Effects of topical corticosteroid versus tacrolimus on insulin sensitivity and bone homeostasis in adults with atopic dermatitis-A randomized controlled study

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.

Skin and systemic inflammation in adults with atopic dermatitis before and after whole-body topical betamethasone 17-valerate 0.1% or tacrolimus 0.1% treatment: A randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is mainly driven by type 2 inflammation and often treated with topical agents. Studies comparing differences in biomarkers between these treatments are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of topical betamethasone 17-valerate 0.1% and tacrolimus 0.1% ointment on skin barrier function and inflammatory biomarkers in skin and blood in adults with AD.

METHODS

In this randomized parallel-group double-blind double-dummy active-comparator study design, 36 adults with AD were treated with either whole-body topical corticosteroid (betamethasone ointment 0.1% plus placebo once daily, n = 18) or calcineurin inhibitor (tacrolimus ointment 0.1% twice daily, n = 18). At baseline, after 2 weeks of daily treatment and after further 4 weeks of twice-weekly maintenance treatment, we evaluated AD severity, levels of natural moisturizing factor (NMF) and cytokines in the skin and blood and characterized circulating T cells.

RESULTS

Mean AD severity at baseline corresponded to moderate disease and decreased significantly in both groups. Levels of NMF increased significantly in the tacrolimus group after 2 weeks of treatment (p = 0.002) and tended to increase more than betamethasone at week 6 (p = 0.06). Most skin cytokines decreased with both treatments. However, IL-8, IL-18, IL-22, IP-10, MDC, MMP-9 and TARC were significantly more decreased with betamethasone than tacrolimus after 2 weeks, while after 6 weeks this was only the case for IL-8 and MMP-9. Approximate half of the systemic cytokines decreased significantly with both treatments, but betamethasone decreased MDC significantly more after 2 weeks of treatment. T-cell characterization analyses indicated slight differences in the expression and activation of T cells between groups.

CONCLUSION

Topical treatment of AD with betamethasone and tacrolimus ointment effectively reduced disease severity, cutaneous and systemic inflammatory markers. Betamethasone was more effective in decreasing inflammation, but tacrolimus improved skin hydration (NMF levels) more than betamethasone.

Interplay between diabetes mellitus and atopic dermatitis

Inflammatory dermatoses such as atopic dermatitis (AD) have long been linked to the pathogenesis of diabetes mellitus. Indeed, numerous studies show an increased risk of diabetes mellitus in individuals with AD although lower prevalence of diabetes mellitus is also observed in few studies. Though the underlying mechanisms accounting for the reciprocal influence between these two conditions are still unclear, the complex interplay between diabetes mellitus and AD is attributable, in part, to genetic and environmental factors, cytokines, epidermal dysfunction, as well as drugs used for the treatment of AD. Proper management of one condition can mitigate the other condition. In this review, we summarize the evidence of the interaction between diabetes mellitus and AD, and discuss the possible underlying mechanisms by which these two conditions influence each other.

Inflammation in diabetes complications: molecular mechanisms and therapeutic interventions

At present, diabetes mellitus (DM) has been one of the most endangering healthy diseases. Current therapies contain controlling high blood sugar, reducing risk factors like obesity, hypertension, and so on; however, DM patients inevitably and eventually progress into different types of diabetes complications, resulting in poor quality of life. Unfortunately, the clear etiology and pathogenesis of diabetes complications have not been elucidated owing to intricate whole-body systems. The immune system was responsible to regulate homeostasis by triggering or resolving inflammatory response, indicating it may be necessary to diabetes complications. In fact, previous studies have been shown inflammation plays multifunctional roles in the pathogenesis of diabetes complications and is attracting attention to be the meaningful therapeutic strategy. To this end, this review systematically concluded the current studies over the relationships of susceptible diabetes complications (e.g., diabetic cardiomyopathy, diabetic retinopathy, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, and diabetic nephropathy) and inflammation, ranging from immune cell response, cytokines interaction to pathomechanism of organ injury. Besides, we also summarized various therapeutic strategies to improve diabetes complications by target inflammation from special remedies to conventional lifestyle changes. This review will offer a panoramic insight into the mechanisms of diabetes complications from an inflammatory perspective and also discuss contemporary clinical interventions.

Improvement in Cutaneous Conditions Can Benefit Some Health Conditions in the Elderly

As we are aging, a number of cutaneous and extracutaneous disorders will be developed. Although the pathogenesis of these aging-associated disorders is not clear yet, abnormalities in the skin are linked to some aging-associated disorders at least to some extent. Inflammatory dermatoses such as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis predispose to the development of cardiovascular diseases, obesity and type 2 diabetes. In addition, both chronologically aged skin and individuals with some aging-associated systemic conditions display altered epidermal function, such as reduced stratum corneum hydration levels, which can provoke cutaneous inflammation. Because aged skin exhibits higher expression levels of inflammatory cytokines, which play a pathogenic role in a variety of aging-associated health condition, the association of the skin with some aging-associated disorders is likely mediated by inflammation. This postulation is supported by the evidence that improvement in either epidermal function or inflammatory dermatoses can mitigate some aging-associated disorders such as mild cognitive impairment and insulin sensitivity. This perspective discusses the association of the skin with aging-associated disorders and highlights the potential of improvement in cutaneous conditions in the management of some health conditions in the elderly.

Risk and management of osteoporosis due to inhaled, epidural, intra-articular or topical glucocorticoids

Glucocorticoids (GCs) are widely used by several specialties for the treatment of a variety of diseases and conditions. The unfavorable effect of oral GCs on bone health is well-documented. The ensuing from their use glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) is the most common cause of medication-induced osteoporosis and fractures. It is uncertain, however, if, and in what extent, GCs administered by other routes affect the skeleton. In the present review, we quote current evidence on the effect of inhaled GCs, epidural and intra-articular steroid injections, and topical GCs on bone outcomes. Although evidence is limited and weak, it seems that a small proportion of the administered GCs may be absorbed, enter the systemic circulation, and adversely affect the skeleton. Potent GCs, higher doses, and longer treatment duration seem to infer the greater risk for bone loss and fractures. There are scarce data, and only for inhaled GCs, regarding the efficacy of antiosteoporotic medications in patients receiving GCs through routes other than oral. Further studies are needed to clarify the relationship between GC administration through these routes and bone outcomes and to help establishing guidelines for the optimal management of such patients.