Assessment of the Sustained Response to Systemic Treatment for Atopic Dermatitis in Patients Who Achieved Disease Remission: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Withdrawal, Dose Reduction and Dosing Interval Extension Versus Continuation Therapy.
Juliana Nakano, Letícia Fernandes Barroso, Kleyton de Carvalho Mesquita, Ciro Martins Gomes, Jonathan I Silverberg
{"title":"Assessment of the Sustained Response to Systemic Treatment for Atopic Dermatitis in Patients Who Achieved Disease Remission: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Withdrawal, Dose Reduction and Dosing Interval Extension Versus Continuation Therapy.","authors":"Juliana Nakano, Letícia Fernandes Barroso, Kleyton de Carvalho Mesquita, Ciro Martins Gomes, Jonathan I Silverberg","doi":"10.1093/bjd/ljag436","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recent therapeutic advances transformed the management of atopic dermatitis (AD). Medication withdrawal, dose reduction and dosing interval extension are sometimes necessary when managing AD.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This review aims to compare the effectiveness of withdrawal, dose reduction and dosing interval extension with that of continuation of systemic therapy in sustaining remission among patients with AD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. Study selection was performed independently by two reviewers, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2) and the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. The certainty of the evidence was determined in accordance with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. The primary outcome was defined as sustained clinical improvement, measured by a 75% reduction in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), which was assessed 16 to 52 weeks after treatment withdrawal, dose reduction or dosing interval extension. Risk ratios (RRs) were compared using a network meta-analysis (NMA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After the initial search yielded 21,169 references, 89 reports representing 55 studies were included. Raw data analysis indicated that most active treatments showed comparable RRs for EASI75 maintenance, whereas the discontinuation of oral therapies led to early relapses in AD activity. On the basis of 9 studies encompassing 26 pairwise comparisons and 2,585 observations across 13 regimens, our NMA revealed that lebrikizumab withdrawal and dosing interval extension conferred a lower risk of EASI75 response loss than withdrawal, dose reduction, or dosing interval extension with other active therapies did. A subgroup analysis also revealed that the maintenance of EASI75 responses after placebo withdrawal or dosing interval extension was greatest for induction dosing with lebrikizumab.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While the withdrawal of systemic therapy is recommended in certain circumstances, such as during vaccination and pregnancy, the evidence reveals an early risk of relapse following the withdrawal of oral treatments. In contrast, biologic therapies resulted in sustained remission rates, even after prolonged withdrawal or dosing interval extension periods.</p>","PeriodicalId":520789,"journal":{"name":"The British journal of dermatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The British journal of dermatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjd/ljag436","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: Recent therapeutic advances transformed the management of atopic dermatitis (AD). Medication withdrawal, dose reduction and dosing interval extension are sometimes necessary when managing AD.
Objectives: This review aims to compare the effectiveness of withdrawal, dose reduction and dosing interval extension with that of continuation of systemic therapy in sustaining remission among patients with AD.
Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. Study selection was performed independently by two reviewers, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2) and the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. The certainty of the evidence was determined in accordance with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. The primary outcome was defined as sustained clinical improvement, measured by a 75% reduction in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), which was assessed 16 to 52 weeks after treatment withdrawal, dose reduction or dosing interval extension. Risk ratios (RRs) were compared using a network meta-analysis (NMA).
Results: After the initial search yielded 21,169 references, 89 reports representing 55 studies were included. Raw data analysis indicated that most active treatments showed comparable RRs for EASI75 maintenance, whereas the discontinuation of oral therapies led to early relapses in AD activity. On the basis of 9 studies encompassing 26 pairwise comparisons and 2,585 observations across 13 regimens, our NMA revealed that lebrikizumab withdrawal and dosing interval extension conferred a lower risk of EASI75 response loss than withdrawal, dose reduction, or dosing interval extension with other active therapies did. A subgroup analysis also revealed that the maintenance of EASI75 responses after placebo withdrawal or dosing interval extension was greatest for induction dosing with lebrikizumab.
Conclusions: While the withdrawal of systemic therapy is recommended in certain circumstances, such as during vaccination and pregnancy, the evidence reveals an early risk of relapse following the withdrawal of oral treatments. In contrast, biologic therapies resulted in sustained remission rates, even after prolonged withdrawal or dosing interval extension periods.
背景:最近的治疗进展改变了特应性皮炎(AD)的治疗。在治疗AD时,有时需要停药、减量和延长给药间隔。目的:本综述旨在比较停药、减少剂量和延长给药间隔与继续全身治疗在维持AD患者缓解方面的有效性。方法:利用PubMed、Embase、Web of Science和Scopus数据库进行综合检索。研究选择由两位审稿人独立完成,差异由第三位审稿人解决。使用Cochrane随机试验偏倚风险工具(rob2)和非随机干预研究偏倚风险工具(ROBINS-I)评估偏倚风险。证据的确定性根据建议评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)框架确定。主要结局被定义为持续的临床改善,通过湿疹面积和严重程度指数(EASI)减少75%来衡量,该指标在治疗停药、剂量减少或给药间隔延长后16至52周进行评估。风险比(rr)采用网络meta分析(NMA)进行比较。结果:初始检索产生21,169篇参考文献,纳入89篇报告,代表55项研究。原始数据分析表明,大多数积极治疗在EASI75维持方面的rr相当,而停止口服治疗会导致AD活动早期复发。在9项研究的基础上,包括26个两两比较和13个方案的2585个观察结果,我们的NMA显示,lebrikizumab停药和延长给药间隔比其他积极治疗的停药、剂量减少或延长给药间隔带来的EASI75反应丧失风险更低。亚组分析还显示,诱导给药lebrikizumab在安慰剂停药或延长给药间隔后EASI75反应的维持效果最好。结论:虽然在某些情况下,如在接种疫苗和怀孕期间,建议停止全身治疗,但有证据表明,停止口服治疗后复发的早期风险。相比之下,生物疗法导致持续的缓解率,即使在长时间的停药或给药间隔延长后。