RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Beta-blockers are proven to be safe and cost-effective agents in treating multiple dermatological conditions, which is why they are considered as an interesting and good alternative therapeutic agent by dermatologists. To our knowledge, there has been no comprehensive systematic review to date summarizing the role of both systemic and topical beta-blockers in dermatology. METHODS: In this systematic review, we aim to review recent and relevant published literature in order to provide a comprehensive evidence-based summary to inform dermatologists. RESULTS: An electronic-based literature search was carried out during October-December 2021 in the databases PubMed (MEDLINE), SCOPUS (EMBASE), and Cochrane Library. Furthermore, bibliographic sources were also reviewed for the selected articles. We followed The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses 2020 (PRISMA) guidelines. We reviewed published literature about the role of beta-blockers in dermatology for the time period (January 2016 to December 2021). CONCLUSIONS: A total of 126 publications were retrieved from different databases, of which 59 studies were finally included in our review after excluding non-eligible literature in accordance with our inclusion and exclusion criteria. The included articles consisted of meta-analyses, systematic reviews, clinical trials, retrospective and prospective cohort studies, case-control studies, case series, and case reports. In general, data in reviewed literature showed that both systemic and topical beta-blockers were reliable and safe therapeutic options in treating different dermatoses. Their effect has been studied as a mono-therapy, also as an adjuvant therapy combined with other current disease-specific therapeutic modalities such as lasers, radiation, chemotherapy, corticosteroids, or other beta-blockers options. Local and systemic adverse effects were mainly minor and non-significant.
RESUMEN
Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronically relapsing disease. Few biologics are approved for moderate-to-severe AD, and novel interventions are emerging. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lebrikizumab, an IL-13 immunomodulator, as monotherapy vs. placebo in treating moderate-to-severe AD. Methods: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov registry (CT.gov) databases were systematically searched. We evaluated lebrikizumab vs. placebo and measured efficacy using Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Body Surface Area (BSA), and Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) change from baseline to week 16. Safety was evaluated by the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs), non-serious adverse events (NSAEs), and mortality. The risk of bias was investigated using the Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results: Three RCTs (n = 1,149) included 543 (47.25%) men vs. 606 (52.75%) women. Meta-analysis showed statistically significant improvement in EASI, IGA, and BSA. EASI75 at week 16 for all regimens was (RR = 2.62, 95% CI [2.06, 3.34], p < 0.00001) with the first regimen (500 mg loading dose then 200 mg every 2 weeks) showing the most significant improvement (RR = 3.02, 95% CI [2.39, 3.82], p < 0.00001). The pooled analysis of safety outcomes concluded that lebrikizumab did not correlate significantly with the incidence of SAEs, NSAEs, and mortality. Conclusion: Overall, lebrikizumab showed a significant improvement in all efficacy outcomes. Additionally, it did not contribute to any significant incidence of SAEs, NSAEs, or mortality. The risk of bias in included RCTs was minor except in the randomization domain. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment of the outcomes ranged from low to high, but predominantly high certainty of evidence. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022362438.