Interventions for cutaneous disease in systemic lupus erythematosus.

Lupus erythematosus is an autoimmune disease with significant morbidity and mortality. Cutaneous disease in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is common. Many interventions are used to treat SLE with varying efficacy, risks, and benefits. To assess the effects of interventions for cutaneous disease in SLE. We searched the following databases up to June 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Wiley Interscience Online Library, and Biblioteca Virtual em Saude (Virtual Health Library). We updated our search in September 2020, but these results have not yet been fully incorporated. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for cutaneous disease in SLE compared with placebo, another intervention, no treatment, or different doses of the same intervention. We did not evaluate trials of cutaneous lupus in people without a diagnosis of SLE. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were complete and partial clinical response. Secondary outcomes included reduction (or change) in number of clinical flares; and severe and minor adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence. Sixty-one RCTs, involving 11,232 participants, reported 43 different interventions. Trials predominantly included women from outpatient clinics; the mean age range of participants was 20 to 40 years. Twenty-five studies reported baseline severity, and 22 studies included participants with moderate to severe cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE); duration of CLE was not well reported. Studies were conducted mainly in multi-centre settings. Most often treatment duration was 12 months. Risk of bias was highest for the domain of reporting bias, followed by performance/detection bias. We identified too few studies for meta-analysis for most comparisons. We limited this abstract to main comparisons (all administered orally) and outcomes. We did not identify clinical trials of other commonly used treatments, such as topical corticosteroids, that reported complete or partial clinical response or numbers of clinical flares. Complete clinical response Studies comparing oral hydroxychloroquine against placebo did not report complete clinical response. Chloroquine may increase complete clinical response at 12 months' follow-up compared with placebo (absence of skin lesions) (risk ratio (RR) 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 2.61; 1 study, 24 participants; low-quality evidence). There may be little to no difference between methotrexate and chloroquine in complete clinical response (skin rash resolution) at 6 months' follow-up (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.50; 1 study, 25 participants; low-quality evidence). Methotrexate may be superior to placebo with regard to complete clinical response (absence of malar/discoid rash) at 6 months' follow-up (RR 3.57, 95% CI 1.63 to 7.84; 1 study, 41 participants; low-quality evidence). At 12 months' follow-up, there may be little to no difference between azathioprine and ciclosporin in complete clinical response (malar rash resolution) (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.52; 1 study, 89 participants; low-quality evidence). Partial clinical response Partial clinical response was reported for only one key comparison: hydroxychloroquine may increase partial clinical response at 12 months compared to placebo, but the 95% CI indicates that hydroxychloroquine may make no difference or may decrease response (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.41 to 120.16; 20 pregnant participants, 1 trial; low-quality evidence). Clinical flares Clinical flares were reported for only two key comparisons: hydroxychloroquine is probably superior to placebo at 6 months' follow-up for reducing clinical flares (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.89; 1 study, 47 participants; moderate-quality evidence). At 12 months' follow-up, there may be no difference between methotrexate and placebo, but the 95% CI indicates there may be more or fewer flares with methotrexate (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.83; 1 study, 86 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events Data for adverse events were limited and were inconsistently reported, but hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and methotrexate have well-documented adverse effects including gastrointestinal symptoms, liver problems, and retinopathy for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine and teratogenicity during pregnancy for methotrexate. Evidence supports the commonly-used treatment hydroxychloroquine, and there is also evidence supporting chloroquine and methotrexate for treating cutaneous disease in SLE. Evidence is limited due to the small number of studies reporting key outcomes. Evidence for most key outcomes was low or moderate quality, meaning findings should be interpreted with caution. Head-to-head intervention trials designed to detect differences in efficacy between treatments for specific CLE subtypes are needed. Thirteen further trials are awaiting classification and have not yet been incorporated in this review; they may alter the review conclusions.

Hannon CW ，McCourt C ，Lima HC ，Chen S ，Bennett C ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Drugs for discoid lupus erythematosus.

Jessop S ，Whitelaw DA ，Grainge MJ ，Jayasekera P ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Interventions for chronic palmoplantar pustulosis.

Palmoplantar pustulosis is a chronic inflammatory disease in which sterile, relapsing pustules appear on the palms and soles, possibly in conjunction with other symptoms. The previous Cochrane Review on this topic was published in 2006, before biological treatments were extensively used. To assess the effects of interventions for chronic palmoplantar pustulosis to induce and maintain complete remission. We searched the following databases up to March 2019: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of the included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We considered RCTs including people with palmoplantar pustulosis or chronic palmoplantar pustular psoriasis assessing topical therapy, systemic therapy, combinations of topical or systemic therapies, or non-pharmacological therapies compared with placebo, no intervention, or each other. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our outcomes included 'Proportion of participants cleared or almost cleared', 'Proportion of participants with adverse effects serious or severe enough to cause withdrawal', 'Proportion of participants with at least 50% improvement in disease severity', and 'Proportion of participants with adverse effects'. We included 37 studies (1663 participants; mean age 50 years (range 34 to 63); 24% males). These studies reported condition severity differently. Around half of the included trials stated the setting (hospitals, community clinics, or both). More than half of the studies were at high risk of bias in at least one domain. Our included studies assessed mainly systemic treatments (retinoids, ciclosporin, biologics, etretinate + PUVA (combination of psoralens and long-wave ultraviolet radiation) therapy combined, and antibiotics), but also topical treatments (dermocorticoids, vitamin D) and phototherapy (PUVA, ultraviolet A1 (UVA1)). Other interventions were assessed by single studies. The most common comparator was placebo. All results presented in this abstract were assessed in the short term (mean treatment duration was 11 weeks (range 8 to 24 weeks)) and are based on participants with chronic palmoplantar pustulosis. All outcome time point measurements were taken from baseline and assessed at the end of treatment. Short-term and long-term outcomes were defined as measurement up to 24 weeks after randomisation and between 24 and 104 weeks after randomisation, respectively. One trial (188 participants) assessed the topical vitamin D derivative maxacalcitol versus placebo and found that maxacalcitol may be more effective than placebo in achieving clearance (risk ratio (RR) 7.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.85 to 33.12; low-quality evidence), and the risk of adverse effects (such as mild local irritation, pruritus, and haematological or urinary test abnormalities) is probably similar in both groups (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.19; moderate-quality evidence). Severity was not reported. Two trials (49 participants) assessed PUVA therapy versus placebo or no treatment, providing very low-quality evidence. Adverse effects were reported with oral PUVA (including nausea, ankle swelling, and non-purulent conjunctivitis) and with local PUVA (including blistering, erythema, and pruritus). With regard to the systemic retinoid alitretinoin, one trial (33 participants; moderate-quality evidence) showed that alitretinoin probably makes little or no difference in reducing severity when compared to placebo (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.30). A similar number of adverse events were reported in both treatment groups, including headache, cheilitis, nausea, arthralgia, and nasopharyngitis (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.17). Clearance was not reported. There may be little or no difference between etanercept and placebo in achieving clearance (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.08 to 34.28; 1 study; 15 participants; low-quality evidence); however, the 95% CI was very wide, showing there may be a difference between groups. Severity was not measured. More patients treated with placebo may achieve reduced severity than those treated with ustekinumab, but the wide 95% CI indicates there might be little or no difference between groups and there might be greater effect with ustekinumab (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.13; 1 study; 33 participants; low-quality evidence). Clearance was not reported. It is uncertain whether guselkumab increases clearance when compared to placebo (2 studies; 154 participants) because the quality of evidence is very low, but guselkumab probably better reduces disease severity (RR 2.88, 95% CI 1.24 to 6.69; 1 study; 49 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Secukinumab is probably superior to placebo in reducing severity (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.35; 1 study; 157 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but our clearance outcome was not reported. None of these trials reported on occurrence of adverse effects. Only two of the studies discussed above reported adverse effects serious or severe enough to cause withdrawal. Guselkumab may cause more serious adverse events when compared to placebo, but there is uncertainty due to the very wide 95% CI showing there may be little or no difference and showing more events with placebo (RR 2.88, 95% CI 0.32 to 25.80; 1 study; 49 participants; low-quality evidence). Secukinumab probably causes more serious adverse events than placebo (RR 3.29, 95% CI 1.40 to 7.75; 1 study; 157 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence is lacking for major chronic palmoplantar pustulosis treatments such as superpotent corticosteroids, phototherapy, acitretin, methotrexate, and ciclosporin. Risk of bias and imprecision limit our confidence. Maxacalcitol may be more effective than placebo in achieving clearance in the short term (low-quality evidence), and the risk of adverse effects is probably similar (moderate-quality evidence). Oral alitretinoin is probably no more effective than placebo in reducing severity, with a similar risk of adverse effects (moderate-quality evidence). Regarding biological treatments, we are uncertain of the effect of etanercept on clearance and the effect of ustekinumab on severity (low-quality evidence). Secukinumab and guselkumab are probably superior to placebo in reducing severity (moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events not requiring withdrawal were not reported for these treatments. Reporting of serious adverse effects was incomplete: compared to placebo, secukinumab probably caused more participant withdrawals (moderate-quality evidence), but we are uncertain of the effect of guselkumab (low-quality evidence). Future trials should assess commonly used treatments using validated severity and quality of life scales.

Obeid G ，Do G ，Kirby L ，Hughes C ，Sbidian E ，Le Cleach L ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Systemic treatments for eczema: a network meta-analysis.

Eczema is a common and chronic, relapsing, inflammatory skin disorder. It seriously impacts quality of life and economic outcomes, especially for those with moderate to severe eczema. Various treatments allow sustained control of the disease; however, their relative benefit remains unclear due to the limited number of trials directly comparing treatments. To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of different types of systemic immunosuppressive treatments for moderate to severe eczema using NMA and to generate rankings of available systemic immunosuppressive treatments for eczema according to their efficacy and safety. We searched the following databases up to August 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic immunosuppressive agents for moderate to severe atopic eczema when compared against placebo or any other eligible eczema treatment. We synthesised data using pair-wise analysis and NMA to compare treatments and rank them according to their effectiveness. Effectiveness was assessed primarily by determining the proportion of participants who achieved at least 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75) and improvement in the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). Safety was evaluated primarily by considering the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) and infection. We deemed short-term follow-up as ≤ 16 weeks and long-term follow-up as > 16 weeks. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for these primary outcomes using six domains of CiNEMA grading. We included a total of 74 studies, with 8177 randomised participants. Approximately 55% of participants were male, with average age of 32 years (range 2 to 84 years), although age and gender were unreported for 419 and 902 participants, respectively. Most of the included trials were placebo controlled (65%), 34% were head-to-head studies (15% assessed the effects of different doses of the same drug), and 1% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. All trials included participants with moderate to severe eczema, but 62% of studies did not separate data by severity; 38% of studies assessed only severe eczema. The total duration of included trials ranged from 2 weeks to 60 months, whereas treatment duration varied from a single dose (CIM331, KPL-716) to 60 months (methotrexate (MTX)). Seventy studies were available for quantitative synthesis; this review assessed 29 immunosuppressive agents from three classes of interventions. These included (1) conventional treatments, with ciclosporin assessed most commonly; (2) small molecule treatments, including phosphodiesterase (PDE)-4 inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors; and (3) biological treatments, including anti-CD31 receptors, anti-interleukin (IL)-22, anti-IL-31, anti-IL-13, anti-IL-12/23p40, anti-OX40, anti-TSLP, anti-CRTH2, and anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) monoclonal antibodies, but most commonly dupilumab. Most trials (73) assessed outcomes at a short-term duration ranging from 2 to 16 weeks, whereas 33 trials assessed long-term outcomes, with duration ranging from 5 to 60 months. All participants were from a hospital setting. Fifty-two studies declared a source of funding, and of these, pharmaceutical companies funded 88%. We rated 37 studies as high risk; 21, unclear risk, and 16, low risk of bias, with studies most commonly at high risk of attrition bias. Network meta-analysis suggests that dupilumab ranks first for effectiveness when compared with other biological treatments. Dupilumab is more effective than placebo in achieving EASI75 (risk ratio (RR) 3.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.51 to 3.69) and improvement in POEM score (mean difference 7.30, 95% CI 6.61 to 8.00) at short-term follow-up (high-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain of the effects of dupilumab when compared with placebo, in terms of the proportion of participants who achieve EASI75 (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.60) at longer-term follow-up. Low-certainty evidence indicates that tralokinumab may be more effective than placebo in achieving short-term EASI75 (RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.21 to 5.34), but there was no evidence for tralokinumab to allow us to assess short-term follow-up of POEM or long-term follow-up of EASI75. We are uncertain of the effect of ustekinumab compared with placebo in achieving EASI75 (long-term follow-up: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.45; short-term follow-up: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.97; both very low certainty). We found no evidence on ustekinumab for the POEM outcome. We are uncertain whether other immunosuppressive agents that targeted our key outcomes influence the achievement of short-term EASI75 compared with placebo due to low- or very low-certainty evidence. Dupilumab and ustekinumab were the only immunosuppressive agents evaluated for longer-term EASI75. Dupilumab was the only agent evaluated for improvement in POEM during short-term follow-up. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence indicates a lower proportion of participants with SAEs after treatment with QAW039 and dupilumab compared to placebo during short-term follow-up, but low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in SAEs during short-term follow-up of other immunosuppressive agents compared to placebo. Evidence for effects of immunosuppressive agents on risk of any infection during short-term follow-up and SAEs during long-term follow-up compared with placebo was of low or very low certainty but did not indicate a difference. We did not identify differences in other adverse events (AEs), but dupilumab is associated with specific AEs, including eye inflammation and eosinophilia. Our findings indicate that dupilumab is the most effective biological treatment for eczema. Compared to placebo, dupilumab reduces eczema signs and symptoms in the short term for people with moderate to severe atopic eczema. Short-term safety outcomes from clinical trials did not reveal new safety concerns with dupilumab. Overall, evidence for the efficacy of most other immunosuppressive treatments for moderate to severe atopic eczema is of low or very low certainty. Given the lack of data comparing conventional with newer biological treatments for the primary outcomes, there remains high uncertainty for ranking the efficacy and safety of conventional treatments such as ciclosporin and biological treatments such as dupilumab. Most studies were placebo-controlled and assessed only short-term efficacy of immunosuppressive agents. Further adequately powered head-to-head RCTs should evaluate comparative long-term efficacy and safety of available treatments for moderate to severe eczema.

Sawangjit R ，Dilokthornsakul P ，Lloyd-Lavery A ，Lai NM ，Dellavalle R ，Chaiyakunapruk N ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in substantial mortality. Some specialists proposed chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for treating or preventing the disease. The efficacy and safety of these drugs have been assessed in randomized controlled trials. To evaluate the effects of chloroquine (CQ) or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for 1) treating people with COVID-19 on death and time to clearance of the virus; 2) preventing infection in people at risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure; 3) preventing infection in people exposed to SARS-CoV-2. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com), and the COVID-19-specific resources www.covid-nma.com and covid-19.cochrane.org, for studies of any publication status and in any language. We performed all searches up to 15 September 2020. We contacted researchers to identify unpublished and ongoing studies. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in people with COVID-19, people at risk of COVID-19 exposure, and people exposed to COVID-19. Adverse events (any, serious, and QT-interval prolongation on electrocardiogram) were also extracted. Two review authors independently assessed eligibility of search results, extracted data from the included studies, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We contacted study authors for clarification and additional data for some studies. We used risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model for outcomes where pooling of effect estimates was appropriate. 1. Treatment of COVID-19 disease We included 12 trials involving 8569 participants, all of whom were adults. Studies were from China (4); Brazil, Egypt, Iran, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, and North America (each 1 study); and a global study in 30 countries (1 study). Nine were in hospitalized patients, and three from ambulatory care. Disease severity, prevalence of comorbidities, and use of co-interventions varied substantially between trials. We found potential risks of bias across all domains for several trials. Nine trials compared HCQ with standard care (7779 participants), and one compared HCQ with placebo (491 participants); dosing schedules varied. HCQ makes little or no difference to death due to any cause (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.19; 8208 participants; 9 trials; high-certainty evidence). A sensitivity analysis using modified intention-to-treat results from three trials did not influence the pooled effect estimate.  HCQ may make little or no difference to the proportion of people having negative PCR for SARS-CoV-2 on respiratory samples at day 14 from enrolment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.10; 213 participants; 3 trials; low-certainty evidence). HCQ probably results in little to no difference in progression to mechanical ventilation (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.37; 4521 participants; 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). HCQ probably results in an almost three-fold increased risk of adverse events (RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.49 to 5.64; 1394 participants; 6 trials; moderate-certainty evidence), but may make little or no difference to the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.79; 1004 participants; 6 trials; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of HCQ on time to clinical improvement or risk of prolongation of QT-interval on electrocardiogram (very low-certainty evidence). One trial (22 participants) randomized patients to CQ versus lopinavir/ritonavir, a drug with unknown efficacy against SARS-CoV-2, and did not report any difference for clinical recovery or adverse events. One trial compared HCQ combined with azithromycin against standard care (444 participants). This trial did not detect a difference in death, requirement for mechanical ventilation, length of hospital admission, or serious adverse events. A higher risk of adverse events was reported in the HCQ-and-azithromycin arm; this included QT-interval prolongation, when measured. One trial compared HCQ with febuxostat, another drug with unknown efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 (60 participants). There was no difference detected in risk of hospitalization or change in computed tomography (CT) scan appearance of the lungs; no deaths were reported. 2. Preventing COVID-19 disease in people at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 Ongoing trials are yet to report results for this objective. 3. Preventing COVID-19 disease in people who have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 One trial (821 participants) compared HCQ with placebo as a prophylactic agent in the USA (around 90% of participants) and Canada. Asymptomatic adults (66% healthcare workers; mean age 40 years; 73% without comorbidity) with a history of exposure to people with confirmed COVID-19 were recruited. We are very uncertain about the effect of HCQ on the primary outcomes, for which few events were reported: 20/821 (2.4%) developed confirmed COVID-19 at 14 days from enrolment, and 2/821 (0.2%) were hospitalized due to COVID-19 (very low-certainty evidence). HCQ probably increases the risk of adverse events compared with placebo (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.83 to 3.11; 700 participants; 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence). HCQ may result in little or no difference in serious adverse events (no RR: no participants experienced serious adverse events; low-certainty evidence). One cluster-randomized trial (2525 participants) compared HCQ with standard care for the prevention of COVID-19 in people with a history of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in Spain. Most participants were working or residing in nursing homes; mean age was 49 years. There was no difference in the risk of symptomatic confirmed COVID-19 or production of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 between the two study arms. HCQ for people infected with COVID-19 has little or no effect on the risk of death and probably no effect on progression to mechanical ventilation. Adverse events are tripled compared to placebo, but very few serious adverse events were found. No further trials of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for treatment should be carried out. These results make it less likely that the drug is effective in protecting people from infection, although this is not excluded entirely. It is probably sensible to complete trials examining prevention of infection, and ensure these are carried out to a high standard to provide unambiguous results.

Singh B ，Ryan H ，Kredo T ，Chaplin M ，Fletcher T ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》