Efficacy of topical tacrolimus for the treatment of persistent pruritus ani in patients with atopic dermatitis

The Role of Topical Tacrolimus in the Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Comprehensive Review

Management of ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, the main subtypes of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), focuses on the induction and maintenance of remission. Tacrolimus, a member of a group of drugs termed calcineurin inhibitors, may have a role in the medical management of IBD when given either systemically or topically. This review aimed to evaluate the available data focusing on the use of topical tacrolimus in the management of IBD. Reports of the use of topical tacrolimus in IBD were extracted from databases up to 31 May 2024. Topical tacrolimus therapy appears to have reasonable efficacy in the induction and maintenance of remission in patients with refractory IBD, with an acceptable safety profile. Overall, the available data are supportive of the use of topical tacrolimus in selected patients. Further comparative clinical studies are required to more fully delineate the role of this drug.

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.

A systematic review of 454 randomized controlled trials using the Dermatology Life Quality Index: experience in 69 diseases and 43 countries

BACKGROUND

Over 29 years of clinical application, the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) has remained the most used patient-reported outcome (PRO) in dermatology due to its robustness, simplicity and ease of use.

OBJECTIVES

To generate further evidence of the DLQI's utility in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to cover all diseases and interventions.

METHODS

The methodology followed PRISMA guidelines and included seven bibliographical databases, searching articles published from 1 January 1994 until 16 November 2021. Articles were reviewed independently by two assessors, and an adjudicator resolved any opinion differences.

RESULTS

Of 3220 screened publications, 454 articles meeting the eligibility criteria for inclusion, describing research on 198 190 patients, were analysed. DLQI scores were primary endpoints in 24 (5.3%) of studies. Most studies were of psoriasis (54.1%), although 69 different diseases were studied. Most study drugs were systemic (85.1%), with biologics comprising 55.9% of all pharmacological interventions. Topical treatments comprised 17.0% of total pharmacological interventions. Nonpharmacological interventions, mainly laser therapy and ultraviolet radiation treatment, comprised 12.2% of the total number of interventions. The majority of studies (63.7%) were multicentric, with trials conducted in at least 42 different countries; 40.2% were conducted in multiple countries. The minimal clinically importance difference (MCID) was reported in the analysis of 15.0% of studies, but only 1.3% considered full score meaning banding of the DLQI. Forty-seven (10.4%) of the studies investigated statistical correlation of the DLQI with clinical severity assessment or other PRO/quality of life tools; and 61-86% of studies had within-group scores differences greater than the MCID in 'active treatment arms'. The Jadad risk-of-bias scale showed that bias was generally low, as 91.8% of the studies had Jadad scores of ≥ 3; only 0.4% of studies showed a high risk of bias from randomization. Thirteen per cent had a high risk of bias from blinding and 10.1% had a high risk of bias from unknown outcomes of all participants in the studies. In 18.5% of the studies the authors declared that they followed an intention-to-treat protocol; imputation for missing DLQI data was used in 34.4% of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review provides a wealth of evidence of the use of the DLQI in clinical trials to inform researchers' and -clinicians' decisions for its further use. Recommendations are also made for improving the reporting of data from future RCTs using the DLQI.

Efficacy and safety of methylene blue injection for intractable idiopathic pruritus ani: a single-arm metaanalysis and systematic review

PURPOSE

To evaluate how effective methylene blue injection was at treating intractable idiopathic pruritus ani.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Web of Science databases was conducted. All clinical studies (prospective and retrospective) that evaluated the efficacy of methylene blue in treating intractable idiopathic pruritus ani were included. Studies that reported the resolution rate, after a single injection and after a second injection, the recurrence rate, symptom scores, and transient complications of methylene blue injections in treating intractable idiopathic pruritus ani were included.

RESULTS

The seven selected studies included 225 patients with idiopathic pruritus ani. The resolution rates after a single injection and after a second injection was 0.761 (0.649-0.873, P < 0.01, I2 = 69.06%) and 0.854 (0.752-0.955, P < 0.01, I2 = 77.391%), respectively, the remission rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 0.753 (0.612-0.893, P < 0.001), 0.773 (0.675-0.871, P < 0.001) and 0.240 (0.033-0.447, P < 0.001), respectively, the effect value of the merger was 0.569 (0.367-0.772, P < 0.001, I2 = 79.199%), and the recurrence rates at 1, 2, 3, and < 1 year were 0.202 (0.083-0.322, P < 0.001), 0.533 (0.285-0.781, P < 0.001), 0.437 (-0.044, 0.917, P < 0.001) and 0.067 (0.023-0.111, P < 0.001), respectively. The effect value of the merger was 0.223 (0.126-0.319, P < 0.001, I2 = 75.840).

CONCLUSION

Using methylene blue injections to treat intractable idiopathic pruritus ani is relatively efficacious, resulting in a relatively low recurrence rate and no severe complications. However, the available literature was of poor quality. Therefore, higher quality studies are necessary to confirm that methylene blue injection is efficacious for pruritus ani, such as a randomized prospective multicenter studies.

Pruritus Ani

Pruritus ani is a common condition with many different potential causes. Because of this, it can be difficult to treat. It is important to identify and eliminate any inciting factors, which are often unintentional consequences of the patient's attempts to alleviate symptoms. If no reversible cause is found, simple measures with diet modification and perianal hygiene are tried before using topical medications or procedures.

Statistical reporting in randomized controlled trials from the dermatology literature: a review of 44 dermatology journals

BACKGROUND

The validity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is determined by several statistical factors.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the level of recent statistical reporting in RCTs from the dermatology literature.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE for all RCTs published between 1 May 2013 and 1 May 2014 in 44 dermatology journals.

RESULTS

Two hundred and ten articles were screened, of which 181 RCTs from 27 journals were reviewed. Primary study outcomes were met in 122 (67.4%) studies. Sample size calculations and beta values were reported in 52 (28.7%) and 48 (26.5%) studies, respectively, and nonsignificant findings were supported in only 31 (17.1%). Alpha values were reported in 131 (72.4%) of studies with 45 (24.9%) having two-sided P-values, although adjustment for multiple statistical tests was performed in only 16 (9.9% of studies with ≥ two statistical tests performed). Sample size calculations were performed based on a single outcome in 44 (86.3%) and multiple outcomes in six (11.8%) studies. However, among studies that were powered for a single primary outcome, 20 (45.5%) made conclusions based on multiple primary outcomes. Twenty-one (41.2%) studies relied on secondary/unspecified outcomes. There were no differences for primary outcome being met (Chi-square, P = 0.29), sample size calculations (P ≥ 0.55), beta values (P = 0.89), alpha values (P = 0.65), correction for multiple statistical testing (P = 0.59), two-sided alpha (P = 0.64), support of nonsignificant findings (Fisher's exact, P = 0.23) based on the journal's impact factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Levels of statistical reporting are low in RCTs from the dermatology literature. Future work is needed to improve these levels of reporting.