Atopic dermatitis (eczema) guidelines: 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters GRADE- and Institute of Medicine-based recommendations

BACKGROUND

Guidance addressing atopic dermatitis (AD) management, last issued in 2012 by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force, requires updating as a result of new treatments and improved guideline and evidence synthesis methodology.

OBJECTIVE

To produce evidence-based guidelines that support patients, clinicians, and other decision-makers in the optimal treatment of AD.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary guideline panel consisting of patients and caregivers, AD experts (dermatology and allergy/immunology), primary care practitioners (family medicine, pediatrics, internal medicine), and allied health professionals (psychology, pharmacy, nursing) convened, prioritized equity, diversity, and inclusiveness, and implemented management strategies to minimize influence of conflicts of interest. The Evidence in Allergy Group supported guideline development by performing systematic evidence reviews, facilitating guideline processes, and holding focus groups with patient and family partners. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. Evidence-to-decision frameworks, subjected to public comment, translated evidence to recommendations using trustworthy guideline principles.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 25 recommendations to gain and maintain control of AD for patients with mild, moderate, and severe AD. The eAppendix provides practical information and implementation considerations in 1-2 page patient-friendly handouts.

CONCLUSION

These evidence-based recommendations address optimal use of (1) topical treatments (barrier moisturization devices, corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, PDE4 inhibitors [crisaborole], topical JAK inhibitors, occlusive [wet wrap] therapy, adjunctive antimicrobials, application frequency, maintenance therapy), (2) dilute bleach baths, (3) dietary avoidance/elimination, (4) allergen immunotherapy, and (5) systemic treatments (biologics/monoclonal antibodies, small molecule immunosuppressants [cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate, JAK inhibitors], and systemic corticosteroids) and UV phototherapy (light therapy).

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2022: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes an additional 12 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 179, and randomised participants to 62,339, 67.1% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.6 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (56%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (152) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (65/179) had high risk of bias, 24 unclear risk, and most (90) low risk. Most studies (138/179) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 49.16, 95% CI 20.49 to 117.95), bimekizumab (RR 27.86, 95% CI 23.56 to 32.94), ixekizumab (RR 27.35, 95% CI 23.15 to 32.29), risankizumab (RR 26.16, 95% CI 22.03 to 31.07). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab and ixekizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than secukinumab. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than brodalumab and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab), and anti-IL23 drugs except tildrakizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than ustekinumab, three anti-TNF alpha agents, and deucravacitinib. Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab. Adalimumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with very low- to moderate-certainty evidence for all the comparisons. The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.6 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was very low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Interaction of coenzyme Q10 with the intestinal drug transporter P-glycoprotein

In clinical trials, patients usually take many kinds of drugs at the same time. Thus, drug-drug interactions can often directly affect the therapeutic safety and efficacy of many drugs. Oral delivery is the most desirable means of drug administration. Changes in the activity of drug transporters may substantially influence the absorption of administered drugs from the intestine. However, there have been a few studies on food-drug interactions involving transporters. It is important to be aware of the potential of food-drug interactions and to act in order to prevent undesirable and harmful clinical consequences. Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) is very widely consumed by humans as a food supplement because of its recognition by the public as an important nutrient in supporting human health. Since intestinal efflux transporter P-glycoprotein (P-gp) is one of the major factors in drug-drug interactions, we focused on this transporter. We report here for the first time that CoQ10, which is widely used as a food supplement, affects the transport activity of P-gp.

Cyclosporin trough levels: is monitoring necessary during short-term treatment in psoriasis? A systematic review and clinical data on trough levels

BACKGROUND

Cyclosporin is an effective treatment for severe plaque psoriasis. Unfortunately, its use may be limited by time- and dose-related nephrotoxicity. Serum trough levels may be useful for monitoring the risk of nephrotoxicity.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether monitoring of trough levels is necessary in psoriasis patients undergoing short-term treatment with cyclosporin.

METHODS

A computerized and manual literature search identified studies on adults with plaque-type psoriasis treated with cyclosporin < or = 5 mg kg-1 daily, in which trough levels were measured in whole blood. Number of patients, treatment duration, formulation and dosage, renal function tests and trough levels were extracted. The association between renal function and trough levels was investigated. Additionally, in a randomized controlled trial on cyclosporin vs. methotrexate in moderate to severe psoriasis, cyclosporin trough levels were measured frequently in 20 patients during 12 weeks of treatment. The Pearson correlation coefficient between serum creatinine and cyclosporin trough levels was calculated.

RESULTS

Fifty-six articles were found concerning cyclosporin trough level measurements in psoriasis patients, of which eight were analysed. Many studies were excluded due to inappropriate cyclosporin dosages used. As data were heterogeneous and lacked various key parameters, a correlation study and a meta-analysis could not be performed. Instead, a quantitative description of the literature was given. No high mean trough levels or elevations of serum creatinine were described. In our clinical study, all the mean trough levels in 17 patients treated with cyclosporin 3 mg kg-1 daily were within the therapeutic range (< 200 ng mL-1). Elevated trough levels were found in two of three patients treated with cyclosporin 3-5 mg kg-1 daily. No signs of renal dysfunction were seen.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature does not provide a definitive answer on whether monitoring cyclosporin trough levels in patients with psoriasis should be standard practice. Our own data show no need for cyclosporin trough level monitoring during short-term treatment with cyclosporin 3 mg kg-1 daily. However, when cyclosporin doses are > 3 mg kg-1 daily, monitoring may be indicated.

Impact of cyclosporin A pharmacokinetics on the presence of side effects in pediatric renal transplantation

Cyclosporin A (CsA) is a potent immunosuppressant that has many side effects, including hypertrichosis, gingival hyperplasia, and tremor. To evaluate whether there is a relationship between the CsA-pharmacokinetics (PK) and these side effects, their presence and intensity were observed in 46 renal transplanted children/adolescents during two regular visits, and the occurrence of the side effects was correlated with CsA-PK. CsA doses had been unchanged for at least 6 mo. CsA blood concentrations were measured at time 0, and 1, 2, and 4 h after the CsA morning dose. An abbreviated area under the curve (AUC) was calculated using C0, C2, and C4. Hypertrichosis positively correlated with C2, C4, Cmax, and AUC. An AUC > or = 4158 ng/ml per h was the best predictor for the presence of hypertrichosis. Tremor was also positively correlated with C2, Cmax, and AUC. A Cmax > or = 878 ng/ml was the best predictor for the appearance of tremor. These values of Cmax and AUC are within the therapeutic range of CsA as demonstrated by the studies of calcineurin inhibition by CsA. Gingival hyperplasia was not associated with any of the CsA-PK studied parameters. However, it was associated with the concomitant use of nifedipine. These data show that there is a correlation between the CsA side effects and its pharmacokinetics and that it is possible to decrease the incidence and intensity of such side effects by monitoring the CsA-PK parameters, providing they are under or at the proposed cutoff levels. Nifedipine should also be avoided to reduce the presence of gingival hyperplasia.