Background: Some Network Meta-analysis (NMA) has been published regarding atopic dermatitis (AD). These studies have considered drugs under investigation both in monotheraphy or in combination with topical corticosteroids, as well as systemic immunosuppressant therapies. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of biological agents and small molecules in AD. Methods: A systematic review and NMA of biologics agents and small molecules in AD was performed. A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for clinical trials and systematic reviews between January 2000 and 19 December 2020. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. It was limited to English language and adult human subjects. Two networks were evaluated: monotherapy and combination with TCS. The two primary outcomes were Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) 75 and EASI 90 change from baseline to week 12–16, depending on source study cut-off. The Cochrane’s Risk of Bias tool 2011 update was used to analyze the risk of bias, focused on the primary objectives. Results: 30 RCTs (included in 26 publications) were included in the systematic review. Finally, 23 RCTs were included in the quantitative analysis (14 RCTs including 3582 patients in monotherapy; and 9 RCTs including 3686 patients with TCS). In monotherapy, a higher percentage of patients achieving EASI-75 was obtained with Upadacitinib 30 mg [OR: 18.90 (13.94; 25.62)] followed by Abrocitinib 200 mg [OR = 11.26 (7.02; 18.05)] and Upadacitinib 15 mg [OR: 10.89 (8.13; 14.59)]. These results were also observed in studies where the use of topical corticosteroid (TCS) was allowed (OR Upadacitinib 30 mg = 9.43; OR Abrocitinib 200 mg = 6.12; OR Upadacitinib 15 mg = 5.20). Regarding IGA, the percentage of patients achieving IGA0/1 was higher with both doses of Upadacitinib 30 mg [OR: 19.13 (13.14; 27.85)] and 15 mg [OR = 10.95 (7.52; 15.94). In studies where the use of TCS were allowed, however, the dose of Abrocitinib 200 mg [OR = 6.10 (3.94; 9.44)] showed higher efficacy than Upadacitinib 15 mg [OR = 5.47 (3.57; 8.41)]. Regarding safety, the drugs with the highest probability of presenting adverse effects were the Janus kinases (JAK) inhibitors, Upadacitinib and Abrocitinib in monotherapy and Baricitinib in combination with TCS. Discussion: Some risks of bias have been found, which must be taken into account when interpreting the results. The funnel plot shows a possible publication bias that may underestimate the efficacy of drugs. Upadacitinib and Abrocitinib are the drugs with the highest efficacy, both in monotherapy and in association with TCS. However, they were also those associated with the highest risk of adverse effects, showing monoclonal antibodies better safety profile. Limitations: We have included molecules still in the development phase as well studies completed and presented at conferences and with data available in Trialsgov® but not published yet. Several molecules’ development had included a small number of patients from 12 to 17 years of age, without being able to differentiate the results from the adult population. Other: Founding: None. PROSPERO database registration number CRD42021225793.

Background: There is little scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of strengthening exercises on the foot’s intrinsic musculature in improving the lower limb on the statics and dynamics in healthy individuals. Method: To evaluate the effect on foot posture with regard to the reinforcement of the short foot exercise (SFE) compared to another without a recognized biomechanical action, which we called the “non-biomechanical function” (NBF) exercise. A randomized clinical trial was carried out with 85 asymptomatic participants with a bilateral Foot Posture Index (FPI) greater than 6 points. An experimental group (n = 42) did SFE training and a control group (n = 43) carried out NBF exercises. The foot posture was evaluated twice via the navicular drop (ND) test, and the FPI was assessed on the day of inclusion in the study (pre-intervention) and after four weeks of training (post-intervention). Results: Statistically significant values were not found in foot posture between the experimental and the control groups when comparing before and after the training. However, the foot posture was modified in both groups with respect to its initial state, and the ND value decreased. Conclusions: SFE could be considered a useful tool to deal with pathologies whose etiology includes excessive pronation of the foot.

(1) Background: Inflammatory bowel diseases are pathologies of unknown etiology and auto-immune pathogenia. The use of probiotics is studied in order to increase the arsenal of treatments. The aim was to assess the efficacy of the probiotics in these diseases in the active or quiescent phases; (2) Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed by an exhaustive bibliographic search in Medline, Cinahl, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. The inclusion criteria were studies of more than 10 years, English/Spanish, clinical trials, and involving human beings. Relative risk was used to compare efficacy, which was meta-analyzed using a fixed effects model. Heterogeneity was evaluated with the Higgins I2 test; (3) Results: Nineteen studies were included in the systematic review and 17 in the meta-analysis, with a total of 1537 patients (nexperimental group = 762; nplacebo group = 775). There are significant remission differences in ulcerative colitis (relative risk (RR) = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.72–0.91; I2 = 32%; p = 0.16). However, no significant differences were found in the use of probiotics for the prevention of ulcerative colitis, and for the remission of Crohn’s disease; (4) Conclusions: There are data showing an additional beneficial effect of probiotics on active ulcerative colitis. More and better studies are needed which assess its possible therapeutic efficacy for quiescent ulcerative colitis and for Crohn’s disease.

(1) Background: Coronavirus disease, also called COVID-19, is a worldwide pandemic with a major impact on all aspects of the individual (health status, psychological, and economic aspects, among others). The perception of health professionals in this situation has been influenced by their economic and psychosocial situations. On the economic level, self-employed workers have no state subsidies, with the added disadvantage of not having sufficient means to cope with contagion. This could potentially have an impact on their health and indirectly on their family members, creating additional stress. The aim of this study was to determine whether there are differences in the level of anxiety of health professionals working in private practice compared to healthcare workers working in public institutions during the first three waves of COVID-19. (2) Methods: A cohort study on 517 subjects comparing anxiety between a group of health workers and a group of health professionals working in the public sector at three key moments during the pandemic was performed. (3) Results: Statistically significant differences were found between self-employed private health professionals compared to those working as public health workers. The perception of impact was worse in the self-employed; however, a higher level of anxiety was evident in public employees in all assessed domains (cognitive, physiological, and motor, p = 0.001). (4) Conclusions: There were significant changes when comparing the first phase between both groups; employed public healthcare workers manifested a sense of lower risk of COVID-19 contagion than privately employed professionals, who had a higher level of anxiety. In the second and third waves, negative feelings improved for both groups, and the fear of showing anxiety to the patient decreased over the course of the waves.

Introduction: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a genetically based chronic inflammatory dermatosis associated with multiple triggers and complex pathophysiological mechanisms. Nowadays, an authentic therapeutic revolution is taking place with the incorporation of biological drugs for the treatment of moderate and severe atopic dermatitis. A new systematic revision (RS) is necessary to support decision-making for specialists treating AD. Methods: A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed between 1 January 2000 and 30 April 2022. Phase III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of EMA-approved molecules were included. The main variables analyzed were a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 75) and the number of patients who reached 0 in the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) (fully cleared patients) or IGA 1 (almost cleared patients) at the end of the study period (week 48–60). The risk of bias was analyzed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment (ROB-2) tool, focused on the primary objectives. Before carrying out the study, the protocol was registered in PROSPERO with the number CRD42022331109. Results: A total of 3299 studies were systematically identified via databases and registers (442 from PubMed/MEDLINE, 2857 from Embase and 719 from CENTRAL). Finally, five publications containing seven RCTs were included in the final sample of detailed data extraction and data analyses. Regarding efficacy, the best results are obtained with Upadacitinib 30 mg (84.7% (77.3–92.1)) at 52 weeks, slightly improving its results when TCS is added (84.9% (80.3–89.5)). These results are replicated in the measurement of vIGA 0/1 for Updacitinib 30 mg + TCS, where 65.5% (55.7–75.2) of patients maintain it at 52 weeks. Of the four drugs, no long-term safety results have been reported for baricitinib. In relation to the safety findings, there were no significant differences in the dropout rates for this reason in the remaining three drugs. Discussion: Today, different therapeutic options for AD patients can be prescribed. Individualizing the treatment allows for better therapeutic consistency, in addition to being cost-efficient to avoid primary therapeutic failures. The results of the present SR may provide us with a useful basis for the preparation of management guidelines for the use of new generation therapies in moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.