A prospective observational cohort study comparing the treatment effectiveness and safety of ciclosporin, dupilumab and methotrexate in adult and paediatric patients with atopic dermatitis: results from the UK-Irish A-STAR register
Abstract
BACKGROUND
The main conventional systemic atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments are methotrexate (MTX) and ciclosporin (CyA). Dupilumab was the first novel systemic agent to enter routine clinical practice. There are no head-to-head randomised controlled trials or real-world studies comparing these agents directly. Network meta-analyses provide indirect comparative efficacy and safety data and have shown strong evidence for dupilumab and CyA.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to compare the real-world clinical effectiveness and safety of CyA, dupilumab and MTX in AD.
METHODS
We compared the effectiveness and safety of these systemic agents in a prospective observational cohort study of adult and paediatric patients recruited into the UK-Irish Atopic eczema Systemic TherApy Register (A-STAR). Treatment effectiveness measures included Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and children's DLQI (cDLQI). Minimum duration of treatment was 28 days and follow-up was 12 months. Adjusted Cox-regression was used to compare the hazards of achieving EASI-50, EASI-75 and EASI-90 over time, and linear mixed-effects models were used to estimate changes in efficacy scores. Treatment safety was assessed by examining adverse events (AEs) at follow-up visits.
RESULTS
488 patients (n=311 adults and n=177 children/adolescents) on dupilumab (n=282), methotrexate (n=149), or…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 488 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled and randomized clinical trials
- Accuracy Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies
- Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Bonding Efficacy of Universal Resin Adhesives to Zirconia Substrates: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- In vitro antimicrobial activity of extracts and essential oils of Cinnamomum, Salvia, and Mentha spp. against foodborne pathogens: A meta-analysis study
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.