Phototherapy for atopic eczema.

BACKGROUND: Atopic eczema (AE), also known as atopic dermatitis, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that causes significant burden. Phototherapy is sometimes used to treat AE when topical treatments, such as corticosteroids, are insufficient or poorly tolerated. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of phototherapy for treating AE. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov to January 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials in adults or children with any subtype or severity of clinically diagnosed AE. Eligible comparisons were any type of phototherapy versus other forms of phototherapy or any other treatment, including placebo or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology. For key findings, we used RoB 2.0 to assess bias, and GRADE to assess certainty of the evidence. Primary outcomes were physician-assessed signs and patient-reported symptoms. Secondary outcomes were Investigator Global Assessment (IGA), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), safety (measured as withdrawals due to adverse events), and long-term control. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 trials with 1219 randomised participants, aged 5 to 83 years (mean: 28 years), with an equal number of males and females. Participants were recruited mainly from secondary care dermatology clinics, and study duration was, on average, 13 weeks (range: 10 days to one year). We assessed risk of bias for all key outcomes as having some concerns or high risk, due to missing data, inappropriate analysis, or insufficient information to assess selective reporting. Assessed interventions included: narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB; 13 trials), ultraviolet A1 (UVA1; 6 trials), broadband ultraviolet B (BB-UVB; 5 trials), ultraviolet AB (UVAB; 2 trials), psoralen plus ultraviolet A (PUVA; 2 trials), ultraviolet A (UVA; 1 trial), unspecified ultraviolet B (UVB; 1 trial), full spectrum light (1 trial), Saalmann selective ultraviolet phototherapy (SUP) cabin (1 trial), saltwater bath plus UVB (balneophototherapy; 1 trial), and excimer laser (1 trial). Comparators included placebo, no treatment, another phototherapy, topical treatment, or alternative doses of the same treatment. Results for key comparisons are summarised (for scales, lower scores are better): NB-UVB versus placebo/no treatment There may be a larger reduction in physician-assessed signs with NB-UVB compared to placebo after 12 weeks of treatment (mean difference (MD) -9.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.62 to -15.18; 1 trial, 41 participants; scale: 0 to 90). Two trials reported little difference between NB-UVB and no treatment (37 participants, four to six weeks of treatment); another reported improved signs with NB-UVB versus no treatment (11 participants, nine weeks of treatment). NB-UVB may increase the number of people reporting reduced itch after 12 weeks of treatment compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.72, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.69; 1 trial, 40 participants). Another trial reported very little difference in itch severity with NB-UVB (25 participants, four weeks of treatment). The number of participants with moderate to greater global improvement may be higher with NB-UVB than placebo after 12 weeks of treatment (RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.10 to 7.17; 1 trial, 41 participants). NB-UVB may not affect rates of withdrawal due to adverse events. No withdrawals were reported in one trial of NB-UVB versus placebo (18 participants, nine weeks of treatment). In two trials of NB-UVB versus no treatment, each reported one withdrawal per group (71 participants, 8 to 12 weeks of treatment). We judged that all reported outcomes were supported with low-certainty evidence, due to risk of bias and imprecision. No trials reported HRQoL. NB-UVB versus UVA1 We judged the evidence for NB-UVB compared to UVA1 to be very low certainty for all outcomes, due to risk of bias and imprecision. There was no evidence of a difference in physician-assessed signs after six weeks (MD -2.00, 95% CI -8.41 to 4.41; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 0 to 108), or patient-reported itch after six weeks (MD 0.3, 95% CI -1.07 to 1.67; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 0 to 10). Two split-body trials (20 participants, 40 sides) also measured these outcomes, using different scales at seven to eight weeks; they reported lower scores with NB-UVB. One trial reported HRQoL at six weeks (MD 2.9, 95% CI -9.57 to 15.37; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 30 to 150). One split-body trial reported no withdrawals due to adverse events over 12 weeks (13 participants). No trials reported IGA. NB-UVB versus PUVA We judged the evidence for NB-UVB compared to PUVA (8-methoxypsoralen in bath plus UVA) to be very low certainty for all reported outcomes, due to risk of bias and imprecision. There was no evidence of a difference in physician-assessed signs after six weeks (64.1% reduction with NB-UVB versus 65.7% reduction with PUVA; 1 trial, 10 participants, 20 sides). There was no evidence of a difference in marked improvement or complete remission after six weeks (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.89; 1 trial, 9/10 participants with both treatments). One split-body trial reported no withdrawals due to adverse events in 10 participants over six weeks. The trials did not report patient-reported symptoms or HRQoL. UVA1 versus PUVA There was very low-certainty evidence, due to serious risk of bias and imprecision, that PUVA (oral 5-methoxypsoralen plus UVA) reduced physician-assessed signs more than UVA1 after three weeks (MD 11.3, 95% CI -0.21 to 22.81; 1 trial, 40 participants; scale: 0 to 103). The trial did not report patient-reported symptoms, IGA, HRQoL, or withdrawals due to adverse events. There were no eligible trials for the key comparisons of UVA1 or PUVA compared with no treatment. Adverse events Reported adverse events included low rates of phototoxic reaction, severe irritation, UV burn, bacterial superinfection, disease exacerbation, and eczema herpeticum. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo or no treatment, NB-UVB may improve physician-rated signs, patient-reported symptoms, and IGA after 12 weeks, without a difference in withdrawal due to adverse events. Evidence for UVA1 compared to NB-UVB or PUVA, and NB-UVB compared to PUVA was very low certainty. More information is needed on the safety and effectiveness of all aspects of phototherapy for treating AE.

Systemic Immunomodulatory Treatments for Patients With Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Importance: Most clinical trials assessing systemic immunomodulatory treatments for patients with atopic dermatitis are placebo-controlled. Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of systemic immunomodulatory treatments for patients with atopic dermatitis in a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data Sources: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database, Global Resource of Eczema Trials database, and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to October 28, 2019. Study Selection: English-language randomized clinical trials of 8 weeks or more of treatment with systemic immunomodulatory medications for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis were included. Titles, abstracts, and articles were screened in duplicate. Of 10 324 citations, 39 trials were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted in duplicate, and the review adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Network Meta-Analyses guidelines. Random-effects bayesian network meta-analyses were performed and certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prespecified outcomes were change in signs of disease, symptoms, quality of life, itch, withdrawals, and serious adverse events. Results: A total of 39 trials with 6360 patients examining 20 medications and placebo were included. Most trials were conducted for adults receiving up to 16 weeks of therapy. Dupilumab, 300 mg every 2 weeks, was associated with improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score vs placebo (mean difference, 11.3-point reduction; 95% credible interval [CrI], 9.7-13.1 [high certainty]). Cyclosporine (standardized mean difference, -1.1; 95% CrI, -1.7 to -0.5 [low certainty]) and dupilumab (standardized mean difference, -0.9; 95% CrI, -1.0 to -0.8 [high certainty]) were similarly effective vs placebo in clearing clinical signs of atopic dermatitis and may be superior to methotrexate (standardized mean difference, -0.6; 95% CrI, -1.1 to 0.0 [low certainty]) and azathioprine (standardized mean difference, -0.4; 95% CrI, -0.8 to -0.1 [low certainty]). Several investigational medications for atopic dermatitis are promising, but data to date are limited to small early-phase trials. Safety analyses were limited by low event rates. Conclusions and Relevance: Dupilumab and cyclosporine may be more effective for up to 16 weeks of treatment than methotrexate and azathioprine for treating adult patients with atopic dermatitis. More studies directly comparing established and novel treatments beyond 16 weeks are needed and will be incorporated into future updates of this review.

Have we reached the limits for the treatment of diabetic nephropathy?

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of diabetic nephropathy is increasing as a consequence of the global epidemic of diabetes, and the complications of diabetic nephropathy are unsurprisingly legion. Blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) has formed the mainstay of management, but despite this, most individuals will suffer premature cardiovascular events, and many will progress to end-stage renal disease. Given the heterogeneity of pathologies, it is perhaps naïve to hope that blocking a single neurohormonal pathway will protect against the myriad of pathogenetic mechanisms that conspire to cause the injuries seen with diabetes. Chronic hyperglycaemia and resulting advanced glycation end products form a mechanistic axis, which appears central to many of the pathways that lead to diabetic nephropathy. Treatment with pyridoxamine (an inhibitor of advanced glycation end-products) may represent a strategy to counter these injurious pathways. AREAS COVERED: In this review, the authors explore pyridoxamine and other emerging therapeutic agents in the battle against diabetic nephropathy. The authors also provide their perspectives on the field and potential future directions. EXPERT OPINION: Although issues around validity of surrogate markers and clinical end points have complicated trial data in the field, currently available evidence is not persuasive as regards the clinical application of these agents. There remains a clear and growing need for emerging therapeutics to be used in combination with RAAS blocking agents.

Dermatology, an interdisciplinary approach between community and hospital care.

Skin lesions are extremely common, with 54% of the UK population being affected by skin disease annually. As such, dermatological conditions can be brought to light following admission to hospital for different underlying conditions, with 57% of the dermatological diagnoses made on the hospital wards, unrelated to previous patient history or reasons for admission. The role of the dermatologist is therefore comprehensive and inherently important in the hospital. General practitioners play an integral role in managing skin conditions in the community, with up to 24% of consultations relating to skin disease, referring patients to dermatology mainly for the management of more complex conditions, and diagnosis of certain skin lesions. It is therefore essential to further analyse these roles and to better understand the extent of inpatient and outpatient activity to better plan the provision of dermatological services whether in the community, or in the hospital.

The prevalence of electrocardiographic early repolarization in an adult cohort with chronic kidney disease and its impact upon all-cause mortality and progression to dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Electrocardiographic early repolarization (ER) occurring in <5% of general/atherosclerotic populations, is a marker of sudden cardiac death (SCD). The prevalence of ER in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients, in whom SCD is common, is unknown. We aimed to determine the prevalence, contributing factors, and relationship of ER to all-cause mortality and progression to dialysis in CKD patients. METHODS: A retrospective study of 197 patients with stage 3-5 CKD. Full demographic data were collected including cardiovascular risk factors and history. All patients underwent a 12-lead ECG, analysed for the presence of ER and other ECG findings. ER was defined as elevation of the QRS-ST junction (J point) by at least 0.1 mV from baseline with slurring/notching of the QRS complex. The primary and secondary endpoints were all cause mortality and progression to dialysis respectively at 1 year. To control for the effects of CKD, we evaluated the ECGs of 39 healthy renal transplant donors (RTD). RESULTS: CKD patients had a mean age of 61.5 (±16.1). Prevalence of ER in pre-dialysis patients with CKD stage 4 and 5 was higher than in RTD (26.4 vs. 7.7%, p = 0.02). ER frequency increased with CKD stage (stage 3: 7.7%, stage 4: 29.7%, and pre-dialysis stage 5: 24.6%), but decreased in dialysis patients (13%). On multivariate analysis only the QRS duration was a significant independent predictor of ER (OR 0.97, 95% CI, 0.94-0.99, p = 0.01). At 1-year follow-up, there were 24 (12%) deaths in the patients with CKD of whom 5 (21%) had ER. ER was not a predictor of all cause mortality (p = 1.00) and had no effects on the rate of progression to dialysis (p = 0.67). CONCLUSIONS: ER is more common in pre-dialysis CKD patients, compared to healthy RTD but is not associated with increased 1-year mortality or entry onto dialysis programs. Further longitudinal studies are indicated to determine whether this increased prevalence of ER is associated with the rate of SCD seen in this population.