Methotrexate versus cyclosporine in the treatment of severe atopic dermatitis in children: a multicenter experience from Egypt
Abstract: Methotrexate or cyclosporine in low doses can be considered as effective, relatively safe, and well-tolerated treatments for severe AD in children.
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Cited by 140 publications
References 24 publications
BackgroundEczema is a very common chronic inflammatory skin condition.ObjectivesTo update the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) systematic review of treatments for atopic eczema, published in 2000, and to inform health-care professionals, commissioners and patients about key treatment developments and research gaps.Data sourcesElectronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched from the end of 2000 to 31 August 2013. Retrieved articles were used to identify further randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Review methodsStudies were filtered according to inclusion criteria and agreed by consensus in cases of uncertainty. Abstracts were excluded and non-English-language papers were screened by international colleagues and data were extracted. Only RCTs of treatments for eczema were included, as other forms of evidence are associated with higher risks of bias. Inclusion criteria for studies included availability of data relevant to the therapeutic management of eczema; mention of randomisation; comparison of two or more treatments; and prospective data collection. Participants of all ages were included. Eczema diagnosis was determined by a clinician or according to published diagnostic criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool. We used a standardised approach to summarising the data and the assessment of risk of bias and we made a clear distinction between what the studies found and our own interpretation of study findings.ResultsOf 7198 references screened, 287 new trials were identified spanning 92 treatments. Trial reporting was generally poor (randomisation method: 2% high, 36% low, 62% unclear risk of bias; allocation concealment: 3% high, 15% low, 82% unclear risk of bias; blinding of the intervention: 15% high, 28% low, 57% unclear risk of bias). Only 22 (8%) trials were considered to be at low risk of bias for all three criteria. There was reasonable evidence of benefit for the topical medications tacrolimus, pimecrolimus and various corticosteroids (with tacrolimus superior to pimecrolimus and corticosteroids) for both treatment and flare prevention; oral ciclosporin; oral azathioprine; narrow band ultraviolet B (UVB) light; Atopiclair™ and education. There was reasonable evidence to suggest no clinically useful benefit for twice-daily compared with once-daily topical corticosteroids; corticosteroids containing antibiotics for non-infected eczema; probiotics; evening primrose and borage oil; ion-exchange water softeners; protease inhibitor SRD441 (Serentis Ltd); furfuryl palmitate in emollient; cipamfylline cream; andMycobacterium vaccaevaccine. Additional research evidence is needed for emollients, bath additives, antibacterials, specialist clothing and complementary and alternative therapies. There was no RCT evidence for topical corticosteroid dilution, impregnated bandages, soap avoidance, bathing frequency or allergy testing.LimitationsThe large scope of the review coupled with the heterogeneity of outcomes precluded formal meta-analyses. Our conclusions are still limited by a profusion of small, poorly reported studies.ConclusionsAlthough the evidence base of RCTs has increased considerably since the last NIHR HTA systematic review, the field is still severely hampered by poor design and reporting problems including failure to register trials and declare primary outcomes, small sample size, short follow-up duration and poor reporting of risk of bias. Key areas for further research identified by the review include the optimum use of emollients, bathing frequency, wash products, allergy testing and antiseptic treatments. Perhaps the greatest benefit identified is the use of twice weekly anti-inflammatory treatment to maintain disease remission. More studies need to be conducted in a primary care setting where most people with eczema are seen in the UK. Future studies need to use the same core set of outcomes that capture patient symptoms, clinical signs, quality of life and the chronic nature of the disease.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.
BackgroundEczema is a very common chronic inflammatory skin condition.ObjectivesTo update the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) systematic review of treatments for atopic eczema, published in 2000, and to inform health-care professionals, commissioners and patients about key treatment developments and research gaps.Data sourcesElectronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched from the end of 2000 to 31 August 2013. Retrieved articles were used to identify further randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Review methodsStudies were filtered according to inclusion criteria and agreed by consensus in cases of uncertainty. Abstracts were excluded and non-English-language papers were screened by international colleagues and data were extracted. Only RCTs of treatments for eczema were included, as other forms of evidence are associated with higher risks of bias. Inclusion criteria for studies included availability of data relevant to the therapeutic management of eczema; mention of randomisation; comparison of two or more treatments; and prospective data collection. Participants of all ages were included. Eczema diagnosis was determined by a clinician or according to published diagnostic criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool. We used a standardised approach to summarising the data and the assessment of risk of bias and we made a clear distinction between what the studies found and our own interpretation of study findings.ResultsOf 7198 references screened, 287 new trials were identified spanning 92 treatments. Trial reporting was generally poor (randomisation method: 2% high, 36% low, 62% unclear risk of bias; allocation concealment: 3% high, 15% low, 82% unclear risk of bias; blinding of the intervention: 15% high, 28% low, 57% unclear risk of bias). Only 22 (8%) trials were considered to be at low risk of bias for all three criteria. There was reasonable evidence of benefit for the topical medications tacrolimus, pimecrolimus and various corticosteroids (with tacrolimus superior to pimecrolimus and corticosteroids) for both treatment and flare prevention; oral ciclosporin; oral azathioprine; narrow band ultraviolet B (UVB) light; Atopiclair™ and education. There was reasonable evidence to suggest no clinically useful benefit for twice-daily compared with once-daily topical corticosteroids; corticosteroids containing antibiotics for non-infected eczema; probiotics; evening primrose and borage oil; ion-exchange water softeners; protease inhibitor SRD441 (Serentis Ltd); furfuryl palmitate in emollient; cipamfylline cream; andMycobacterium vaccaevaccine. Additional research evidence is needed for emollients, bath additives, antibacterials, specialist clothing and complementary and alternative therapies. There was no RCT evidence for topical corticosteroid dilution, impregnated bandages, soap avoidance, bathing frequency or allergy testing.LimitationsThe large scope of the review coupled with the heterogeneity of outcomes precluded formal meta-analyses. Our conclusions are still limited by a profusion of small, poorly reported studies.ConclusionsAlthough the evidence base of RCTs has increased considerably since the last NIHR HTA systematic review, the field is still severely hampered by poor design and reporting problems including failure to register trials and declare primary outcomes, small sample size, short follow-up duration and poor reporting of risk of bias. Key areas for further research identified by the review include the optimum use of emollients, bathing frequency, wash products, allergy testing and antiseptic treatments. Perhaps the greatest benefit identified is the use of twice weekly anti-inflammatory treatment to maintain disease remission. More studies need to be conducted in a primary care setting where most people with eczema are seen in the UK. Future studies need to use the same core set of outcomes that capture patient symptoms, clinical signs, quality of life and the chronic nature of the disease.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.
Systemic Immunomodulatory Treatments for Atopic Dermatitis
ImportanceThere are multiple approved systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis. Lebrikizumab is a newly licensed biologic medication that has been compared to placebo in clinical trials but not to other systemic treatments.ObjectiveTo compare reported measures of efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab to other systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis in a living systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data SourcesThe Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database, the Global Resource of Eczema Trials database, and trial registries were searched from inception through November 3, 2023.Study SelectionRandomized clinical trials evaluating 8 or more weeks of treatment with systemic immunomodulatory medications for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened in duplicate.Data Extraction and SynthesisData were abstracted in duplicate and random-effects bayesian network meta-analyses were performed. Minimal important differences were used to define important differences between medications. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). The updated analysis was completed from December 13, 2023, to February 20, 2024.Main Outcome MeasuresEfficacy outcomes were the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), the Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scales (PP-NRS) and were compared using mean difference (MD) with 95% credible intervals (CrI). Safety outcomes were serious adverse events and withdrawal due to adverse events. Other outcomes included the proportion of participants with 50%, 75%, and 90% improvement in EASI (EASI-50, -75, -90) and the proportion with success on the Investigator Global Assessment compared using odds ratios with 95% CrI.ResultsThe study sample included 98 eligible trials, with a total of 24 707 patients. Lebrikizumab was associated with no important difference in change in EASI (MD, −2.0; 95% CrI, −4.5 to 0.3; moderate certainty), POEM (MD, −1.1; 95% CrI −2.5 to 0.2; moderate certainty), DLQI (MD, −0.2; 95% CrI −2.1 to 1.6; moderate certainty), or PP-NRS (MD, 0.1; 95% CrI −0.4, 0.6; high certainty) compared to dupilumab among adults with atopic dermatitis who were treated for up to 16 weeks. Dupilumab was associated with higher odds of efficacy in binary outcomes compared with lebrikizumab. The relative efficacy of other approved systemic medications was similar to that found by previous updates of this living study, with high-dose upadacitinib and abrocitinib demonstrating numerically highest relative efficacy. For safety outcomes, low event rates limited useful comparisons.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this living systematic review and network meta-analysis, lebrikizumab was similarly effective to dupilumab for the short-term treatment of atopic dermatitis in adults. Clinicians and patients can use these comparative data to inform treatment decisions.
Drug Survival of Dupilumab, Methotrexate, and Cyclosporine A in Children With Atopic Dermatitis
ImportanceDupilumab, methotrexate (MTX), and cyclosporine A (CsA) are valuable treatment options for pediatric patients with refractory moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Yet, comparative data on these treatments in pediatric patients are scarce.ObjectiveTo evaluate drug survival of dupilumab, MTX, and CsA, and identify associated predictors in a multicenter daily practice cohort study of pediatric patients with AD.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis multicenter daily practice cohort study included patients with AD aged 2 to 17 years treated with dupilumab, MTX, and/or CsA in 5 tertiary centers in the Netherlands between 2013 and 2023. Data were extracted from the prospective BioDay and TREAT Netherlands registries and electronic medical records.ExposuresDupilumab, MTX, CsA.Main Outcomes and MeasuresDrug survival was analyzed using Cox proportional hazard regression models. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were conducted to identify variables associated with drug discontinuation.ResultsA total of 502 treatment episodes in 362 unique patients were included, comprising 192 dupilumab episodes, 94 MTX episodes, and 216 CsA episodes. Overall, the mean (SD) age at treatment initiation was 12.9 (3.8) years, and 272 treatment episodes (54.2%) in female patients. The 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year overall drug survival rates, respectively, were 84.1%, 72.3%, and 62.0% for dupilumab; 60.7%, 39.3%, and 25.3% for MTX; and 43.9%, 21.5%, and 10.4% for CsA. Ineffectiveness was the most frequent reason for drug discontinuation, accounting for 178 episodes (35.5%), mostly in patients treated with CsA, followed by adverse effects in 94 patients (18.7%). Treatment with MTX and treatment with CsA were independently associated with a higher risk for drug discontinuation due to ineffectiveness (hazard ratio [HR], 4.45 [95% CI, 2.38-8.34] and HR, 10.88 [95% CI, 6.23-19.02], respectively) and adverse effects (HR, 4.39 [95% CI, 2.05-9.39] and HR, 3.83 [95% CI, 1.85-7.92], respectively) compared to treatment with dupilumab. Patients aged 12 to 17 years starting systemic treatment were independently associated with a higher risk for drug discontinuation due to ineffectiveness (HR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.10-2.20]) and adverse effects (HR, 2.39 [95% CI, 1.33-4.30]).Conclusions and RelevanceThis multicenter daily practice cohort study demonstrated a superior 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year overall drug survival for dupilumab, followed by MTX, with the lowest rates observed for CsA in pediatric patients with AD. This study also identified characteristics associated with discontinuation. These results provide insight into drug survival resulting from the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of these systemic treatments in pediatric patients with AD and contribute to the optimization of patient outcomes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
Contact Info
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Product
Resources
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.
