Leukotriene receptor antagonists as add-on therapy to antihistamines for urticaria: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The benefits and harms of adding antileukotrienes to H1 antihistamines (AHs) for the management of urticaria (hives, itch, and/or angioedema) remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically synthesize the treatment outcomes of antileukotrienes in combination with AHs versus AHs alone for acute and chronic urticaria. METHODS: As part of updating American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters urticaria guidelines, we searched Medline, Embase, Central, LILACS, WPRIM, IBECS, ICTRP, CBM, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, US Food and Drug Administration, and European Medicines Agency databases from inception to December 18, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antileukotrienes and AHs versus AHs alone in patients with urticaria. Paired reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random effects models pooled effect estimates for urticaria activity, itch, wheal, sleep, quality of life, and harms. The GRADE approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. The study was registered at the Open Science Framework (osf.io/h2bfx/). RESULTS: Thirty-four RCTs enrolled 3324 children and adults. Compared to AHs alone, the combination of a leukotriene receptor antagonist with AHs probably modestly reduces urticaria activity (mean difference, -5.04; 95% confidence interval, -6.36 to -3.71; 7-day urticaria activity score) with moderate certainty. We made similar findings for itch and wheal severity as well as quality of life. Adverse events were probably not different between groups (moderate certainty); however, no RCT reported on neuropsychiatric adverse events. CONCLUSION: Among patients with urticaria, adding leukotriene receptor antagonists to AHs probably modestly improves urticaria activity with little to no increase in overall adverse events. The added risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events in this population with leukotriene receptor antagonists is small and uncertain.

Topical corticosteroids for hives and itch (urticaria): Systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Topical corticosteroids are widely used as a treatment for itch and wheals (urticaria), but their benefits and harms are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of topical corticosteroids for the treatment of urticaria. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from database inception to March 23, 2024, for randomized trials comparing topical corticosteroids with placebo for patients with urticaria (either chronic spontaneous or inducible urticaria or acute urticaria elicited from skin/intradermal allergy testing). Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses addressed urticaria severity, itch severity (numeric rating scale; range 0-10; higher is worse), and adverse events. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023455182. RESULTS: A total of 19 randomized controlled trials enrolled 379 participants with a median of mean age of 30.1 (range 21.1-44.0) years. Compared with placebo, topical corticosteroids may reduce wheal size (ratio of means 0.47, 95% CI 0.38-0.59; low certainty) and itch severity (mean difference -1.30, 95% CI -5.07 to 2.46; very low certainty). Topical corticosteroids result in little to no difference in overall adverse events (94 fewer patients per 1000, 95% credible intervals 172 fewer to 12 more; high certainty). CONCLUSION: Compared with placebo, topical corticosteroids may result in a reduction of wheal size and little to no difference in overall adverse events. Topical corticosteroids may reduce itch severity, but the evidence is very uncertain. Future large, randomized trials addressing the use of topical corticosteroids would further support optimal urticaria management.

Topical treatments for atopic dermatitis (eczema): Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin condition with multiple topical treatment options, but uncertain comparative effects. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD prescription topical treatments. METHODS: For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, ICTRP, and GREAT databases to September 5, 2022, for randomized trials addressing AD topical treatments. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. We classified topical corticosteroids (TCS) using 7 groups-group 1 being most potent. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/q5m6s). RESULTS: The 219 included trials (43,123 patients) evaluated 68 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, pimecrolimus improved 6 of 7 outcomes-among the best for 2; high-dose tacrolimus (0.1%) improved 5-among the best for 2; low-dose tacrolimus (0.03%) improved 5-among the best for 1. With moderate- to high-certainty evidence, group 5 TCS improved 6-among the best for 3; group 4 TCS and delgocitinib improved 4-among the best for 2; ruxolitinib improved 4-among the best for 1; group 1 TCS improved 3-among the best for 2. These interventions did not increase harm. Crisaborole and difamilast were intermediately effective, but with uncertain harm. Topical antibiotics alone or in combination may be among the least effective. To maintain AD control, group 5 TCS were among the most effective, followed by tacrolimus and pimecrolimus. CONCLUSIONS: For individuals with AD, pimecrolimus, tacrolimus, and moderate-potency TCS are among the most effective in improving and maintaining multiple AD outcomes. Topical antibiotics may be among the least effective.

Systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis (eczema): Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory skin condition with multiple systemic treatments and uncertainty regarding their comparative impact on AD outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD systemic treatments. METHODS: For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and GREAT databases from inception to November 29, 2022, for randomized trials addressing systemic treatments and phototherapy for AD. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/e5sna). RESULTS: The 149 included trials (28,686 patients with moderate-to-severe AD) evaluated 75 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, high-dose upadacitinib was among the most effective for 5 of 6 patient-important outcomes; high-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib were among the most effective for 2 outcomes. These Janus kinase inhibitors were among the most harmful in increasing adverse events. With high-certainty evidence, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab were of intermediate effectiveness and among the safest, modestly increasing conjunctivitis. Low-dose baricitinib was among the least effective. Efficacy and safety of azathioprine, oral corticosteroids, cyclosporine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, phototherapy, and many novel agents are less certain. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals with moderate-to-severe AD, high-certainty evidence demonstrates that high-dose upadacitinib is among the most effective in addressing multiple patient-important outcomes, but also is among the most harmful. High-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib are effective, but also among the most harmful. Dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab are of intermediate effectiveness and have favorable safety.

Efficacy and Safety of Systemic Corticosteroids for Urticaria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Short courses of adjunctive systemic corticosteroids are commonly used to treat acute urticaria and chronic urticaria flares (both with and without mast cell-mediated angioedema), but their benefits and harms are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of treating acute urticaria or chronic urticaria flares with versus without systemic corticosteroids. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, and CBM databases from inception to July 8, 2023, for randomized controlled trials of treating urticaria with versus without systemic corticosteroids. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and appraised risk of bias with the Cochrane 2.0 tool. We performed random-effects meta-analyses of urticaria activity, itch severity, and adverse events. We assessed certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: We identified 12 randomized trials enrolling 944 patients. For patients with low or moderate probability (17.5%-64%) to improve with antihistamines alone, add-on systemic corticosteroids likely improve urticaria activity by a 14% to 15% absolute difference (odds ratio [OR], 2.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43-3.31; number needed to treat [NNT], 7; moderate certainty). Among patients with a high chance (95.8%) for urticaria to improve with antihistamines alone, add-on systemic corticosteroids likely improved urticaria activity by a 2.2% absolute difference (NNT, 45; moderate certainty). Corticosteroids may improve itch severity (OR, 2.44; 95% CI: 0.87-6.83; risk difference, 9%; NNT, 11; low certainty). Systemic corticosteroids also likely increase adverse events (OR, 2.76; 95% CI: 1.00-7.62; risk difference, 15%; number needed to harm, 9; moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Systemic corticosteroids for acute urticaria or chronic urticaria exacerbations likely improve urticaria, depending on antihistamine responsiveness, but also likely increase adverse effects in approximately 15% more.

Dietary Elimination for the Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The influence of diet on atopic dermatitis (AD) is complex, and the use of dietary elimination as a treatment has conflicting views. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the benefits and harms of dietary elimination for the treatment of AD. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to January 18, 2022, without language restrictions, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing dietary elimination and no dietary elimination for the treatment of AD. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses of eczema outcomes. We used the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation approach to assess certainty of evidence (CRD42021237953). RESULTS: Ten RCT (n = 599; baseline median of study mean age, 1.5 years; median of study mean SCOring Atopic Dermatitis index, 20.7, range, 3.5-37.6) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with no dietary elimination, low-certainty evidence showed that dietary elimination may slightly improve eczema severity (50% with vs 41% without dietary elimination improved the SCOring Atopic Dermatitis index by a minimally important difference of 8.7 points, risk difference of 9% [95% CI, 0-17]), pruritus (daytime itch score [range, 0-3] mean difference, -0.21 [95% CI, -0.57 to 0.15]), and sleeplessness (sleeplessness score [range, 0-3] mean difference, -0.47 [95% CI, -0.80 to -0.13]). There were no credible subgroup differences based on elimination strategy (empiric vs guided by testing) or food-specific sensitization. Insufficient data addressed harms of elimination diets among included RCTs, although indirect evidence suggests that elimination diets may increase the risk for developing IgE-mediated food allergy. CONCLUSIONS: Dietary elimination may lead to a slight, potentially unimportant improvement in eczema severity, pruritus, and sleeplessness in patients with mild to moderate AD. This must be balanced against potential risks for indiscriminate elimination diets including developing IgE-mediated food allergy and withholding more effective treatment options for AD.

An atypical presentation of extensive centrofacial microcystic adnexal carcinoma responding to radiation: A case report and review of the literature.

Microcystic adnexal carcinoma is a rare cutaneous neoplasm believed to arise from pluripotent keratinocytes capable of adnexal differentiation. Due to its insidious growth and appearance, diagnosis is often delayed. A deep incisional or excisional biopsy for histopathology is the gold standard for diagnosis. Different treatment modalities have been described in the literature, including the Mohs micrographic surgery, standard excision, radiation, chemotherapy, and observation. Currently, Mohs remains the treatment of choice. We present a unique case of a 12-month history of an extensive progressive centrofacial cutaneous induration diagnosed as microcystic adnexal carcinoma in an 83-year-old female. Due to the extensive nature of the tumor, she received radiation therapy and continues to receive ongoing assessment with no evidence of clinical recurrence at 2-year post-treatment including negative scouting biopsies. To date, there is no consensus on the optimal treatment for microcystic adnexal carcinoma.