METHODS: Research questions were formulated focusing on diagnosis and treatment of adult patients with RMD within the context of the pandemic, including the management of RMD in patients who developed COVID-19. MEDLINE was searched for eligible studies to address the questions, and the APLAR COVID-19 task force convened 2 meetings through video conferencing to discuss its findings and integrate best available evidence with expert opinion. Consensus statements were finalized using the modified Delphi process.
RESULTS: Agreement was obtained around key aspects of screening for or diagnosis of COVID-19; management of patients with RMD without confirmed COVID-19; and management of patients with RMD with confirmed COVID-19. The task force achieved consensus on 25 statements covering the potential risk of acquiring COVID-19 in RMD patients, advice on RMD medication adjustment and continuation, the roles of telemedicine and vaccination, and the impact of the pandemic on quality of life and on treatment adherence.
CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence primarily from descriptive research supported new recommendations for aspects of RMD care not covered in the previous document, particularly with regard to risk factors for complicated COVID-19 in RMD patients, modifications to RMD treatment regimens in the context of the pandemic, and COVID-19 vaccination in patients with RMD.
OBJECTIVES: 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.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to August 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase.
SELECTION CRITERIA: 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.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: 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.
MAIN RESULTS: 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.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: 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.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of rapamycin or rapalogs in people with tuberous sclerosis complex for decreasing tumour size and other manifestations and to assess the safety of rapamycin or rapalogs in relation to their adverse effects.
SEARCH METHODS: Relevant studies were identified by authors from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, and clinicaltrials.gov. Relevant resources were also searched by the authors, such as conference proceedings and abstract books of conferences, from e.g. the Tuberous Sclerosis Complex International Research Conferences, other tuberous sclerosis complex-related conferences and the Human Genome Meeting. We did not restrict the searches by language as long as English translations were available for non-English reports.Date of the last searches: 14 March 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized studies of rapamycin or rapalogs in people with tuberous sclerosis complex.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted by two authors using standard acquisition forms. The data collection was verified by one author. The risk of bias of each study was independently assessed by two authors and verified by one author.
MAIN RESULTS: Three placebo-controlled studies with a total of 263 participants (age range 0.8 to 61 years old, 122 males and 141 females, with variable lengths of study duration) were included in the review. We found high-quality evidence except for response to skin lesions which was judged to be low quality due to the risk of attrition bias. Overall, there are 175 participants in the treatment arm (rapamycin or everolimus) and 88 in the placebo arm. Participants all had tuberous sclerosis complex as proven by consensus diagnostic criteria as a minimum. The quality in the description of the study methods was mixed, although we assessed most domains as having a low risk of bias. Blinding of treatment arms was successfully carried out in all of the studies. However, two studies did not report allocation concealment. Two of the included studies were funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals.Two studies (235 participants) used oral (systemic) administration of everolimus (rapalog). These studies reported response to tumour size in terms of the number of individuals with a reduction in the total volume of tumours to 50% or more relative to baseline. Significantly more participants in the treatment arm (two studies, 162 participants, high quality evidence) achieved a 50% reduction in renal angiomyolipoma size, risk ratio 24.69 (95% confidence interval 3.51 to 173.41) (P = 0.001). For the sub-ependymal giant cell astrocytoma, our analysis of one study (117 participants, high quality evidence) showed significantly more participants in the treatment arm achieved a 50% reduction in tumour size, risk ratio 27.85 (95% confidence interval 1.74 to 444.82) (P = 0.02). The proportion of participants who showed a skin response from the two included studies analysed was significantly increased in the treatment arms, risk ratio 5.78 (95% confidence interval 2.30 to 14.52) (P = 0.0002) (two studies, 224 participants, high quality evidence). In one study (117 participants), the median change of seizure frequency was -2.9 in 24 hours (95% confidence interval -4.0 to -1.0) in the treatment group versus -4.1 in 24 hour (95% confidence interval -10.9 to 5.8) in the placebo group. In one study, one out of 79 participants in the treatment group versus three of 39 in placebo group had increased blood creatinine levels, while the median percentage change of forced expiratory volume at one second in the treatment arm was -1% compared to -4% in the placebo arm. In one study (117 participants, high quality evidence), we found that those participants who received treatment had a similar risk of experiencing adverse events compared to those who did not, risk ratio 1.07 (95% confidence interval 0.96 - 1.20) (P = 0.24). However, as seen from two studies (235 participants, high quality evidence), the treatment itself led to significantly more adverse events resulting in withdrawal, interruption of treatment, or reduction in dose level, risk ratio 3.14 (95% confidence interval 1.82 to 5.42) (P < 0.0001).One study (28 participants) used topical (skin) administration of rapamycin. This study reported response to skin lesions in terms of participants' perception towards their skin appearance following the treatment. There was a tendency of an improvement in the participants' perception of their skin appearance, although not significant, risk ratio 1.81 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 4.06, low quality evidence) (P = 0.15). This study reported that there were no serious adverse events related to the study product and there was no detectable systemic absorption of the rapamycin during the study period.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence that oral everolimus significantly increased the proportion of people who achieved a 50% reduction in the size of sub-ependymal giant cell astrocytoma and renal angiomyolipoma. Although we were unable to ascertain the relationship between the reported adverse events and the treatment, participants who received treatment had a similar risk of experiencing adverse events as compared to those who did not receive treatment. Nevertheless, the treatment itself significantly increased the risk of having dose reduction, interruption or withdrawal. This supports ongoing clinical applications of oral everolimus for renal angiomyolipoma and subependymal giant cell astrocytoma. Although oral everolimus showed beneficial effect on skin lesions, topical rapamycin only showed a non-significant tendency of improvement. Efficacy on skin lesions should be further established in future research. The beneficial effects of rapamycin or rapalogs on tuberous sclerosis complex should be further studied on other manifestations of the condition.