系统性免疫调节疗法治疗表皮坏死松解(Stevens-Johnson综合征/中毒性表皮坏死松解):系统综述和荟萃分析。

IF 3.8 4区 医学 Q1 DERMATOLOGY
Ruben Heuer, Maren Paulmann, Maja Mockenhaupt, Alexander Nast
{"title":"系统性免疫调节疗法治疗表皮坏死松解(Stevens-Johnson综合征/中毒性表皮坏死松解):系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Ruben Heuer, Maren Paulmann, Maja Mockenhaupt, Alexander Nast","doi":"10.1111/ddg.15804","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Epidermal necrolysis is a rare but severe cutaneous reaction with high mortality. Limited evidence exists regarding the efficacy of systemic immunomodulatory therapies (SITs). Our systematic review aimed to compare SITs with supportive care or one another.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Randomized controlled trials and controlled observational studies (≥ 5 patients of all ages per arm) using the international consensus classification for EN (Bastuji-Garin, 1993) with no significant baseline differences were included. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL (January 1, 1993-January 22, 2024). Two reviewers independently extracted study and outcome data. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The main outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital stay duration, time to complete reepithelialization, complications, and sequelae. 43 studies with 58 treatment comparisons were analyzed. Cyclosporine was superior to IVIG regarding mortality (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05-0.58), and corticosteroids plus IVIG reduced serious complications compared to corticosteroids alone (sepsis, RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.31-0.77). Compared to supportive care, only etanercept showed a significant mortality benefit (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11-0.93; GRADE: imprecision/unclear clinical importance).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is no clear evidence of the superiority of SITs over supportive care, which remains the primary treatment for EN.</p>","PeriodicalId":14758,"journal":{"name":"Journal Der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systemic immunomodulating therapies for epidermal necrolysis (Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis): A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ruben Heuer, Maren Paulmann, Maja Mockenhaupt, Alexander Nast\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ddg.15804\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Epidermal necrolysis is a rare but severe cutaneous reaction with high mortality. Limited evidence exists regarding the efficacy of systemic immunomodulatory therapies (SITs). Our systematic review aimed to compare SITs with supportive care or one another.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Randomized controlled trials and controlled observational studies (≥ 5 patients of all ages per arm) using the international consensus classification for EN (Bastuji-Garin, 1993) with no significant baseline differences were included. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL (January 1, 1993-January 22, 2024). Two reviewers independently extracted study and outcome data. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The main outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital stay duration, time to complete reepithelialization, complications, and sequelae. 43 studies with 58 treatment comparisons were analyzed. Cyclosporine was superior to IVIG regarding mortality (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05-0.58), and corticosteroids plus IVIG reduced serious complications compared to corticosteroids alone (sepsis, RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.31-0.77). Compared to supportive care, only etanercept showed a significant mortality benefit (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11-0.93; GRADE: imprecision/unclear clinical importance).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is no clear evidence of the superiority of SITs over supportive care, which remains the primary treatment for EN.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14758,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal Der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal Der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ddg.15804\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DERMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal Der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ddg.15804","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:表皮坏死松解是一种罕见但严重的皮肤反应,死亡率高。关于全身免疫调节疗法(sit)的疗效的证据有限。我们的系统综述旨在比较sit与支持性护理或彼此之间的差异。患者和方法:采用国际共识EN分类(Bastuji-Garin, 1993),纳入无显著基线差异的随机对照试验和对照观察性研究(每组≥5例所有年龄的患者)。我们检索了MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane CENTRAL(1993年1月1日至2024年1月22日)。两位审稿人独立提取研究和结果数据。进行随机效应荟萃分析。结果:主要观察指标为死亡率。次要结局包括住院时间、完成上皮再生的时间、并发症和后遗症。对43项研究和58项治疗比较进行了分析。环孢素在死亡率方面优于IVIG (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05-0.58),皮质类固醇加IVIG与单独使用皮质类固醇相比减少了严重并发症(败血症,RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.31-0.77)。与支持治疗相比,只有依那西普显示出显著的死亡率优势(RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11-0.93; GRADE:不精确/临床重要性不明确)。结论:没有明确的证据表明sit优于支持治疗,支持治疗仍然是EN的主要治疗方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Systemic immunomodulating therapies for epidermal necrolysis (Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and objectives: Epidermal necrolysis is a rare but severe cutaneous reaction with high mortality. Limited evidence exists regarding the efficacy of systemic immunomodulatory therapies (SITs). Our systematic review aimed to compare SITs with supportive care or one another.

Patients and methods: Randomized controlled trials and controlled observational studies (≥ 5 patients of all ages per arm) using the international consensus classification for EN (Bastuji-Garin, 1993) with no significant baseline differences were included. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL (January 1, 1993-January 22, 2024). Two reviewers independently extracted study and outcome data. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed.

Results: The main outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital stay duration, time to complete reepithelialization, complications, and sequelae. 43 studies with 58 treatment comparisons were analyzed. Cyclosporine was superior to IVIG regarding mortality (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05-0.58), and corticosteroids plus IVIG reduced serious complications compared to corticosteroids alone (sepsis, RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.31-0.77). Compared to supportive care, only etanercept showed a significant mortality benefit (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11-0.93; GRADE: imprecision/unclear clinical importance).

Conclusions: There is no clear evidence of the superiority of SITs over supportive care, which remains the primary treatment for EN.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
25.00%
发文量
406
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The JDDG publishes scientific papers from a wide range of disciplines, such as dermatovenereology, allergology, phlebology, dermatosurgery, dermatooncology, and dermatohistopathology. Also in JDDG: information on medical training, continuing education, a calendar of events, book reviews and society announcements. Papers can be submitted in German or English language. In the print version, all articles are published in German. In the online version, all key articles are published in English.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信