Efficacy of topical and systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis on pruritus: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Abstract

IntroductionPruritus is a major and burdensome symptom in atopic dermatitis (AD). The number of systemic treatments available for AD has increased recently, enabling improved patient relief.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of AD treatments on pruritus.MethodsA systematic literature review and a meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate and compare the effects of treatment used in AD on pruritus. PubMed and Embase databases were searched to find articles published between January 1990 and December 2021. Topical and systemic treatments were studied in patients aged ≥10 years.ResultsAmong the 448 articles identified, 56 studies were retained in the systematic review. A total of 15 studies evaluated topical treatments: topical corticosteroids (TCS; 2), calcineurin inhibitors (6), PDE4 inhibitors (3), and Jak inhibitors (4). A total of five studies were included in the meta- analysis. All treatments had a positive effect on pruritus, with a mean overall reduction of 3.32/10, 95% IC [2.32–4.33]. The greatest reduction was observed with halometasone (mean: 4.75), followed by tofacitinib 2% (mean: 4.38). A total of 41 studies evaluated systemic therapies: cyclosporine (6), phototherapy (5), azathioprine (2), dupilumab (9), anti-IL 13 (5), nemolizumab (3), Jak inhibitors (9), mepolizumab (1), and apremilast (1). A total of 17 studies were included in 2 meta-analyses according to the concomitant use or not of TCS. In the meta-analysis without TCS, the overall decrease was 3.07/10, 95% IC [2.58–3.56]. The molecules with the highest efficacy on pruritus were upadacitinib 30 mg (mean: 4.90) and nemolizumab (mean: 4.81).DiscussionThe therapeutic arsenal for AD has increased rapidly, and many molecules are under development. The primary endpoint of clinical trials is most often a score that assesses the severity of AD; however, the assessment of pruritus is also essential. The majority of molecules have a positive effect on pruritus, but the improvement varies between them. Efficacy on pruritus is not always correlated with efficacy on AD lesions; therefore, these two criteria are crucial to evaluate. The limitations of this study were the heterogeneity in the assessment of pruritus, the moment of the assessment, and the concomitant application of TCS or not for studies evaluating systemics. In the future, it would be useful to use standardized criteria for assessing pruritus.