Comparability of Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating Pharmacological Interventions for Pemphigus Vulgaris and Pemphigus Foliaceus: A Systematic Mapping Review
Corinne Le Reun, Najeeda Yasmeen, Alexis E. Cullen, Laura Sawyer, Olga Ostrovskaya, Francesca Barion
{"title":"Comparability of Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating Pharmacological Interventions for Pemphigus Vulgaris and Pemphigus Foliaceus: A Systematic Mapping Review","authors":"Corinne Le Reun, Najeeda Yasmeen, Alexis E. Cullen, Laura Sawyer, Olga Ostrovskaya, Francesca Barion","doi":"10.1007/s12325-025-03118-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Pemphigus diseases are a family of chronic, autoimmune, blistering skin conditions. Despite advances in treatment approaches, more effective and safer therapies for pemphigus are urgently needed. Trials investigating novel therapeutics must be designed to yield evidence that can be compared to existing data, necessitating a comprehensive understanding of the clinical trial landscape. We aimed to perform a mapping review to assess the comparability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating existing treatments for pemphigus vulgaris (PV) and pemphigus foliaceous (PF).</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to July 2023, supplemented with conference abstracts, clinical trial registries, and grey literature searches, for RCTs evaluating pharmacotherapies in adults with moderate-to-severe PV or PF. Comparability of study populations (demographic and clinical characteristics), interventions and comparators (dose, administration route, regimen), and outcomes (definition, time point, measure) across trials was assessed.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>Fifteen RCTs were eligible for inclusion. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in participant age, sex, and disease duration at baseline, and none of the studies used the same criteria to assess illness severity. Doses and regimens differed across trials assessing the same interventions. Across 16 outcome measures extracted, clinical remission outcomes had limited comparability across studies and were often not defined according to published guidelines. Cumulative corticosteroid dose during the study period had the highest comparability. Health-related quality of life data and serious adverse events were infrequently reported.</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The lack of comparability across studies has major implications for developers of new treatments for PV and PF and for decision-makers who must evaluate the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of these treatments relative to existing therapeutics.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7482,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Therapy","volume":"42 4","pages":"1642 - 1691"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12325-025-03118-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
Pemphigus diseases are a family of chronic, autoimmune, blistering skin conditions. Despite advances in treatment approaches, more effective and safer therapies for pemphigus are urgently needed. Trials investigating novel therapeutics must be designed to yield evidence that can be compared to existing data, necessitating a comprehensive understanding of the clinical trial landscape. We aimed to perform a mapping review to assess the comparability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating existing treatments for pemphigus vulgaris (PV) and pemphigus foliaceous (PF).
Methods
Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to July 2023, supplemented with conference abstracts, clinical trial registries, and grey literature searches, for RCTs evaluating pharmacotherapies in adults with moderate-to-severe PV or PF. Comparability of study populations (demographic and clinical characteristics), interventions and comparators (dose, administration route, regimen), and outcomes (definition, time point, measure) across trials was assessed.
Results
Fifteen RCTs were eligible for inclusion. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in participant age, sex, and disease duration at baseline, and none of the studies used the same criteria to assess illness severity. Doses and regimens differed across trials assessing the same interventions. Across 16 outcome measures extracted, clinical remission outcomes had limited comparability across studies and were often not defined according to published guidelines. Cumulative corticosteroid dose during the study period had the highest comparability. Health-related quality of life data and serious adverse events were infrequently reported.
Conclusions
The lack of comparability across studies has major implications for developers of new treatments for PV and PF and for decision-makers who must evaluate the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of these treatments relative to existing therapeutics.
期刊介绍:
Advances in Therapy is an international, peer reviewed, rapid-publication (peer review in 2 weeks, published 3–4 weeks from acceptance) journal dedicated to the publication of high-quality clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the discovery, development, and use of therapeutics and interventions (including devices) across all therapeutic areas. Studies relating to diagnostics and diagnosis, pharmacoeconomics, public health, epidemiology, quality of life, and patient care, management, and education are also encouraged.
The journal is of interest to a broad audience of healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, communications and letters. The journal is read by a global audience and receives submissions from all over the world. Advances in Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of all scientifically and ethically sound research.