The addition of topical doxepin to corticosteroid therapy: an improved treatment regimen for atopic dermatitis

Topical anti-inflammatory treatments for eczema: network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Eczema (atopic dermatitis) is the most burdensome skin condition worldwide and cannot currently be prevented or cured. Topical anti-inflammatory treatments are used to control eczema symptoms, but there is uncertainty about the relative effectiveness and safety of different topical anti-inflammatory treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To compare and rank the efficacy and safety of topical anti-inflammatory treatments for people with eczema using a network meta-analysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and trial registries on 29 June 2023, and checked the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included within-participant or between-participant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people of any age with eczema of any severity, but excluded trials in clinically infected eczema, seborrhoeic eczema, contact eczema, or hand eczema. We included topical anti-inflammatory treatments used for at least one week, compared with another anti-inflammatory treatment, no treatment, or vehicle/placebo. Vehicle is a 'carrier system' for an active pharmaceutical substance, which may also be used on its own as an emollient for dry skin. We excluded trials of topical antibiotics used alone, complementary therapies, emollients used alone, phototherapy, wet wraps, and systemic treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were patient-reported eczema symptoms, clinician-reported eczema signs and investigator global assessment. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, long-term control of eczema, withdrawal from treatment/study, and local adverse effects (application-site reactions, pigmentation changes and skin thinning/atrophy were identified as important concerns through patient and public involvement). We used CINeMA to quantify our confidence in the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 291 studies involving 45,846 participants with the full spectrum of eczema severity, mainly conducted in high-income countries in secondary care settings. Most studies included adults, with only 31 studies limited to children aged < 12 years. Studies usually included male and female participants, multiple ethnic groups but predominantly white populations. Most studies were industry-funded (68%) or did not report their funding sources/details. Treatment duration and trial participation were a median of 21 and 28 days (ranging from 7 days to 5 years), respectively. Interventions used were topical corticosteroids (TCS) (172), topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI) (134), phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitors (55), janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (30), aryl hydrocarbon receptor activators (10), or other topical agents (21). Comparators included vehicle (170) or other anti-inflammatory treatments. The risk of bias was high in 242 of the 272 (89.0%) trials contributing to data analyses, most commonly due to concerns about selective reporting. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was only possible for short-term outcomes. Patient-reported symptoms NMA of 40 trials (6482 participants) reporting patient-reported symptoms as a binary outcome ranked tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 6.27, 95% CI 1.19 to 32.98), potent TCS (OR 5.99, 95% CI 2.83 to 12.69), and ruxolitinib 1.5% (OR 5.64, 95% CI 1.26 to 25.25) as the most effective, all with low confidence. Mild TCS, roflumilast 0.15%, and crisaborole 2% were the least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and was more effective than mild TCI and PDE-4 inhibitors. NMA of 29 trials (3839 participants) reporting patient-reported symptoms as a continuous outcome ranked very potent TCS (SMD -1.99, 95% CI -3.25 to -0.73; low confidence) and tacrolimus 0.03% (SMD -1.57, 95% CI -2.42 to -0.72; moderate confidence) the highest. Direct information for tacrolimus 0.03% was based on one trial of 60 participants at high risk of bias. Roflumilast 0.15%, delgocitinib 0.25% or 0.5%, and tapinarof 1% were the least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and JAK inhibitors and mild/moderate TCS was less effective than mild TCI. A further 50 trials (9636 participants) reported patient-reported symptoms as a continuous outcome but could not be included in NMA. Clinician-reported signs NMA of 32 trials (4121 participants) reported clinician signs as a binary outcome and ranked potent TCS (OR 8.15, 95% CI 4.99, 13.57), tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 8.06, 95% CI 3.30, 19.67), ruxolitinib 1.5% (OR 7.72, 95% CI 4.92, 12.10), and delgocitinib 0.5% (OR 7.61, 95% CI 3.72, 15.58) as most effective, all with moderate confidence. Mild TCS, roflumilast 0.15%, crisaborole 2%, and tapinarof 1% were the least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS more effective than potent TCI, mild TCI, JAK inhibitors, PDE-4 inhibitors; and mild TCS and PDE-4 inhibitors had similar effectiveness. NMA of 49 trials (5261 participants) reported clinician signs as a continuous outcome and ranked tacrolimus 0.03% (SMD -2.69, 95% CI -3.36, -2.02) and very potent TCS (SMD -1.87, 95% CI -2.69, -1.05) as most effective, both with moderate confidence; roflumilast 0.15%, difamilast 0.3% and tapinarof 1% were ranked as least effective. Direct information for tacrolimus 0.03% was based on one trial in 60 participants with a high risk of bias. For some sensitivity analyses, potent TCS, tacrolimus 0.1%, ruxolitinib 1.5%, delgocitinib 0.5% and delgocitinib 0.25% became some of the most effective treatments. Class-level analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and JAK inhibitors, and moderate/mild TCS was more effective than mild TCI. A further 100 trials (22,814 participants) reported clinician signs as a continuous outcome but could not be included in NMA. Investigator Global Assessment NMA of 140 trials (23,383 participants) reported IGA as a binary outcome and ranked ruxolitinib 1.5% (OR 9.34, 95% CI 4.8, 18.18), delgocitinib 0.5% (OR 10.08, 95% CI 2.65, 38.37), delgocitinib 0.25% (OR 6.87, 95% CI 1.79, 26.33), very potent TCS (OR 8.34, 95% CI 4.73, 14.67), potent TCS (OR 5.00, 95% CI 3.80, 6.58), and tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 5.06, 95% CI 3.59, 7.13) as most effective, all with moderate confidence. Mild TCS, crisaborole 2%, pimecrolimus 1%, roflumilast 0.15%, difamilast 0.3% and 1%, and tacrolimus 0.03% were the least effective. In a sensitivity analysis of low risk of bias information (12 trials, 1639 participants), potent TCS, delgocitinib 0.5% and delgocitinib 0.25% were most effective, and pimecrolimus 1%, roflumilast 0.15%, difamilast 1% and difamilast 0.3% least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and JAK inhibitors and were more effective than PDE-4 inhibitors; mild/moderate TCS were less effective than potent TCI and had similar effectiveness to mild TCI. Longer-term outcomes over 6 to 12 months showed a possible increase in effectiveness for pimecrolimus 1% versus vehicle (4 trials, 2218 participants) in a pairwise meta-analysis, and greater treatment success with mild/moderate TCS than pimecrolimus 1% (based on 1 trial of 2045 participants). Local adverse effects NMA of 83 trials (18,992 participants, 2424 events) reporting application-site reactions ranked tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.53, 3.17; moderate confidence), crisaborole 2% (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.18, 3.81; high confidence), tacrolimus 0.03% (OR 1.51, 95%CI 1.10, 2.09; low confidence), and pimecrolimus 1% (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.01, 2.04; low confidence) as most likely to cause site reactions. Very potent, potent, moderate, and mild TCS were least likely to cause site reactions. NMA of eight trials (1786 participants, 3 events) reporting pigmentation changes found no evidence for increased pigmentation changes with TCS and crisaborole 2%, with low confidence for mild, moderate or potent TCS and moderate confidence for crisaborole 2%. NMA of 25 trials (3691 participants, 36 events) reporting skin thinning found no evidence for increased skin thinning with short-term (median 3 weeks, range 1-16 weeks) use of mild TCS (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.12, 4.31), moderate TCS (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.16, 5.33), potent TCS (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.21, 4.43) or very potent TCS (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.31, 2.49), all with low confidence. Longer-term outcomes over 6 to 60 months showed increased skin thinning with mild to potent TCS versus TCI (3 trials, 4069 participants, 6 events with TCS).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Potent TCS, JAK inhibitors and tacrolimus 0.1% were consistently ranked as amongst the most effective topical anti-inflammatory treatments for eczema and PDE-4 inhibitors as amongst the least effective. Mild TCS and tapinarof 1% were ranked amongst the least effective treatments in three of five efficacy networks. TCI and crisaborole 2% were ranked most likely to cause local application-site reactions and TCS least likely. We found no evidence for increased skin thinning with short-term TCS but an increase with longer-term TCS.

Topical Treatments in Atopic Dermatitis: An Expansive Review

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common inflammatory skin condition found worldwide. It impacts patient quality of life (QoL) and is thought to arise as an inflammatory response to epidermal barrier dysfunction and hypersensitivity. AD can lead to large out-of-pocket costs and increased healthcare expenses over a lifetime. An analysis of all randomized control trials conducted since 1990 on topical therapies for AD were reviewed, including 207 trials in the final analysis. It was found that an average of 226 patients were enrolled over 2.43 arms. Common topical treatments included corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, and phosphodiesterase inhibitors. The most utilized tools to identify treatment efficacy were the EASI, IGA, SCORAD, and PGA. There was a paucity of data on trials that evaluated efficacy, QoL, and cost of treatment simultaneously. This review highlights the need for comprehensive trials that evaluate multiple aspects of treatment, including financial cost and QoL impact, to ensure each patient has the best treatment modality for the management of their AD.

Atopic Dermatitis: Managing the Itch

Atopic dermatitis has a substantial impact on sleep, appearance, psychological well-being, and other qualities of life. The visual appearance of lichenification, cheilitis, hyperpigmentation, ichthyosis, and erythema can be socially stigmatizing, and treatment of these symptoms is challenging. In managing pruritus in patients, practitioners should assess and document pruritus through questionnaires at each routine visit. Initially, practitioners should advise patients to employ nonpharmaceutical treatments such as emollients with wet wraps, elimination of triggers, changing scratching habits, and psychological interventions. If these methods of treatment are not successful or if the disease presentation is severe, pharmacological therapies should be employed. This chapter describes the therapeutic ladder for pruritus in atopic dermatitis and discusses each treatment modality in further detail for practitioners to advise their patients.First-line topical pharmaceutical agents include topical glucocorticoids and topical calcineurin inhibitors. Second-line topical agents include coal tar, menthol, capsaicin, or doxepin. After the use of topical agents has been exhausted, primary systemic agents can be applied. These include sedating antihistamines, nonsedating antihistamines, oral glucocorticoids, or cyclosporine A. Finally, neuromodulating or immunomodulating agents can be attempted, including SSRI/SNRIs, TCAs, immunosuppressants, neural modulators, and opioid receptor modulators. Outside of pharmacological treatments, phototherapy has been shown to provide a dramatic improvement of pruritus in atopic dermatitis and can be used at any stage of treatment including as a first-line agent.

Topical treatments for atopic dermatitis (eczema): Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin condition with multiple topical treatment options, but uncertain comparative effects.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD prescription topical treatments.

METHODS

For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, ICTRP, and GREAT databases to September 5, 2022, for randomized trials addressing AD topical treatments. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. We classified topical corticosteroids (TCS) using 7 groups-group 1 being most potent. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/q5m6s).

RESULTS

The 219 included trials (43,123 patients) evaluated 68 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, pimecrolimus improved 6 of 7 outcomes-among the best for 2; high-dose tacrolimus (0.1%) improved 5-among the best for 2; low-dose tacrolimus (0.03%) improved 5-among the best for 1. With moderate- to high-certainty evidence, group 5 TCS improved 6-among the best for 3; group 4 TCS and delgocitinib improved 4-among the best for 2; ruxolitinib improved 4-among the best for 1; group 1 TCS improved 3-among the best for 2. These interventions did not increase harm. Crisaborole and difamilast were intermediately effective, but with uncertain harm. Topical antibiotics alone or in combination may be among the least effective. To maintain AD control, group 5 TCS were among the most effective, followed by tacrolimus and pimecrolimus.

CONCLUSIONS

For individuals with AD, pimecrolimus, tacrolimus, and moderate-potency TCS are among the most effective in improving and maintaining multiple AD outcomes. Topical antibiotics may be among the least effective.

Expression and function of histamine and its receptors in atopic dermatitis

Background

Atopic dermatitis constitutes a most burdensome chronic inflammatory skin disease. Standard treatment is cumbersome and often targets its main symptom, pruritus, only insufficiently.

Findings

Recent advances in our understanding of the role of histamine and its four receptors suggest new approaches which target the histamine receptors alone or as combination therapies to more efficiently combat pruritus and inflammation in atopic dermatitis.

Conclusions

With this review, we provide an overview on histamine and the expression of its four receptors on skin resident and nonresident cells. Furthermore, we summarize recent studies which suggest anti-histamine therapy to efficiently combat pruritus and inflammation in atopic dermatitis and discuss possible approaches to incorporate these findings into more effective treatment strategies for atopic dermatitis in childhood.

Histamine and Skin Barrier: Are Histamine Antagonists Useful for the Prevention or Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis?

Atopic Dermatitis (AD), the most common chronic inflammatory skin disease, is characterized by an overactive immune response to a host of environmental allergens and dry, itchy skin. Over the past decade important discoveries have demonstrated that AD develops in part from genetic and/or acquired defects in the skin barrier. Histamine is an aminergic neurotransmitter involved in physiologic and pathologic processes such as pruritus, inflammation, and vascular leak. Enhanced histamine release has been observed in the skin of patients with AD and antihistamines are often prescribed for their sedating and anti-itch properties. Recent evidence suggests that histamine also inhibits the terminal differentiation of keratinocytes and impairs the skin barrier, raising the question whether histamine might play a role in AD barrier impairment. This, coupled with the notion that histamine’s effects mediated through the recently identified histamine receptor H4R, may be important in allergic inflammation, has renewed interest in this mediator in allergic diseases. In this paper we summarize the current knowledge on histamine and histamine receptor antagonists in AD and skin barrier function.

Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 2. Management and treatment of atopic dermatitis with topical therapies

Atopic dermatitis is a common and chronic, pruritic inflammatory skin condition that can affect all age groups. This evidence-based guideline addresses important clinical questions that arise in its management. In this second of 4 sections, treatment of atopic dermatitis with nonpharmacologic interventions and pharmacologic topical therapies are reviewed. Where possible, suggestions on dosing and monitoring are given based on available evidence.

Management of itch in atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis is a common, pruritic, inflammatory skin disorder. Chronic, localized, or even generalized pruritus is the diagnostic hallmark of atopic dermatitis, and its management remains a challenge for physicians. The threshold for itch and alloknesis is markedly reduced in these patients, and infections can promote exacerbation and thereby increase the itch. Modern management consists of anti-inflammatory, occasionally antiseptic, as well as antipruritic therapies to address the epidermal barrier as well as immunomodulation or infection. Mild forms of atopic dermatitis may be controlled with topical therapies, but moderate-to-severe forms often require a combination of systemic treatments consisting of antipruritic and immunosuppressive drugs, phototherapy, and topical compounds. In addition, patient education and a therapeutic regimen to help the patient cope with the itch and eczema are important adjuvant strategies for optimized long-term management. This review highlights various topical, systemic, and complementary and alternative therapies, as well as provide a therapeutic ladder for optimized long-term control of itch in atopic dermatitis.

Novel therapeutic usage of low-dose doxepin hydrochloride

Low-dose doxepin hydrochloride (1, 3 and 6 mg) is a tricyclic antidepressant currently being investigated for the treatment of primary insomnia in adult and geriatric patients. Although it has been used at much higher doses to treat depression effectively for a number of decades, it offers a unique potency and selectivity for antagonizing the H1 (histamine) receptor at low doses. This mechanism of action may prove to be advantageous compared with other medications currently approved for the treatment of insomnia. This article reviews previous clinical studies using doxepin for insomnia and the recent clinical trial data, and briefly discusses other potential roles of this compound in clinical practice.

A systematic review of the safety of topical therapies for atopic dermatitis

BACKGROUND

The safety of topical therapies for atopic dermatitis (AD), a common and morbid disease, has recently been the focus of increased scrutiny, adding confusion as how best to manage these patients.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of these systematic reviews was to determine the safety of topical therapies for AD.

METHODS

Databases searched included: OVID Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. In addition to the articles identified by this search, investigators were also referred to a list of links (most recently updated 25 September 2005) to recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) studies, reports and meetings regarding the topical calcineurin inhibitors for further potential references. Only fully published papers available in English and data obtained from FDA sites were included. Furthermore, the criteria for inclusion and exclusion for each systematic review were further evaluated at a meeting of all of the content and evidence-based medicine experts participating in this process and alteration of the inclusion criteria was done at that time when it was felt necessary to avoid inclusion of lower-quality data in the review. Qualitative review of the abstracted data was performed and reviewed at a meeting of all of the content and evidence-based medicine experts.

RESULTS

While systemic exposure to these topical agents does occur, physiological changes appear to be uncommon and systemic complications rare and have only been found with use of topical corticosteroids.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the data that are available the overall safety of AD therapies appears to be good with the only documented systemic side-effects of therapy those occasionally seen with use of topical corticosteroids.

Measuring atopic dermatitis severity in randomized controlled clinical trials: what exactly are we measuring?

Well-designed clinical trials are a fundamental aspect of evidence-based medicine. Such trials are dependent on the use of valid, reliable, and relevant outcome measures. Wide variation in outcome methodology can have important detrimental effects on the correct interpretation and comparison of results. The objective of this study was to describe the variation in outcome methodology in randomized controlled trials of therapeutic interventions for atopic dermatitis published between January 1994 and December 2001. Of the 93 eligible randomized controlled trials identified using a systematic electronic database search strategy, 85 (91%) incorporated an objective measurement of clinical signs. Only 23 (27%) of these trials used a published severity scale, however. The remainder used either modified versions of published scales (14%) or unnamed scales with no data on validity or reliability (59%), although unpublished scales were used significantly less frequently over the last 2 y compared to previously (21%vs 74%, p<0.01). There was lack of consensus on which clinical features best reflect disease severity, with 31 different descriptions of clinical signs being used across all scoring systems. Fifty-six different "objective" clinical scales were identified. Patient symptoms were recorded in 80 trials (86%) and disease extent in 62 trials (67%). Quality of life was measured in only three trials (3%). This wide variation in outcome methodology is hindering evidence-based practice, and the widespread use of unvalidated outcome measures is a potential source of bias and inaccuracy. More emphasis should be placed on measuring things that are important to patients such as symptoms and quality of life.

Oral topical doxepin rinse: analgesic effect in patients with oral mucosal pain due to cancer or cancer therapy

Oral mucositis is a treatment limiting toxicity of cancer therapy. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of doxepin oral rinse in the management of oral mucosal pain in cancer patients. Forty-one cancer patients with oral mucosal pain were provided a solution of doxepin (0.5%) for oral rinsing. Oral pain was assessed prior to rinsing, and following rinsing for 4 h using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Adverse effects were recorded. Doxepin rinse resulted in a reduction of pain intensity of more than 50%, with pain relief extending for more than 3 h with pain not returning to baseline 4 h after rinsing. The rinse was tolerated by patients with mucosal damage, and had acceptable taste, and infrequent mucosal stinging with use. Some patients reported sedation after use, likely due to systemic absorption. The results of this single dose trial suggest that topical doxepin rinse has significant ability to provide clinically significant pain relief in patients with mucosal damage with an extended duration of effect.