A Scoping Review Protocol to Explore the Use of Interleukin-1-Targeting Drugs for the Treatment of Dermatological Diseases: Indications, Mechanism of Action, Efficacy, and Safety.

INTRODUCTION: The interleukin (IL)-1 pathway has been identified as being involved in inflammatory and neoplastic skin diseases such as psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, neutrophilic dermatosis, melanoma, and squamous cell carcinoma. Drugs developed to target the IL-1 pathway are currently used to treat these pathologies, and although they are becoming more selective, they are not exempt from adverse events and high costs. Integrating the best research evidence with clinical experience and patient needs has been shown to improve care, health, and cost outcomes. This is because evidence-based guidelines rank interventions according to cost-effectiveness. However, evidence on this topic is scarce for several reasons. First, although randomized clinical trials currently provide the best evidence, they are not always available. Second, there are no secondary scientific studies that summarize the use of IL-1-targeting agents in dermatology. We therefore sought to develop an a priori protocol for broadly reviewing the available evidence on the use of IL-1-targeting drugs in the treatment of dermatological diseases. METHODS: We used the latest methodology to perform a scoping review as described in the Joanna Briggs Institute manual. RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Developing and applying a methodology for evidence synthesis promotes reproducibility and increases the validity of secondary scientific investigations, making it the optimal strategy for scientifically synthesizing a broad field such as the indications for and the mechanisms of action, efficacies, safety, and costs of IL-1-targeting drugs in the treatment of dermatological diseases. Quantitative synthesis facilitates the detection of knowledge gaps and the identification of new questions that can be addressed through systematic reviews. We present an a priori protocol for exploring the available evidence on this topic.

Evaluating characteristics of PROSPERO records as predictors of eventual publication of non-Cochrane systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiology and the reporting characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are well known. However, no study has analyzed the influence of protocol features on the probability that a study's results will be finally reported, thereby indirectly assessing the reporting bias of International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration records. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to explore which factors are associated with a higher probability that results derived from a non-Cochrane PROSPERO registration record for a systematic review will be finally reported as an original article in a scientific journal. METHODS/DESIGN: The PROSPERO repository will be web scraped to automatically and iteratively obtain all completed non-Cochrane registration records stored from February 2011 to December 2017. Downloaded records will be screened, and those with less than 90% fulfilled or are duplicated (i.e., those sharing titles and reviewers) will be excluded. Manual and human-supervised automatic methods will be used for data extraction, depending on the data source (fields of PROSPERO registration records, bibliometric databases, etc.). Records will be classified into published, discontinued, and abandoned review subgroups. All articles derived from published reviews will be obtained through multiple parallel searches using the full protocol "title" and/or "list reviewers" in MEDLINE/PubMed databases and Google Scholar. Reviewer, author, article, and journal metadata will be obtained using different sources. R and Python programming and analysis languages will be used to describe the datasets; perform text mining, machine learning, and deep learning analyses; and visualize the data. We will report the study according to the recommendations for meta-epidemiological studies adapted from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement for SRs and MAs. DISCUSSION: This meta-epidemiological study will explore, for the first time, characteristics of PROSPERO records that may be associated with the publication of a completed systematic review. The evidence may help to improve review workflow performance in terms of research topic selection, decision-making regarding team selection, planning relationships with funding sources, implementing literature search strategies, and efficient data extraction and analysis. We expect to make our results, datasets, and R and Python code scripts publicly available during the third quarter of 2018.

Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions.

BACKGROUND: Article summaries' information and structure may influence researchers/clinicians' decisions to conduct deeper full-text analyses. Specifically, abstracts of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MA) should provide structured summaries for quick assessment. This study explored a method for determining the methodological quality and bias risk of full-text reviews using abstract information alone. METHODS: Systematic literature searches for SRs and/or MA about psoriasis were undertaken on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database. For each review, quality, abstract-reporting completeness, full-text methodological quality, and bias risk were evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A), Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), and ROBIS tools, respectively. Article-, author-, and journal-derived metadata were systematically extracted from eligible studies using a piloted template, and explanatory variables concerning abstract-reporting quality were assessed using univariate and multivariate-regression models. Two classification models concerning SRs' methodological quality and bias risk were developed based on per-item and total PRISMA-A scores and decision-tree algorithms. This work was supported, in part, by project ICI1400136 (JR). No funding was received from any pharmaceutical company. RESULTS: This study analysed 139 SRs on psoriasis interventions. On average, they featured 56.7% of PRISMA-A items. The mean total PRISMA-A score was significantly higher for high-methodological-quality SRs than for moderate- and low-methodological-quality reviews. SRs with low-bias risk showed higher total PRISMA-A values than reviews with high-bias risk. In the final model, only 'authors per review > 6' (OR: 1.098; 95%CI: 1.012-1.194), 'academic source of funding' (OR: 3.630; 95%CI: 1.788-7.542), and 'PRISMA-endorsed journal' (OR: 4.370; 95%CI: 1.785-10.98) predicted PRISMA-A variability. Reviews with a total PRISMA-A score < 6, lacking identification as SR or MA in the title, and lacking explanation concerning bias risk assessment methods were classified as low-methodological quality. Abstracts with a total PRISMA-A score ≥ 9, including main outcomes results and explanation bias risk assessment method were classified as having low-bias risk. CONCLUSIONS: The methodological quality and bias risk of SRs may be determined by abstract's quality and completeness analyses. Our proposal aimed to facilitate synthesis of evidence evaluation by clinical professionals lacking methodological skills. External validation is necessary.

Most systematic reviews of high methodological quality on psoriasis interventions are classified as high risk of bias using ROBIS tool.

OBJECTIVES: No gold standard exists to assess methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs). Although Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) is widely accepted for analyzing quality, the ROBIS instrument has recently been developed. This study aimed to compare the capacity of both instruments to capture the quality of SRs concerning psoriasis interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic literature searches were undertaken on relevant databases. For each review, methodological quality and bias risk were evaluated using the AMSTAR and ROBIS tools. Descriptive and principal component analyses were conducted to describe similarities and discrepancies between both assessment tools. RESULTS: We classified 139 intervention SRs as displaying high/moderate/low methodological quality and as high/low risk of bias. A high risk of bias was detected for most SRs classified as displaying high or moderate methodological quality by AMSTAR. When comparing ROBIS result profiles, responses to domain 4 signaling questions showed the greatest differences between bias risk assessments, whereas domain 2 items showed the least. CONCLUSION: When considering SRs published about psoriasis, methodological quality remains suboptimal, and the risk of bias is elevated, even for SRs exhibiting high methodological quality. Furthermore, the AMSTAR and ROBIS tools may be considered as complementary when conducting quality assessment of SRs.

Alemtuzumab in refractory Sézary syndrome.

Sézary syndrome is a primary cutaneous T-cell lymphoma characterized by the triad of erythroderma, lymphadenopathy and circulating atypical cells. The emergence of new molecular targets has enabled the development of drugs such as alemtuzumab, an anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody, which has shown promising results in the treatment of this entity. We report the case of a 70-year-old male with refractory Sézary syndrome in whom treatment with alemtuzumab achieved an 80% skin lesion clearance with complete haematologic and radiologic response. The treatment was discontinued after 4 months due to adverse effects, with the patient showing a sustained response without disease progression after 13 months of follow-up.

Alemtuzumab in refractory Sézary syndrome

Abstract: Sézary syndrome is a primary cutaneous T-cell lymphoma characterized by the triad of erythroderma, lymphadenopathy and circulating atypical cells. The emergence of new molecular targets has enabled the development of drugs such as alemtuzumab, an anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody, which has shown promising results in the treatment of this entity. We report the case of a 70-year-old male with refractory Sézary syndrome in whom treatment with alemtuzumab achieved an 80% skin lesion clearance with complete haematologic and radiologic response. The treatment was discontinued after 4 months due to adverse effects, with the patient showing a sustained response without disease progression after 13 months of follow-up.

Clinical and Biological Principles of Cold Atmospheric Plasma Application in Skin Cancer.

Plasma-based electrosurgical devices have long been employed for tissue coagulation, cutting, desiccation, and cauterizing. Despite their clinical benefits, these technologies involve tissue heating and their effects are primarily heat-mediated. Recently, there have been significant developments in cold atmospheric pressure plasma (CAP) science and engineering. New sources of CAP with well-controlled temperatures below 40 °C have been designed, permitting safe plasma application on animal and human bodies. In the last decade, a new innovative field, often referred to as plasma medicine, which combines plasma physics, life science, and clinical medicine has emerged. This field aims to exploit effects of mild plasma by controlling the interactions between plasma components (and other secondary species that can be formed from these components) with specific structural elements and functionalities of living cells. Recent studies showed that CAP can exert beneficial effects when applied selectively in certain pathologies with minimal toxicity to normal tissues. The rapid increase in new investigations and development of various devices for CAP application suggest early adoption of cold plasma as a new tool in the biomedical field. This review explores the latest major achievements in the field, focusing on the biological effects, mechanisms of action, and clinical evidence of CAP applications in areas such as skin disinfection, tissue regeneration, chronic wounds, and cancer treatment. This information may serve as a foundation for the design of future clinical trials to assess the efficacy and safety of CAP as an adjuvant therapy for skin cancer.