IMPORTANCE Systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis are being evaluated primarily in placebo-controlled trials; network meta-analysis can provide relative efficacy and safety estimates for treatments that have not been compared head to head. OBJECTIVE To compare reported measures of efficacy and assessments of safety in clinical trials of systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis in a living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database, Global Resource of EczemA Trials database, and trial registries were searched through June 15, 2021. STUDY SELECTION Randomized clinical trials examining 8 or more weeks of treatment with systemic immunomodulatory medications for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis were included after screening titles, abstracts, and papers in duplicate. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Data were abstracted in duplicate. Bayesian network meta-analyses and assessed Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation certainty of evidence were performed. The updated analysis was completed from June to December 2021.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Outcomes include change in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scales (PP-NRS).RESULTS Since October 2019, 21 new studies were added, for a total of 60 trials with 16 579 patients. Up to 16 weeks of treatment in adults, abrocitinib, 200 mg daily (mean difference [MD], 2.2; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.2-4.0; high certainty) and upadacitinib, 30 mg daily (MD, 2.7; 95% CrI, 0.6-4.7; high certainty) were associated with reduced EASI slightly more than dupilumab, 600 mg then 300 mg every 2 weeks. Abrocitinib, 100 mg daily (MD, −2.1; 95% CrI, −4.1 to −0.3; high certainty), baricitinib, 4 mg daily (MD, −3.2; 95% CrI, −5.7 to −0.8; high certainty), baricitinib, 2 mg daily (MD, −5.2; 95% CrI, −7.5 to −2.9; high certainty) and tralokinumab, 600 mg then 300 mg every 2 weeks (MD, −3.5; 95% CrI, −5.8 to −1.3; high certainty) were associated with reduced EASI slightly less than dupilumab. There was little or no difference between upadacitinib, 15 mg daily, and dupilumab (MD, 0.2; 95% CrI, −1.9 to 2.2; high certainty). The pattern of results was similar for POEM, DLQI, and PP-NRS. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, abrocitinib, 200 mg; and upadacitinib, 30 mg daily, were associated with slightly better scores than dupilumab, and upadacitinib, 15 mg daily, was associated with similar scores to dupilumab. Abrocitinib, 100 mg daily, baricitinib, 4 mg and 2 mg daily, and tralokinumab, 300 mg, every 2 weeks were associated with slightly worse scores.

BackgroundThis review aimed to assess the existing evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions in adults with insomnia and identify where research or policy development is needed.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, and PubMed were searched from inception until June 14, 2017, along with relevant gray literature sites. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text articles, and a single reviewer with an independent verifier completed charting, data abstraction, and quality appraisal.ResultsA total of 64 systematic reviews (35 with meta-analysis) were included after screening 5024 titles and abstracts and 525 full-text articles. Eight of the included reviews were rated as high quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) tool, and over half of the included articles (n = 40) were rated as low or critically low quality. Consistent evidence of effectiveness across multiple outcomes based on more than one high- or moderate quality review with meta-analysis was found for zolpidem, suvorexant, doxepin, melatonin, and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and evidence of effectiveness across multiple outcomes based on one high-quality review with meta-analysis was found for temazepam, triazolam, zopiclone, trazodone, and behavioral interventions. These interventions were mostly evaluated in the short term (< 16 weeks), and there was very little harms data available for the pharmacological interventions making it difficult to evaluate their risk-benefit ratio.ConclusionsAssuming non-pharmacological interventions are preferable from a safety perspective CBT can be considered an effective first-line therapy for adults with insomnia followed by other behavioral interventions. Short courses of pharmacological interventions can be supplements to CBT or behavioral therapy; however, no evidence regarding the appropriate duration of pharmacological therapy is available from these reviews.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017072527.

Siltuximab is the only US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment for idiopathic multicentric Castleman disease (iMCD), a rare haematological disorder associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Although siltuximab induces a response in a significant proportion of iMCD patients via interleukin 6 (IL6) neutralization, it is not universally effective. To develop a predictive model of response, we performed an in-depth analysis of 38 baseline laboratory parameters in iMCD patients from the phase II siltuximab trial who met criteria for treatment response or treatment failure. Univariate analyses identified eight baseline laboratory parameters that were significantly different between responders and treatment failures: albumin, immunoglobulin G (IgG), immunoglobulin A, C reactive protein (CRP), fibrinogen, haemoglobin, sodium and triglycerides. Stepwise logistic regression analysis of these candidate parameters identified a top performing model that included fibrinogen, IgG, haemoglobin and CRP. Based on cross-validation of the final multivariate logistic regression model, the model accurately discriminated responders from those who failed treatment (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve 0·86, 95% confidence interval: 0·73-0·95). All four laboratory parameters associated with response to siltuximab have biological relationships with IL6 and acute inflammation. Our model suggests that iMCD patients with laboratory evidence of an inflammatory syndrome are the best candidates for siltuximab therapy.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is associated with systemic inflammation and systemic corticosteroid use which can lead to poor bone health. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the relationship between AD and bone mineral density (BMD), osteoporosis and fractures. We searched Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE and Embase. Title, abstract and full‐text screening, and data extraction were done in duplicate. Quality appraisal was performed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methodology Checklist (cross‐sectional studies) and Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale (cohort studies). We screened 3800 abstracts and included fifteen studies (twelve cross‐sectional, three cohort). In cross‐sectional studies, AD was associated with decreased BMD and increased fractures. In cross‐sectional studies and a cohort study, AD was associated with a higher prevalence of osteoporosis compared to controls. There was inconsistency across studies, with some finding no association. In a large cohort study, AD was associated with increased risk of fractures of the hip (HR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.11), spine (HR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.23) and wrist (HR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.10), with further increased risk with more severe AD. Differences between studies precluded quantitative synthesis. There is some evidence supporting an association between AD and poor bone health. Research is needed to clarify this association, underlying mechanisms and develop strategies to improve bone health of individuals with AD.