Topical and Intralesional Therapies for Hidradenitis Suppurativa: A Systematic Literature Review. / [Artículo traducido] Tratamientos tópicos e intralesionales en hidradenitis supurativa. Una revisión sistemática de la literatura.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Topical and intralesional (IL) treatments may be considered the first-line therapy in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS); however, the evidence supporting their use is limited. The aim of our review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of topical and IL treatments in patients with HS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed a systematic review of the current medical literature available following the PICO(T) method. And including all types of studies (Study type [T]) of individuals with HS of any sex, age, and ethnicity (Population [P]) who received any topical or IL treatment for HS (Intervention [I]) compared to placebo, other treatments, or no treatment at all (Comparator [C]), and reported efficacy and/or safety outcomes (Outcomes [O]). Two outcomes were defined: quality of life and the no. of patients with, at least, one adverse event. The search was conducted in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and Embase databases; study selection was performed based on pre-defined criteria. The risk of bias was determined in each study. RESULTS: We obtained a total of 11,363 references, 31 of which met the inclusion criteria. These studies included 1143 patients with HS, 62% of whom were women. A total of 10, 8, 6, 2, and 5 studies, respectively, evaluated the use of photodynamic therapy (PDT), glucocorticoids, resorcinol, topical antibiotics, and other interventions. Most articles were case series (n=25), with only five randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and one cohort study. RCTs showed improvement in disease activity with topical clindamycin and botulinum toxin (BTX) vs placebo, and PDT with methylene blue (MB) niosomal vs free MB; however, intralesional triamcinolone acetonide was not superior to placebo. The risk of bias was low in three RCTs and high in two RCTs. CONCLUSION: The quality of evidence supporting the use of topical, or IL treatments is low. However, it supports the use of topical clindamycin, PDT, and BTX. Well-designed RCTs with standardized outcomes and homogeneous populations of patients and lesions are needed to support decision-making in the routine clinical practice.

Topical and Intralesional Therapies for Hidradenitis Suppurativa: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Topical and intralesional (IL) treatments may be considered the first-line therapy in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS); however, the evidence supporting their use is limited. The aim of our review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of topical and IL treatments in patients with HS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed a systematic review of the current medical literature available following the PICO(T) method. And including all types of studies (Study type [T]) of individuals with HS of any sex, age, and ethnicity (Population [P]) who received any topical or IL treatment for HS (Intervention [I]) compared to placebo, other treatments, or no treatment at all (Comparator [C]), and reported efficacy and/or safety outcomes (Outcomes [O]). Two outcomes were defined: quality of life and the no. of patients with, at least, one adverse event. The search was conducted in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases; study selection was performed based on pre-defined criteria. The risk of bias was determined in each study. RESULTS: We obtained a total of 11,363 references, 31 of which met the inclusion criteria. These studies included 1143 patients with HS, 62% of whom were women. A total of 10, 8, 6, 2, and 5 studies, respectively, evaluated the use of photodynamic therapy (PDT), glucocorticoids, resorcinol, topical antibiotics, and other interventions. Most articles were case series (n=25), with only five randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and one cohort study. RCTs showed improvement in disease activity with topical clindamycin and botulinum toxin (BTX) vs placebo, and PDT with methylene blue (MB) niosomal vs free MB; however, intralesional triamcinolone acetonide was not superior to placebo. The risk of bias was low in three RCTs and high in two RCTs. CONCLUSION: The quality of evidence supporting the use of topical, or IL treatments is low. However, it supports the use of topical clindamycin, PDT, and BTX. Well-designed RCTs with standardized outcomes and homogeneous populations of patients and lesions are needed to support decision-making in the routine clinical practice.

Exposure to biologic therapy before and during pregnancy in patients with psoriasis: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Biologicals have transformed the management of severe disease phenotypes in psoriasis and are often prescribed in women of childbearing age. However, information on safety of biologicals in pregnancy are lacking. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to describe the characteristics and pregnancy outcomes in women with psoriasis exposed to biologics within 3 months before or during pregnancy, and to estimate the pooled prevalence of spontaneous, elective and total abortions, and congenital malformations in their newborns. Bibliographic searches were performed in the PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science databases up to 14 April 2022. No restrictions on sample size or publication date were applied. Review performance complied with PRISMA guidelines, and two reviewers assessed randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies reporting pregnancy outcomes in women exposed to biologics indicated for psoriasis during the pre-gestational and/or gestational period. Studies focusing on rheumatologic or gastroenterological immune-mediated inflammatory diseases were excluded. Regardless of data heterogeneity, a random-effects model was used to pool prevalence estimates. We included 51 observational studies, involving 739 pregnancies exposed to approved biologics for psoriasis. Administration was mostly (70.4%) limited to the first trimester, and the most common drug was ustekinumab (36.0%). The estimated prevalence of miscarriage was 15.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.7-18.0) and elective abortions, 10.8% (95% CI 7.7-14.3). Congenital malformations occurred in about 3.0% (95% CI 1.6-4.8) of live births exposed to biologics during pregnancy. Altogether, exposure to biologics for psoriasis during pregnancy and/or conception does not seem to be associated with an increased risk of miscarriage/abortion or congenital malformations, showing similar rates to the general population. These results suggest that biologic drugs are safe and pose an acceptable risk to the foetuses/neonates.

Are the chilblain-like lesions observed during the COVID-19 pandemic due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2? Systematic review and meta-analysis.

The expansion of the COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by numerous reports of chilblain-like lesions (CLL) in different countries; however, the pathogenesis of these lesions is still unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the prevalence of COVID-19 (diagnosed using PCR and/or serology) in patients with CLL. We undertook a literature search in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus (to 15 March 2021), including studies that reported on the number of patients with CLL with positive PCR and/or serology for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or with a clinical suspicion of COVID-19. Regardless of data heterogeneity, a random-effects model was used to pool prevalence estimates. The meta-analysis included 63 original studies, involving 2919 cases of CLL. A subgroup of these patients underwent diagnostic tests for COVID-19 (PCR: n = 1154, 39.5%; serology: n = 943, 32.3%). The pooled prevalence of COVID-19 in the overall sample and in the subgroup who were tested for COVID-19 was, respectively: (i) positive PCR: 2.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9% to 3.4%] and 5.5% (95% CI, 3.7-7.7%); (ii) positive serology for SARS-CoV-2: 7.2% (95% CI, 4.7-10.2%) and 11.8% (95% CI, 7.9-16.3%); and (iii) positive PCR and/or serology, 15.2% (95% CI, 10.4-20.7%) and 7.5% (95% CI, 5.1-10.3%). Altogether, a small proportion of diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2, both PCR and serologies, show positive results in patients with CLL.