compared to the hydrocortisone group (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Tacrolimus ointment is more beneficial than hydrocortisone cream in managing AD in children in terms of lowering the inflammatory markers, however, there is no difference on the dermatitis severity scale. Moreover, tacrolimus is safer with a better side effect profile compared to hydrocortisone. Trial Registration: The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (CT.gov identifier: NCT05324618).

Targeting therapeutic approaches and highlighting the potential role of nanotechnology in atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis is a chronic as well as widespread skin disease which has significant influence on the life attributes of affected people and their families. Systemic immunosuppressive drugs can be utilised for effective care of disease, although they are often prescribed for rigorous disruption or disease that is complicated to manage. Therefore, topical applications of corticosteroids are considered the primary pharmacologic therapies for atopic dermatitis, and research recommends that these medications might be helpful in preventing disease flare-ups. However, topical medicine administration to deeper layers of skin is challenging because of the skin anatomic barrier that restricts deeper drug permeation, and also due to barrier function abnormalities in atopic dermatitis skin, which might result in systemic drug absorption, provoking systemic consequences. Hence, effective management of atopic dermatitis needs new, effective, safe and targeted treatments. Therefore, nanotechnology-based topical therapeutics have attracted much interest nowadays because of their tendency to increase drug diffusion and bioavailability along with enormous drug targeting potential to affected cells, and, thereby, reducing the adverse effects of medications. In this review, we mention different symptoms of atopic dermatitis, and provide an overview of the different triggering factors causing atopic dermatitis, with emphasis on its epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical features and diagnostic, and preventive measures. This review discusses existing therapeutics for treating atopic dermatitis, and the newer approaches as well as the current classical pharmacotherapy of atopic dermatitis against new nanoparticle skin delivery systems. This review has also briefly summarised the recent patents and clinical status of therapeutic modalities for atopic dermatitis.

Safety of topical corticosteroids in atopic eczema: an umbrella review

OBJECTIVE

An umbrella review summarising all safety data from systematic reviews of topical corticosteroids (TCS) in adults and children with atopic eczema.

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology map of eczema systematic reviews were searched until 7 November 2018 and Epistemonikos until 2 March 2021. Reviews were included if they assessed the safety of TCS in atopic eczema and searched >1 database using a reproducible search strategy. Review quality was assessed using version 2 of 'A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews' (AMSTAR 2 tool).

RESULTS

38 systematic reviews included, 34 low/critically low quality. Treatment and follow-up were usually short (2-4 weeks).

KEY FINDINGS

TCS versus emollient/vehicle: No meta-analyses identified for skin-thinning. Two 2-week randomised controlled trials (RCTs) found no significant increased risk with very potent TCS (0/196 TCS vs 0/33 vehicle in children and 6/109 TCS vs 2/50 vehicle, age unknown). Biochemical adrenal suppression (cortisol) was 3.8% (95% CI 2.4% to 5.8%) in a meta-analysis of 11 uncontrolled observational studies (any potency TCS, 522 children). Effects reversed when treatment ceased.TCS versus topical calcineurin inhibitors: Meta-analysis showed higher relative risk of skin thinning with TCS (4.86, 95% CI 1.06 to 22.28, n=4128, four RCTs, including one 5-year RCT). Eight cases in 2068 participants, 7 using potent TCS. No evidence of growth suppression.Once daily versus more frequent TCS: No meta-analyses identified. No skin-thinning in one RCT (3 weeks potent TCS, n=94) or biochemical adrenal suppression in two RCTs (up to 2 weeks very potent/moderate TCS, n=129).TCS twice/week to prevent flares ('weekend therapy') versus vehicle: No meta-analyses identified. No evidence of skin thinning in five RCTs. One RCT found biochemical adrenal suppression (2/44 children, potent TCS).

CONCLUSIONS

W e found no evidence of harm when TCS were used intermittently 'as required' to treat flares or 'weekend therapy' to prevent flares. However, long-term safety data were limited.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018079409.

Off-label Uses of Topical Pimecrolimus

Pimecrolimus is a topical calcineurin inhibitor currently approved for second-line use in the management of mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis in patients age 2 years and older. Given the safety profile and nonsteroidal mechanism of pimecrolimus, there has been significant interest in its use in the treatment of a variety of dermatological conditions. This article reviews research that has been published on the off-label uses of topical pimecrolimus, with a focus on published RCTs. Convincing evidence exists supporting pimecrolimus' efficacy in oral lichen planus and seborrheic dermatitis. For other conditions studied to date, pimecrolimus may prove to be a useful treatment alternative when conventional agents fail. Adverse events seen with its off-label use were typically application site reactions, the most common being a transient burning sensation. In summary, pimecrolimus appears to be an effective agent in the treatment of multiple dermatological conditions and may be worth considering as a pharmacologic alternative in several conditions when first-line treatment fails, or for areas that are more susceptible to the adverse effects of topical corticosteroids.

Leukotriene receptor antagonists for eczema

BACKGROUND

Eczema is a common, chronic, inflammatory skin condition that is frequently associated with atopic conditions, including asthma. Leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) have a corticosteroid-sparing role in asthma, but their role in eczema remains controversial. Currently available topical therapies for eczema are often poorly tolerated, and use of systemic agents is restricted by their adverse effect profile. A review of alternative treatments was therefore warranted.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the possible benefits and harms of leukotriene receptor antagonists for eczema.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to September 2017: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the GREAT database. We also searched five trial registries, and handsearched the bibliographies of all extracted studies for further relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of LTRAs alone or in combination with other (topical or systemic) treatments compared with other treatments alone such as topical corticosteroids or placebo for eczema in the acute or chronic (maintenance) phase of eczema in adults and children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome measures were change in disease severity, long-term symptom control, and adverse effects of treatment. Secondary outcomes were change in corticosteroid requirement, reduction of pruritis, quality of life, and emollient requirement. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Only five studies (including a total of 202 participants) met the inclusion criteria, all of which assessed oral montelukast; hence, we found no studies assessing other LTRAs. Treatment ranged from four to eight weeks, and outcomes were assessed at the end of treatment; therefore, we could only report short-term measurements (defined as less than three months follow-up from baseline). Montelukast dosing was 10 mg for adults (age 14 years and above) and 5 mg for children (age 6 years to 14 years). One study included children (aged 6 years and above) among their participants, while the remaining studies only included adults (participant age ranged from 16 to 70 years). The participants were diagnosed with moderate-to-severe eczema in four studies and moderate eczema in one study. The study setting was unclear in two studies, multicentre in two studies, and single centre in one study; the studies were conducted in Europe and Bangladesh. Two studies were industry funded. The comparator was placebo in three studies and conventional treatment in two studies. The conventional treatment comparator was a combination of antihistamines and topical corticosteroids (plus oral antibiotics in one study).Four of the studies did not adequately describe their randomisation or allocation concealment method and were considered as at unclear risk of selection bias. Only one study was at low risk of performance and detection bias. However, we judged all studies to be at low risk of attrition and reporting bias.We found no evidence of a difference in disease severity of moderate-to-severe eczema after short-term use of montelukast (10 mg) when compared with placebo. The outcome was assessed using the modified EASI (Eczema Area and Severity Index) score and SASSAD (Six Area, Six Sign Atopic Dermatitis) severity score (standardised mean difference 0.29, with a positive score showing montelukast is favoured, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.23 to 0.81; 3 studies; n = 131; low-quality evidence).When short-term montelukast (10 mg) treatment was compared with conventional treatment in one study, the mean improvement in severity of moderate-to-severe eczema was greater in the intervention group (measured using SCORAD (SCORing of Atopic Dermatitis) severity index) (mean difference 10.57, 95% CI 4.58 to 16.56; n = 31); however, another study of 32 participants found no significant difference between groups using the same measure (mean improvement was 25.2 points with montelukast versus 23.9 points with conventional treatment; no further numerical data provided). We judged the quality of the evidence as very low for this outcome, meaning the results are uncertain.All studies reported their adverse event rate during treatment. Four studies (136 participants) reported no adverse events. In one study of 58 participants with moderate eczema who received montelukast 10 mg (compared with placebo), there was one case of septicaemia and one case of dizziness reported in the intervention group, both resulting in study withdrawal, although whether these effects were related to the medication is unclear. Mild side effects (e.g. headache and mild gastrointestinal disturbances) were also noted, but these were fairly evenly distributed between the montelukast and placebo groups. The quality of evidence for this outcome was low.No studies specifically evaluated emollient requirement or quality of life. One study that administered treatment for eight weeks specifically evaluated pruritus improvement at the end treatment and topical corticosteroid use during treatment. We found no evidence of a difference between montelukast (10 mg) and placebo for both outcomes (low-quality evidence, n = 58). No other study assessed these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review are limited to montelukast. There was a lack of evidence addressing the review question, and the quality of the available evidence for most of the measured outcomes was low. Some primary and secondary outcomes were not addressed at all, including long-term control.We found no evidence of a difference between montelukast (10 mg) and placebo on disease severity, pruritus improvement, and topical corticosteroid use. Very low-quality evidence means we are uncertain of the effect of montelukast (10 mg) compared with conventional treatment on disease severity. Participants in only one study reported adverse events, which were mainly mild (low-quality evidence).There is no evidence that LTRA is an effective treatment for eczema. Serious limitations were that all studies focused on montelukast and only included people with moderate-to-severe eczema, who were mainly adults; and that each outcome was evaluated with a small sample size, if at all.Further large randomised controlled trials, with a longer treatment duration, of adults and children who have eczema of all severities may help to evaluate the effect of all types of LTRA, especially on eczema maintenance.

Emollients and moisturisers for eczema

BACKGROUND

Eczema is a chronic skin disease characterised by dry skin, intense itching, inflammatory skin lesions, and a considerable impact on quality of life. Moisturisation is an integral part of treatment, but it is unclear if moisturisers are effective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of moisturisers for eczema.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to December 2015: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the GREAT database. We searched five trials registers and checked references of included and excluded studies for further relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in people with eczema.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 77 studies (6603 participants, mean age: 18.6 years, mean duration: 6.7 weeks). We assessed 36 studies as at a high risk of bias, 34 at unclear risk, and seven at low risk. Twenty-four studies assessed our primary outcome 'participant-assessed disease severity', 13 assessed 'satisfaction', and 41 assessed 'adverse events'. Secondary outcomes included investigator-assessed disease severity (addressed in 65 studies), skin barrier function (29), flare prevention (16), quality of life (10), and corticosteroid use (eight). Adverse events reporting was limited (smarting, stinging, pruritus, erythema, folliculitis).Six studies evaluated moisturiser versus no moisturiser. 'Participant-assessed disease severity' and 'satisfaction' were not assessed. Moisturiser use yielded lower SCORAD than no moisturiser (three studies, 276 participants, mean difference (MD) -2.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.55 to -0.28), but the minimal important difference (MID) (8.7) was unmet. There were fewer flares with moisturisers (two studies, 87 participants, RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.70), time to flare was prolonged (median: 180 versus 30 days), and less topical corticosteroids were needed (two studies, 222 participants, MD -9.30 g, 95% CI -15.3 to -3.27). There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events (one study, 173 participants, risk ratio (RR) 15.34, 95% CI 0.90 to 261.64). Evidence for these outcomes was low quality.With Atopiclair (three studies), 174/232 participants experienced improvement in participant-assessed disease severity versus 27/158 allocated to vehicle (RR 4.51, 95% CI 2.19 to 9.29). Atopiclair decreased itching (four studies, 396 participants, MD -2.65, 95% CI -4.21 to -1.09) and achieved more frequent satisfaction (two studies, 248 participants, RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.89), fewer flares (three studies, 397 participants, RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.31), and lower EASI (four studies, 426 participants, MD -4.0, 95% CI -5.42 to -2.57), but MID (6.6) was unmet. The number of participants reporting adverse events was not statistically different (four studies, 430 participants, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.33). Evidence for these outcomes was moderate quality.Participants reported skin improvement more frequently with urea-containing cream than placebo (one study, 129 participants, RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.53; low-quality evidence), with equal satisfaction between the two groups (one study, 38 participants, low-quality evidence). Urea-containing cream improved dryness (investigator-assessed) more frequently (one study, 128 participants, RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.71; moderate-quality evidence) with fewer flares (one study, 44 participants, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.92; low-quality evidence), but more participants in this group reported adverse events (one study, 129 participants, RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.34; moderate-quality evidence).Three studies assessed glycerol-containing moisturiser versus vehicle or placebo. More participants in the glycerol group noticed skin improvement (one study, 134 participants, RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; moderate-quality evidence), and this group saw improved investigator-assessed SCORAD (one study, 249 participants, MD -2.20, 95% CI -3.44 to -0.96; high-quality evidence), but MID was unmet. Participant satisfaction was not addressed. The number of participants reporting adverse events was not statistically significant (two studies, 385 participants, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.19; moderate-quality evidence).Four studies investigated oat-containing moisturisers versus no treatment or vehicle. No significant differences between groups were reported for participant-assessed disease severity (one study, 50 participants, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.46; low-quality evidence), satisfaction (one study, 50 participants, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.52; very low-quality evidence), and investigator-assessed disease severity (three studies, 272 participants, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.23, 95% CI -0.66 to 0.21; low-quality evidence). In the oat group, there were fewer flares (one study, 43 participants, RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.7; low-quality evidence) and less topical corticosteroids needed (two studies, 222 participants, MD -9.30g, 95% CI 15.3 to -3.27; low-quality evidence), but more adverse events were reported (one study, 173 participants; Peto odds ratio (OR) 7.26, 95% CI 1.76 to 29.92; low-quality evidence).All moisturisers above were compared to placebo, vehicle, or no moisturiser. Participants considered moisturisers more effective in reducing eczema (five studies, 572 participants, RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.16 to 5.23; low-quality evidence) and itch (seven studies, 749 participants, SMD -1.10, 95% CI -1.83 to -0.38) than control. Participants in both treatment arms reported comparable satisfaction (three studies, 296 participants, RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.26; low-quality evidence). Moisturisers led to lower investigator-assessed disease severity (12 studies, 1281 participants, SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.51; high-quality evidence) and fewer flares (six studies, 607 participants, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.62; moderate-quality evidence), but there was no difference in adverse events (10 studies, 1275 participants, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; moderate-quality evidence).Topical active treatment combined with moisturiser was more effective than active treatment alone in reducing investigator-assessed disease severity (three studies, 192 participants, SMD -0.87, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.57; moderate-quality evidence) and flares (one study, 105 participants, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.93), and was preferred by participants (both low-quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference in number of adverse events (one study, 125 participants, RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.19; very low-quality evidence). Participant-assessed disease severity was not addressed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most moisturisers showed some beneficial effects, producing better results when used with active treatment, prolonging time to flare, and reducing the number of flares and amount of topical corticosteroids needed to achieve similar reductions in eczema severity. We did not find reliable evidence that one moisturiser is better than another.

A programme of research to set priorities and reduce uncertainties for the prevention and treatment of skin disease

Background

Skin diseases are very common and can have a large impact on the quality of life of patients and caregivers. This programme addressed four diseases: (1) eczema, (2) vitiligo, (3) squamous cell skin cancer (SCC) and (4) pyoderma gangrenosum (PG).

Objective

To set priorities and reduce uncertainties for the treatment and prevention of skin disease in our four chosen diseases.

Design

Mixed methods including eight systematic reviews, three prioritisation exercises, two pilot randomised controlled trials (RCTs), three feasibility studies, two core outcome initiatives, four funding proposals for national RCTs and one completed national RCT.

Setting

Secondary care, primary care and the general population.

Participants

Patients (and their caregivers) with eczema, vitiligo, SCC and PG, plus health-care professionals with an interest in skin disease.

Interventions

Our three intervention studies included (1) barrier enhancement using emollients from birth to prevent eczema (pilot RCT); (2) handheld narrowband ultraviolet light B therapy for treating vitiligo (pilot RCT); and (3) oral ciclosporin (Neoral®, Novartis Pharmaceuticals) compared with oral prednisolone for managing PG (pragmatic national RCT).

Results

Systematic reviews included two overarching systematic reviews of RCTs of treatments for eczema and vitiligo, an umbrella review of systematic reviews of interventions for the prevention of eczema, two reviews of treatments for SCC (one included RCTs and the second included observational studies), and three reviews of outcome measures and outcome reporting. Three prioritisation partnership exercises identified 26 priority areas for future research in eczema, vitiligo and SCC. Two international consensus initiatives identified four core domains for future eczema trials and seven core domains for vitiligo trials. Two pilot RCTs and three feasibility studies critically informed development of four trial proposals for external funding, three of which are now funded and one is pending consideration by funders. Our pragmatic RCT tested the two commonly used systemic treatments for PG (prednisolone vs. ciclosporin) and found no difference in their clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. Both drugs showed limited benefit. Only half of the participants’ ulcers had healed by 6 months. For those with healed ulcers, recurrence was common (30%). Different side effect profiles were noted for each drug, which can inform clinical decisions on an individual patient basis. Three researchers were trained to PhD level and a dermatology patient panel was established to ensure patient involvement in all aspects of the programme.

Conclusions

Findings from this programme of work have already informed clinical guidelines and patient information resources. Feasibility studies have ensured that large national pragmatic trials will now be conducted on important areas of treatment uncertainty that address the needs of patients and the NHS. There is scope for considerable improvement in terms of trial design, conduct and reporting for RCTs of skin disease, which can be improved through wider collaboration, registration of trial protocols and complete reporting and international consensus over core outcome sets. Three national trials have now been funded as a result of this work. Two international initiatives to establish how best to measure the core outcome domains for eczema and vitiligo are ongoing.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials Barrier Enhancement for Eczema Prevention (BEEP) (ISRCTN84854178 and NCT01142999), Study of Treatments fOr Pyoderma GAngrenosum Patients (STOP GAP) (ISRCTN35898459) and Hand Held NB-UVB for Early or Focal Vitiligo at Home (HI-Light Pilot Trial) (NCT01478945).

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full inProgramme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 4, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Scoping systematic review of treatments for eczema

Background

Eczema is a very common chronic inflammatory skin condition.

Objectives

To update the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) systematic review of treatments for atopic eczema, published in 2000, and to inform health-care professionals, commissioners and patients about key treatment developments and research gaps.

Data sources

Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched from the end of 2000 to 31 August 2013. Retrieved articles were used to identify further randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Review methods

Studies were filtered according to inclusion criteria and agreed by consensus in cases of uncertainty. Abstracts were excluded and non-English-language papers were screened by international colleagues and data were extracted. Only RCTs of treatments for eczema were included, as other forms of evidence are associated with higher risks of bias. Inclusion criteria for studies included availability of data relevant to the therapeutic management of eczema; mention of randomisation; comparison of two or more treatments; and prospective data collection. Participants of all ages were included. Eczema diagnosis was determined by a clinician or according to published diagnostic criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool. We used a standardised approach to summarising the data and the assessment of risk of bias and we made a clear distinction between what the studies found and our own interpretation of study findings.

Results

Of 7198 references screened, 287 new trials were identified spanning 92 treatments. Trial reporting was generally poor (randomisation method: 2% high, 36% low, 62% unclear risk of bias; allocation concealment: 3% high, 15% low, 82% unclear risk of bias; blinding of the intervention: 15% high, 28% low, 57% unclear risk of bias). Only 22 (8%) trials were considered to be at low risk of bias for all three criteria. There was reasonable evidence of benefit for the topical medications tacrolimus, pimecrolimus and various corticosteroids (with tacrolimus superior to pimecrolimus and corticosteroids) for both treatment and flare prevention; oral ciclosporin; oral azathioprine; narrow band ultraviolet B (UVB) light; Atopiclair™ and education. There was reasonable evidence to suggest no clinically useful benefit for twice-daily compared with once-daily topical corticosteroids; corticosteroids containing antibiotics for non-infected eczema; probiotics; evening primrose and borage oil; ion-exchange water softeners; protease inhibitor SRD441 (Serentis Ltd); furfuryl palmitate in emollient; cipamfylline cream; andMycobacterium vaccaevaccine. Additional research evidence is needed for emollients, bath additives, antibacterials, specialist clothing and complementary and alternative therapies. There was no RCT evidence for topical corticosteroid dilution, impregnated bandages, soap avoidance, bathing frequency or allergy testing.

Limitations

The large scope of the review coupled with the heterogeneity of outcomes precluded formal meta-analyses. Our conclusions are still limited by a profusion of small, poorly reported studies.

Conclusions

Although the evidence base of RCTs has increased considerably since the last NIHR HTA systematic review, the field is still severely hampered by poor design and reporting problems including failure to register trials and declare primary outcomes, small sample size, short follow-up duration and poor reporting of risk of bias. Key areas for further research identified by the review include the optimum use of emollients, bathing frequency, wash products, allergy testing and antiseptic treatments. Perhaps the greatest benefit identified is the use of twice weekly anti-inflammatory treatment to maintain disease remission. More studies need to be conducted in a primary care setting where most people with eczema are seen in the UK. Future studies need to use the same core set of outcomes that capture patient symptoms, clinical signs, quality of life and the chronic nature of the disease.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Topical tacrolimus for atopic dermatitis

BACKGROUND

Atopic dermatitis (AD) (or atopic eczema) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that affects children and adults and has an important impact on quality of life. Topical corticosteroids (TCS) are the first-line therapy for this condition; however, they can be associated with significant adverse effects when used chronically. Tacrolimus ointment (in its 2 manufactured strengths of 0.1% and 0.03%) might be an alternative treatment. Tacrolimus, together with pimecrolimus, are drugs called topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of topical tacrolimus for moderate and severe atopic dermatitis compared with other active treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 3 June 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (Issue 5, 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), and the Global Resource of Eczema Trials (GREAT database). We searched six trials registers and checked the bibliographies of included studies for further references to relevant trials. We contacted specialists in the field for unpublished data.A separate search for adverse effects of topical tacrolimus was undertaken in MEDLINE and EMBASE on 30 July 2013. We also scrutinised the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) websites for adverse effects information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of participants with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (both children and adults) using topical tacrolimus at any dose, course duration, and follow-up time compared with other active treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened and examined the full text of selected studies for compliance with eligibility criteria, risk of bias, and data extraction. Our three prespecified primary outcomes were physician's assessment, participant's self-assessment of improvement, and adverse effects. Our secondary outcomes included assessment of improvement of the disease by validated or objective measures, such as SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis), the EASI (Eczema Area and Severity Index), and BSA (Body Surface Area) scores.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 studies, with 5885 participants. The variability of drug doses, outcomes, and follow-up periods made it difficult to carry out meta-analyses.A single trial showed that tacrolimus 0.1% was better than low-potency TCS by the physician's assessment (risk ratio (RR) 3.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.14 to 4.45, 1 study, n = 371, moderate-quality evidence). It was also marginally better than low-potency TCS on face and neck areas and moderate-potency TCS on the trunk and extremities by the physician's assessment (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.49, 1 study, n = 972, moderate level of evidence) and for some of the secondary outcomes. Compared with pimecrolimus 1%, people treated with tacrolimus were almost twice as likely to improve by the physician's assessment (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.42, 2 studies, n = 506, moderate quality of evidence). Compared with the lower concentration of 0.03%, the tacrolimus 0.1% formulation reduced the risk of not having an improvement by 18% as evaluated by the physician's assessment (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.92, 6 studies, n = 1640, high-quality evidence). Tacrolimus 0.1% compared with moderate-to-potent TCS showed no difference by the physician's assessment, and 2 secondary outcomes (1 study, 377 participants) and a marginal benefit favouring tacrolimus 0.1% was found by the participant's assessment (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.29, 1 study, n = 974, low quality of evidence) and SCORAD.Based on data from 2 trials, tacrolimus 0.03% was superior to mild TCS for the physician's assessment (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.96 to 3.38, 2 studies, n = 790, moderate-quality evidence) and the participant's self-assessment (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.90, 1 study, n = 416, moderate quality of evidence). One trial showed moderate benefit of tacrolimus 0.03% compared with pimecrolimus 1% on the physician's assessment (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.98, 1 study, n = 139, low-quality evidence), but the effects were equivocal when evaluating BSA. In the comparison of tacrolimus 0.03% with moderate-to-potent corticosteroids, no difference was found in most of the outcomes measured (including physician's and participant's assessment and also for the secondary outcomes), but in two studies, a marginal benefit favouring the corticosteroid group was found for the EASI and BSA scores.Burning was more frequent in those using calcineurin inhibitors than those using corticosteroid tacrolimus 0.03% (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.96 to 3.14, 5 studies, 1883 participants, high-quality evidence), but no difference was found for skin infections. Symptoms observed were mild and transient. The comparison between the two calcineurin inhibitors (pimecrolimus and tacrolimus) showed the same overall incidence of adverse events, but with a small difference in the frequency of local effects.Serious adverse events were rare; occurred in both the tacrolimus and corticosteroid groups; and in most cases, were considered to be unrelated to the treatment. No cases of lymphoma were noted in the included studies nor in the non-comparative studies. Cases were only noted in spontaneous reports, cohorts, and case-control studies. Systemic absorption was rarely detectable, only in low levels, and this decreased with time. Exception is made for diseases with severe barrier defects, such as Netherton's syndrome, lamellar ichthyosis, and a few others, with case reports of a higher absorption. We evaluated clinical trials; case reports; and in vivo, in vitro, and animal studies; and didn't find any evidence that topical tacrolimus could cause skin atrophy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tacrolimus 0.1% was better than low-potency corticosteroids, pimecrolimus 1%, and tacrolimus 0.03%. Results were equivocal when comparing both dose formulations to moderate-to-potent corticosteroids. Tacrolimus 0.03% was superior to mild corticosteroids and pimecrolimus. Both tacrolimus formulations seemed to be safe, and no evidence was found to support the possible increased risk of malignancies or skin atrophy with their use. The reliability and strength of the evidence was limited by the lack of data; thus, findings of this review should be interpreted with caution. We did not evaluate costs.

Validation of the global resource of eczema trials (GREAT database)

Background

Eczema (syn. Atopic Eczema or Atopic Dermatitis) is a chronic, relapsing, itchy skin condition which probably results from a combination of genetic and environmental factors. The Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT) is a collection of records of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for eczema treatment produced from a highly sensitive search of six reference databases. We sought to assess the sensitivity of the GREAT database as a tool to save future researchers repeating extensive bibliographic searches.

Methods

All Cochrane systematic review on treatments for eczema and five non-Cochrane systematic reviews on eczema were identified as a reference set to assess the utility of the GREAT database in identifying randomised controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs included in the systematic reviews were checked for inclusion in the GREAT database by two independent authors. A third author resolved any disagreements.

Results

Five Cochrane and six non-Cochrane systematic reviews containing a total of 105 RCTs of eczema treatments were included. Of these, 95 fitted the inclusion criteria for the GREAT database and 88 were published from 2000 onwards. Of the 88 eligible studies, 92% were found in the GREAT database. Seven trials were not included in the GREAT database - two of these were reported within a review paper and one as an abstract with no trial results.

Conclusions

The sensitivity of the GREAT database for trials from 2000 onwards was high (75/88 trials, 94%). Sensitivity for the period prior to 2000 was less sensitive, due to differences in how the trials were identified prior to this time.

‘Dual’ filtering for new records has recently become part of the GREAT database methodology and should further improve the sensitivity of the database in time. The GREAT database can be considered as a primary source for future systematic reviews including randomised controlled trials of eczema treatments, but searches should be supplemented by checking reference lists for eligible trials, searching trial registries and contacting pharmaceutical companies for unpublished studies.

Pimecrolimus cream 1% in the management of atopic dermatitis in pediatric patients: a meta-analysis

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pimecrolimus cream 1% in the treatment of AD in the pediatric population.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane library databases were searched till July 2013. The randomized and nonrandomized blinded studies of pimecrolimus cream 1% applied twice daily with Jaded score ≥3 in pediatric patients with AD were included. The efficacy outcomes included investigator global assessment (IGA), eczema area and severity index (EASI) scores, pruritus and care giver's assessments and flares free period. Adverse events were reviewed to assess the safety.

Results

Out of 81 studies, 7 were selected that enrolled 2,170 pediatric patients. The pooled analysis reported that pimecrolimus was no better to vehicle reducing eczema at day-8, day-26 and six weeks (OR 4.95, 95% CI 2.79–8.80), (OR 9.69, 95% CI 4.12–22.83) and (OR 3.83. 95% CI 1.94–7.56), respectively in children. Similarly, pimecrolimus did not show beneficial effects when analyzed for mild or absent pruritus at day 4 (OR 8.29, 95% CI 3.88–17.72 favoring vehicle), day 43 (OR 1.81 95% CI 1.13–2.89 favoring vehicle) and 1 week (OR 2.29, 95%CI 1.45 to 3.60 favoring vehicle) as compared with vehicle. One study comparing pimecrolimus with tacrolimus found no significant difference in achieving mild or absent pruritus (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.44–1.99). More patients showed an improvement in overall disease in vehicle group at day 8 (OR 3.30, 95% CI 2.03–5.35), day 29 (OR 14.14, 95% CI 6.87–29.13) and day 43 (OR 4.11, 95% CI 2.59–6.52) as compared with pimecrolimus 1% group, as assessed by caregivers. No significant difference was seen between the total AEs in both groups (pimecrolimus vs vehicle/tacrolimus) (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.85, 1.65)

Conclusion

The results of the present meta-analysis showed that pimecrolimus cream 1% was not significantly better to vehicle for AD in pediatrics population.