Omalizumab for the Treatment of Bullous Pemphigoid: A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety

Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is an autoimmune blistering skin disease. Current treatment strategies are limited by their efficacy and/or side effect profile and the need for safer and effective alternatives is undeniable. We aimed to conduct a systematic review focusing on the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in BP patients. Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for English and French articles published from inception to July 1, 2021, using search terms "omalizumab" OR "Xolair" OR "IGE025" OR "olizumab" AND "bullous pemphigoid." Screening and data extraction was performed by two raters independently. The primary outcome was complete response (CR), and secondary outcomes were partial response (PR), flare-ups, adverse events/vital status. In total, 22 articles were included, with a total of 56 patients. All patients had a refractory BP with mean disease duration of 13.5 ± 20.2 months (Standard Deviation (SD)) and failed 3.1 ± 1.6 therapies and many remained corticosteroids dependent. Overall, 87.5% of patients responded to treatment (55.4% CR and 32.1% PR), 7.1% discontinued the protocol and only 5.4% were non responders. A third of patients were able to discontinue all other therapies and most others were able to discontinue or taper systemic corticosteroids to <10 mg daily. Flare-ups occurred in 57.7% of patients upon discontinuation of omalizumab and/or steroid tapering, most patients recaptured response thereafter. Omalizumab was well tolerated by most patients. Omalizumab appears to be a promising treatment for BP with a good response rate and safety profile. However, several limitations were identified in current literature, and highlight the need for randomized controlled trials of omalizumab in BP.

Treatment Guidelines for Atopic Dermatitis Since the Approval of Dupilumab: A Systematic Review and Quality Appraisal Using AGREE-II

Introduction

Since its approval for adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in 2017, dupilumab has been incorporated into clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). However, recommendations differ internationally, and the quality assessment of their development is unclear.

Objective

We aimed to systematically review and appraise the quality of CPGs for adult AD reported since 2017 and map the recommendations for dupilumab initiation relative to conventional systemic therapy (CST).

Materials and Methods

A literature search was conducted in June 2020 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and CINAHL. Twelve CPGs were retrieved. Methodological quality was assessed using the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II tool (AGREE-II). Recommendations were extracted and compared.

Results

AGREE-II median scores per domain of the CPGs were (%, r = range): scope/purpose, 78% (50-96); stakeholder involvement, 54% (28-85); rigor of development, 39% (21-63); clarity of presentation, 85% (69-100); applicability, 27% (6-51); and editorial independence, 76% (42-100). Neither met the threshold of 70% quality criteria for rigor of development nor the applicability domains. Three CPGs met the criteria for recommendation without modification. CPGs' approach to dupilumab initiation was as follows: second line, preferred over CST and nbUVB (n = 1/12 CPG); second line, equivalent to CST or nbUVB (n = 3/12 CPGs); third line, after nbUVB or CST (n = 5/12 CPGs); and fourth line after nbUVB and CST (n = 2/12). No consensus was reached for n = 1/12 CPG.

Conclusion and Relevance

Dupilumab is now incorporated into CPGs for adult AD. These CPGs exhibited good quality in scope/purpose, clarity, and editorial independence domains. However, none met AGREE-II criteria for methodological rigor/applicability. Gaps were found in mechanisms for updates, facilitators/barriers, resource implications, and stakeholder involvement. Only n = 3/12 CPGs met quality criteria for recommendation without modifications. Of these, two favored a conservative sequential approach for the initiation of dupilumab relative to CST, while one did not reach consensus. Our findings highlight divergent recommendations AD treatment, underlining a need to incorporate quality criteria into future guideline development.