Lack of Evidence for the Efficacy of Antifungal Medications to Treat Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review

Luis F. Andrade, Teresa Ju, Parsa Abdi, Michael R. Anderson, Elise Edwards, Nicole Khalil, Olivia Burke, Daniella Jaguan, Jonathan I. Silverberg
{"title":"Lack of Evidence for the Efficacy of Antifungal Medications to Treat Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review","authors":"Luis F. Andrade,&nbsp;Teresa Ju,&nbsp;Parsa Abdi,&nbsp;Michael R. Anderson,&nbsp;Elise Edwards,&nbsp;Nicole Khalil,&nbsp;Olivia Burke,&nbsp;Daniella Jaguan,&nbsp;Jonathan I. Silverberg","doi":"10.1002/jvc2.604","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Atopic dermatitis (AD) is characterised by immune dysregulation and skin-barrier dysfunction, which can predispose to microbial dysbiosis and skin infections. Fungi, particularly Malassezia, are common skin colonisers in AD patients and may exacerbate the condition. Previous studies on the efficacy of antifungal treatments for AD have shown inconsistent results.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of topical and oral antifungal therapies in treating AD.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022338791). Databases searched included PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, LILACS, Cochrane, CINAHL, GREAT, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Inclusion criteria encompassed interventional studies using antifungal agents for AD, with outcomes such as SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Of 35,591 studies obtained from the initial search, seven met the inclusion criteria. Topical antifungal treatments, such as sertaconazole, miconazole, and ciclopirox olamine, showed minimal efficacy in reducing AD severity when compared to placebo or hydrocortisone treatments. Oral antifungal treatments, including itraconazole and ketoconazole, demonstrated mixed results, with some studies showing modest improvements in SCORAD scores but overall lacking significant clinical benefit.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The systematic review found weak evidence supporting the efficacy of both topical and oral antifungal therapies for treating AD. Topical antifungals showed limited improvement and fewer adverse effects, while oral antifungals posed a higher risk of systemic adverse events without consistent efficacy. Based on these findings, antifungal treatments are not recommended for AD severity management alone other than for treatment of comorbid fungal and yeast infections. Future research should focus on larger sample sizes, standardised severity assessments, and comprehensive adverse event reporting to better evaluate antifungal treatments in AD.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":94325,"journal":{"name":"JEADV clinical practice","volume":"4 2","pages":"400-406"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jvc2.604","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JEADV clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jvc2.604","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is characterised by immune dysregulation and skin-barrier dysfunction, which can predispose to microbial dysbiosis and skin infections. Fungi, particularly Malassezia, are common skin colonisers in AD patients and may exacerbate the condition. Previous studies on the efficacy of antifungal treatments for AD have shown inconsistent results.

Objectives

This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of topical and oral antifungal therapies in treating AD.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022338791). Databases searched included PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, LILACS, Cochrane, CINAHL, GREAT, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Inclusion criteria encompassed interventional studies using antifungal agents for AD, with outcomes such as SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD).

Results

Of 35,591 studies obtained from the initial search, seven met the inclusion criteria. Topical antifungal treatments, such as sertaconazole, miconazole, and ciclopirox olamine, showed minimal efficacy in reducing AD severity when compared to placebo or hydrocortisone treatments. Oral antifungal treatments, including itraconazole and ketoconazole, demonstrated mixed results, with some studies showing modest improvements in SCORAD scores but overall lacking significant clinical benefit.

Conclusions

The systematic review found weak evidence supporting the efficacy of both topical and oral antifungal therapies for treating AD. Topical antifungals showed limited improvement and fewer adverse effects, while oral antifungals posed a higher risk of systemic adverse events without consistent efficacy. Based on these findings, antifungal treatments are not recommended for AD severity management alone other than for treatment of comorbid fungal and yeast infections. Future research should focus on larger sample sizes, standardised severity assessments, and comprehensive adverse event reporting to better evaluate antifungal treatments in AD.

缺乏抗真菌药物治疗特应性皮炎疗效的证据:一项系统综述
特应性皮炎(AD)以免疫失调和皮肤屏障功能障碍为特征,易导致微生物生态失调和皮肤感染。真菌,尤其是马拉色菌,是AD患者常见的皮肤殖民者,可能会加重病情。以往关于抗真菌治疗AD疗效的研究结果并不一致。目的本系统综述旨在评价局部和口服抗真菌治疗AD的有效性。方法按照PRISMA指南(PROSPERO ID: CRD42022338791)进行系统评价。检索的数据库包括PubMed、MEDLINE、Embase、Scopus、LILACS、Cochrane、CINAHL、GREAT和ClinicalTrials.gov。纳入标准包括使用抗真菌药物治疗AD的介入性研究,结果如特应性皮炎评分(SCORAD)。结果在初始检索获得的35,591项研究中,有7项符合纳入标准。与安慰剂或氢化可的松治疗相比,局部抗真菌治疗,如sertaconazole、miconazole和cyclopirox olamine,在降低AD严重程度方面显示出最小的疗效。口服抗真菌治疗,包括伊曲康唑和酮康唑,显示出混合的结果,一些研究显示SCORAD评分适度改善,但总体上缺乏显著的临床益处。结论系统评价发现,支持局部和口服抗真菌治疗AD疗效的证据不足。局部抗真菌药物显示有限的改善和较少的不良反应,而口服抗真菌药物具有更高的系统性不良事件风险,没有一致的疗效。基于这些发现,除了治疗合并症真菌和酵母菌感染外,不建议单独使用抗真菌治疗来控制AD的严重程度。未来的研究应侧重于更大的样本量、标准化的严重程度评估和全面的不良事件报告,以更好地评估AD的抗真菌治疗。
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
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信