BACKGROUND: JAK inhibitors are a relatively new class of medications that may be useful in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of several JAK inhibitors in treating psoriasis and PsA and examine safety concerns. METHODS: MEDLINE, Cochrane and EMBASE were searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing any JAK inhibitor to placebo. The primary outcomes were a 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI75) and a 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology composite score (ACR20). A secondary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a "0" or "1" on the static Physician Global Assessment scale. Odds ratios were used to compare the proportion of patients reaching these targets in the max dose intervention group vs. the placebo group. A random effects model was used to account for heterogeneity. RESULTS: In total, 15 RCTs were included in the study and no observational studies. This encompassed 6757 patients in total. When the results were combined, the calculated odds ratio for PASI75 amongst tofacitinib vs. placebo was OR 14.35 [95%CI 7.65, 26.90], for PASI75 amongst non-tofacitinib JAK inhibitors vs. placebo it was OR 6.42 [95%CI 4.89, 8.43], for ACR20 amongst all JAK inhibitors versus placebo was OR 5.87 [95%CI 4.39, 7.85]. There was no significant difference in prevalence of serious adverse events between intervention and control in any of these studies. CONCLUSION: JAK inhibitors show promise for safely treating moderate-to-severe psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.
BACKGROUND: Recent changes to the legal status of cannabis across various countries have renewed interest in exploring its use in Parkinson's disease (PD). The use of cannabinoids for alleviation of motor symptoms has been extensively explored in pre-clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: We aim to systematically review and meta-analyze literature on the use of medical cannabis or its derivatives (MC) in PD patients to determine its effect on motor function and its safety profile. METHODS: We reviewed and analyzed original, full-text randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Primary outcomes were change in motor function and dyskinesia. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and side effects. All studies were analyzed for risk of bias. RESULTS: Fifteen studies, including six RCTs, were analyzed. Of these, 12/15 (80%) mention concomitant treatment with antiparkinsonian medications, most commonly levodopa. Primary outcomes were most often measured using the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) among RCTs and patient self-report of symptom improvement was widely used among observational studies. Most of the observational data lacking appropriate controls had effect estimates favoring the intervention. However, the controlled studies demonstrated no significant motor symptom improvement overall. The meta-analysis of three RCTs, including a total of 83 patients, did not demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in UPDRS III score variation (MD -0.21, 95% CI -4.15 to 3.72; p = 0.92) with MC use. Only one study reported statistically significant improvement in dyskinesia (p < 0.05). The intervention was generally well tolerated. All RCTs had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Although observational studies establish subjective symptom alleviation and interest in MC among PD patients, there is insufficient evidence to support its integration into clinical practice for motor symptom treatment. This is primarily due to lack of good quality data.
