An evaluation of the recently approved drugs for treating atopic dermatitis in the context of their safety and efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 3.9 3区医学 Q2 IMMUNOLOGY

Expert Review of Clinical Immunology Pub Date : 2024-12-18 DOI:10.1080/1744666X.2024.2435657

Abdullah Alkattan, Abrar Alzaher, Dina Alhabib, Afnan Younis, Elham Alsalem, Nadia Suraj, Eman Alsalameen, Noura Alrasheed, Moneerah Almuhaidib, Mona H Ibrahim

{"title":"An evaluation of the recently approved drugs for treating atopic dermatitis in the context of their safety and efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Abdullah Alkattan, Abrar Alzaher, Dina Alhabib, Afnan Younis, Elham Alsalem, Nadia Suraj, Eman Alsalameen, Noura Alrasheed, Moneerah Almuhaidib, Mona H Ibrahim","doi":"10.1080/1744666X.2024.2435657","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: The present paper aimed to conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of crisaborole, delgocitinib, and ruxolitinib in treating mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD).Methods: MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases were utilized to search articles published during the years 2015-2024. The review was limited to randomized controlled studies that measured specific outcomes for safety and efficacy aspects, including adverse events (AEs) or treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) to evaluate safety and Investigator's static global assessment (ISGA) or improvement of at least 75% of Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) to evaluate efficacy.Results: The review included 17 articles in the analysis. The safety odds ratios (ORs) among participants using crisaborole, delgocitinib, and ruxolitinib were 1.14, 95% CI [0.97-1.36], 1.18, 95% CI [0.84-1.67], and 0.72, 95% CI [0.55-0.94], respectively, when compared to control groups. The three studied topical AD treatments were found to be significantly more effective compared to control groups (crisaborole, OR = 1.78, 95% CI [1.51-2.10], delgocitinib, OR = 6.34, 95% CI [3.57-11.27], and ruxolitinib, OR = 7.30, 95% CI [5.10-10.44]).Conclusion: Delgocitinib and ruxolitinib demonstrated favorable safety and effectiveness profiles across various age cohorts, whereas crisaborole raised concerns over its safety and efficacy, particularly in children.","PeriodicalId":12175,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Clinical Immunology","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Clinical Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1744666X.2024.2435657","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The present paper aimed to conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of crisaborole, delgocitinib, and ruxolitinib in treating mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD).

Methods: MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases were utilized to search articles published during the years 2015-2024. The review was limited to randomized controlled studies that measured specific outcomes for safety and efficacy aspects, including adverse events (AEs) or treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) to evaluate safety and Investigator's static global assessment (ISGA) or improvement of at least 75% of Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) to evaluate efficacy.

Results: The review included 17 articles in the analysis. The safety odds ratios (ORs) among participants using crisaborole, delgocitinib, and ruxolitinib were 1.14, 95% CI [0.97-1.36], 1.18, 95% CI [0.84-1.67], and 0.72, 95% CI [0.55-0.94], respectively, when compared to control groups. The three studied topical AD treatments were found to be significantly more effective compared to control groups (crisaborole, OR = 1.78, 95% CI [1.51-2.10], delgocitinib, OR = 6.34, 95% CI [3.57-11.27], and ruxolitinib, OR = 7.30, 95% CI [5.10-10.44]).

Conclusion: Delgocitinib and ruxolitinib demonstrated favorable safety and effectiveness profiles across various age cohorts, whereas crisaborole raised concerns over its safety and efficacy, particularly in children.

查看原文本刊更多论文

最近批准的治疗特应性皮炎药物的安全性和有效性评价：系统回顾和荟萃分析。

本论文旨在进行一项最新的系统回顾和荟萃分析，以评估crisaborole， delgocitinib和ruxolitinib治疗轻中度特应性皮炎（AD）的安全性和有效性。方法：利用MEDLINE和谷歌Scholar数据库检索2015-2024年发表的论文。该综述仅限于随机对照研究，这些研究测量了安全性和有效性方面的特定结果，包括不良事件（ae）或治疗中出现的不良事件（teae）来评估安全性，研究者静态总体评估（ISGA）或至少75%湿疹面积和严重程度指数（EASI-75）的改善来评估有效性。结果：纳入17篇分析文献。与对照组相比，使用crisaborole、delgocitinib和ruxolitinib的受试者的安全比值比（or）分别为1.14,95% CI[0.97-1.36]、1.18,95% CI[0.84-1.67]和0.72,95% CI[0.55-0.94]。研究发现，与对照组相比，三种局部治疗AD明显有效（crisaborole, OR = 1.78, 95% CI [1.51-2.10], delgocitinib, OR = 6.34, 95% CI [3.57-11.27], ruxolitinib, OR = 7.30, 95% CI[5.10-10.44]）。结论：Delgocitinib和ruxolitinib在不同年龄组中表现出良好的安全性和有效性，而crisaborole则引起了对其安全性和有效性的担忧，特别是在儿童中。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Expert Review of Clinical Immunology IMMUNOLOGY-

CiteScore

7.60

自引率

2.30%

发文量

221

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Expert Review of Clinical Immunology (ISSN 1744-666X) provides expert analysis and commentary regarding the performance of new therapeutic and diagnostic modalities in clinical immunology. Members of the International Editorial Advisory Panel of Expert Review of Clinical Immunology are the forefront of their area of expertise. This panel works with our dedicated editorial team to identify the most important and topical review themes and the corresponding expert(s) most appropriate to provide commentary and analysis. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review, and the finished reviews provide an essential contribution to decision-making in clinical immunology. Articles focus on the following key areas: • Therapeutic overviews of specific immunologic disorders highlighting optimal therapy and prospects for new medicines • Performance and benefits of newly approved therapeutic agents • New diagnostic approaches • Screening and patient stratification • Pharmacoeconomic studies • New therapeutic indications for existing therapies • Adverse effects, occurrence and reduction • Prospects for medicines in late-stage trials approaching regulatory approval • Novel treatment strategies • Epidemiological studies • Commentary and comparison of treatment guidelines Topics include infection and immunity, inflammation, host defense mechanisms, congenital and acquired immunodeficiencies, anaphylaxis and allergy, systemic immune diseases, organ-specific inflammatory diseases, transplantation immunology, endocrinology and diabetes, cancer immunology, neuroimmunology and hematological diseases.