Cochrane Skin Group Research Articles

Interventions for the prevention of recurrent erysipelas and cellulitis.

Interventions for the prevention of recurrent erysipelas and cellulitis.

What is the evidence base for atopic eczema treatments? A summary of published randomized controlled trials.

Atopic eczema (AE) is a common chronic inflammatory skin condition. While many AE treatment options are available, the evidence to support their efficacy varies in depth and quality. In 2000, a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment systematic review identified and evaluated existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AE treatments. To ensure continuing utility, the NIHR commissioned an update to the review. Here, we present an overview of the updated report and its key findings. Systematic reviews and RCTs of AE treatments that included participants with AE (criteria based or diagnosed) were identified using Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register [searched to 31 August 2013 (RCTs) and 31 December 2015 (systematic reviews)]. Outcome measures included symptoms, AE severity, quality of life and adverse effects. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Of the 287 new RCTs identified, only 22 (8%) were judged to have a low risk of bias. When combined with RCTs from the previous review (n = 254), we found 'reasonable evidence of benefit' for corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, Atopiclair® , ciclosporin, azathioprine, ultraviolet radiation and education programmes. Interventions with reasonable evidence of 'no benefit' included some dietary interventions, ion exchange water softeners, multiple daily applications of topical corticosteroids and antibiotic-containing corticosteroids for noninfected AE. Many common treatments lack evidence of efficacy and warrant further evaluation. The evidence base for AE is still hampered by poor trial design and reporting. The trials included in this review were used to establish the Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT) database.

Topical treatments for scalp psoriasis: summary of a Cochrane Systematic Review.

People with chronic plaque psoriasis often have lesions on the scalp that are difficult to treat. This report is a summary of a Cochrane review on the efficacy and safety of topical treatments for scalp psoriasis. For quality-of-evidence assessment, we used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group approach. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion. We searched the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS; ongoing trials; indexes of included studies and screened abstracts of six psoriasis-specific conferences up to August 2015. We included 59 RCTs, with 11 561 participants overall. Most findings were limited to short-term treatments (< 6 months). According to the clinician and patients' self-assessment, a corticosteroid-vitamin D combination (e.g. betamethasone dipropionate plus calcipotriol) and corticosteroids of high and very high potency were better than vitamin D. The two-compound combination was superior to the corticosteroid alone, but the additional benefit was small. Reporting of quality-of-life data was insufficient. The two-compound combination and corticosteroids caused fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than vitamin D. There was no difference between the two-compound combination and corticosteroid monotherapy concerning this outcome. Overall the evidence was of moderate quality. Evaluation of other topical treatments was limited. Given the comparable safety profile and only slim benefit of the two-compound combination over the corticosteroid alone, monotherapy with generic topical corticosteroids of high and very high potency may be fully acceptable for short-term therapy. More quality-of-life data and long-term assessments are needed.

CONSIDER - Core Outcome Set in IAD Research: study protocol for establishing a core set of outcomes and measurements in incontinence-associated dermatitis research.

This study protocol describes the methodology for the development of a core set of outcomes and a core set of measurements for incontinence-associated dermatitis. Incontinence is a widespread disorder with an important impact on quality of life. One of the most common complications is incontinence-associated dermatitis, resulting from chemical and physical irritation of the skin barrier, triggering inflammation and skin damage. Managing incontinence-associated dermatitis is an important challenge for nurses. Several interventions have been assessed in clinical trials, but heterogeneity in study outcomes complicates the comparability and standardization. To overcome this challenge, the development of a core outcome set, a minimum set of outcomes and measurements to be assessed in clinical research, is needed. A project team, International Steering Committee and panelists will be involved to guide the development of the core outcome set. The framework of the Harmonizing Outcomes Measures for Eczema roadmap endorsed by Cochrane Skin Group Core Outcomes Set Initiative, is used to inform the project design. A systematic literature review, interviews to integrate the patients' perspective and a consensus study with healthcare researchers and providers using the Delphi procedure will be performed. The project was approved by the Ethics review Committee (April 2016). This is the first project that will identify a core outcome set of outcomes and measurements for incontinence-associated dermatitis research. A core outcome set will reduce possible reporting bias, allow results comparisons and statistical pooling across trials and strengthen evidence-based practice and decision-making. This project has been registered in the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database and is part of the Cochrane Skin Group Core Outcomes Set Initiative (CSG-COUSIN).

Development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in rosacea: study protocol for a systematic review of the literature and identification of a core outcome set using a Delphi survey.

BackgroundRosacea is a chronic inflammatory disorder affecting millions of individuals worldwide. Diagnosis is based on signs and symptoms with management and treatment aimed to suppress inflammatory lesions, erythema, and telangiectasia. While many clinical trials of rosacea exist, the lack of consensus in outcome reporting across all trials poses a concern. Proper evaluation and comparison of treatment modalities is challenging. In order to address the inconsistencies present, this project aims to determine a core set of outcomes which should be evaluated in all clinical trials of rosacea.Methods/designThis project will utilize a methodology similar to previous core outcome set research. A long list of outcomes will be extracted over four phases: (1) systematic literature review, (2) patient interviews, (3) other published sources, and (4) stakeholder involvement. Potential outcomes will be examined by the Steering Committee to provide further insight. The Delphi process will then be performed to prioritize and condense the list of outcomes generated. Two homogenous groups of physicians and patients will participate in two consecutive rounds of Delphi surveys. A consensus meeting, composed of physicians, patients, and stakeholders, will be conducted after the Delphi exercise to further select outcomes, taking into account participant scores. By the end of the meeting, members will vote and decide on a final recommended set of core outcomes. For the duration of the study, we will be in collaboration with both the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and Cochrane Skin Group - Core Outcome Set Initiative (CSG-COUSIN).DiscussionThis study aims to develop a core outcome set to guide assessment in clinical trials of rosacea. The end-goal is to improve the reliability and consistency of outcome reporting, thereby allowing sufficient evaluation of treatment effectiveness and patient satisfaction.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1554-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Oral fumaric acid esters for psoriasis: abridged Cochrane systematic review including GRADE assessments.

SummaryFumaric acid esters (FAEs) are licensed for the treatment of moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis in Germany but are also used off‐label in many other countries. We conducted this systematic review to synthesize the highest‐quality evidence for the benefits and risks of FAEs for psoriasis. Our primary outcomes were change in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score and dropout rates due to adverse effects. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of FAEs or dimethylfumarate were included, with no restriction on age or psoriasis subtype. We searched the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, LILACS and five trials registers, and hand searched six conference proceedings. Six RCTs with a total of 544 participants were included, four of which were published only as abstracts or brief reports, limiting study reporting. Five RCTs compared FAEs with placebo, and all demonstrated benefit in favour of FAEs. However, meta‐analysis was possible only for PASI 50 response after 12–16 weeks, which was achieved by 64% of participants on FAEs compared with 14% on placebo: risk ratio (RR) 4·55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2·80–7·40; two studies; 247 participants; low‐quality evidence). There was no difference in dropout rates due to adverse effects (RR 5·36, 95% CI 0·28–102·12; one study; 27 participants; very low‐quality evidence and wide CI). More participants experienced nuisance adverse effects with FAEs (76%) than with placebo (16%) (RR 4·72, 95% CI 2·45–9·08; one study; 99 participants; moderate‐quality evidence), mainly abdominal pain, diarrhoea and flushing. One head‐to‐head study of very low‐quality evidence comparing FAEs with methotrexate reported comparable efficacy and dropout rates, although FAEs caused more flushing. The evidence in this review was limited and must be interpreted with caution; studies with better design and outcome reporting are needed.

Sun protection for preventing basal cell and squamous cell skin cancers.

'Keratinocyte cancer' is now the preferred term for the most commonly identified skin cancers basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), which were previously commonly categorised as non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSC). Keratinocyte cancer (KC) represents about 95% of malignant skin tumours. Lifestyle changes have led to increased exposure to the sun, which has, in turn, led to a significant increase of new cases of KC, with a worldwide annual incidence of between 3% and 8%. The successful use of preventive measures could mean a significant reduction in the resources used by health systems, compared with the high cost of the treatment of these conditions. At present, there is no information about the quality of the evidence for the use of these sun protection strategies with an assessment of their benefits and risks. To assess the effects of sun protection strategies (i.e. sunscreen and barrier methods) for preventing keratinocyte cancer (that is, basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) of the skin) in the general population. We searched the following databases up to May 2016: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trial registries and the bibliographies of included studies for further references to relevant trials. We included randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of preventive strategies for keratinocyte cancer, such as physical barriers and sunscreens, in the general population (children and adults), which may provide information about benefits and adverse events related to the use of solar protection measures. We did not include trials focused on educational strategies to prevent KC or preventive strategies in high-risk groups. Our prespecified primary outcomes were BCC or cSCC confirmed clinically or by histopathology at any follow-up and adverse events. Two review authors independently selected studies for eligibility using Early Review Organizing Software (EROS). Similarly, two review authors independently used predesigned data collection forms to extract information from the original study reports about the participants, methods of randomisation, blinding, comparisons of interest, number of participants originally randomised by arm, follow-up losses, and outcomes, and they assessed the risk of bias. We resolved any disagreement by consulting a third author and contacted trial investigators of identified trials to obtain additional information. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We included one RCT (factorial design) that randomised 1621 participants.This study compared the daily application of sunscreen compared with discretionary use of sunscreen, with or without beta-carotene administration, in the general population. The study was undertaken in Australia; 55.2% of participants had fair skin, and they were monitored for 4.5 years for new cases of BCC or cSCC assessed by histopathology. We found this study to be at low risk of bias for domains such as allocation, blinding, and incomplete outcome data. However, we found multiple unclear risks related to other biases, including an unclear assessment of possible interactions between the effects of the different interventions evaluated (that is, sunscreen and beta-carotene). We found no difference in terms of the number of participants developing BCC (n = 1621; risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.43) or cSCC (n = 1621; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.54) when comparing daily application of sunscreen with discretionary use, even when analyses were restricted to groups without beta-carotene supplementation. This evidence was of low quality, which means that there is some certainty that future studies may alter our confidence in this evidence.We reported adverse events in a narrative way and included skin irritation or contact allergy.We identified no studies that evaluated other sun protection measures, such as the use of sun-protective clothing, sunglasses, or hats, or seeking the shade when outdoors. In this review, we assessed the effect of solar protection in preventing the occurrence of new cases of keratinocyte cancer. We only found one study that was suitable for inclusion. This was a study of sunscreens, so we were unable to assess any other forms of sun protection. The study addressed our prespecified primary outcomes, but not most of our secondary outcomes. We were unable to demonstrate from the available evidence whether sunscreen was effective for the prevention of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC).Our certainty in the evidence was low because there was a lack of histopathological confirmation of BCC or cSCC in a significant percentage of cases. Amongst other sources of bias, it was not clear whether the study authors had assessed any interaction effects between the sunscreen and beta-carotene interventions. We think that further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.

Interventions for hirsutism excluding laser and photoepilation therapy alone: abridged Cochrane systematic review including GRADE assessments.

Hirsutism is a common disorder with a major impact on quality of life. The most frequent cause is polycystic ovary syndrome. Effects of interventions (except laser and light-based therapies) were evaluated, including Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessments. Searches included Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase and five trials registers to June 2014. We included 157 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 10550 participants. The majority were assessed as having a 'high risk' of bias (123 of 157). The quality of evidence was rated moderate to very low for most outcomes. Pooled data for an oral contraceptive (OCP) (ethinyl oestradiol and cyproterone acetate) compared with another OCP (ethinyl oestradiol and desogestrel) demonstrated that both treatments were effective in reducing Ferriman-Gallwey scores, but the mean difference (MD) was not statistically significant [-1·84, 95% confidence interval (CI): -3·86-0·18]. Flutamide was more effective than placebo in two studies (MD -7·60, 95% CI: -10·53 to -4·67 and MD -7·20, 95% CI: -10·15 to -4·25), as was spironolactone (MD -7·69, 95% CI: -10·12 to -5·26). Spironolactone appeared to be as effective as flutamide (two studies) and finasteride (two studies). However, finasteride and the gonadotropin-releasing analogues showed discrepant results in several RCTs. Metformin was ineffective. Cyproterone acetate combined with OCPs demonstrated greater reductions in Ferriman-Gallwey scores. Lifestyle interventions reduced body mass index but did not show improvement in hirsutism, and although cosmetic measures are frequently used, no RCTs investigating cosmetic treatments were identified. RCTs investigating OCPs in combination with antiandrogens or finasteride vs. OCP alone, or the different antiandrogens and 5α-reductase inhibitors are warranted.

Interventions for female pattern hair loss.

Interventions for female pattern hair loss.

Systemic antifungal therapy for tinea capitis in children.

Systemic antifungal therapy for tinea capitis in children.

Scoping systematic review of treatments for eczema

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.

Zalecenia dotyczące leczenia chorych na raka podstawnokomórkowego i na raka kolczystokomórkowego przygotowane przez Sekcję Onkologiczną Polskiego Towarzystwa Dermatologicznego i sekcję Akademia Czerniaka Polskiego Towarzystwa Chirurgii Onkologicznej

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) as well as the squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) are the most frequent malignant neoplasms among Caucasian patients. Despite the fact, that they seldom metastasise and are not directly fatal, they constitute a significant clinical issue. Such cancers infiltrate surrounding tissues and destroy the surrounding structures, e.g., bones and cartilages. This results in such structures developing severe defects and significantly reduces the quality of life of the patients. Those with chronic immunosuppresion or a genetic predisposition to develop UV-induced skin cancer are at risk of dying, particularly if the cancer is aggressive. The Oncology Department of the Polish Dermatology Society (Polish: Sekcja Onkologiczna Polskiego Towarzystwa Dermatologicznego — PTD) as well as the Melanoma Academy Department of the Polish Society of Oncological Surgery (Polish: sekcja Akademia Czerniaka Polskiego Towarzystwa Chirurgii Onkologicznej — PTChO), basing on the current European guidelines, American recommendations of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (revision 1.2015) and interventional reviews of publications elaborated by the Cochrane Skin Group, attempted to systemise the diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and o determine rules for primary and secondary prevention in patients suspected/diagnosed with a basal cell or squamous cell carcinoma. The paper presents recommendations regarding diagnosis and treatment of skin cancers, taking all related benefits and challenges into consideration, as well as recommendations for post treatment patients monitoring.

Interventions for acne scars.

Interventions for acne scars.

Evidence-based management of vitiligo: summary of a Cochrane systematic review.

Vitiligo affects around 1% of the world's population. Despite it being relatively common, there is still no effective treatment. The objective of this study was to update the Cochrane systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy of treatments for vitiligo. We carried out searches of a range of databases to October 2013 for RCTs of interventions for vitiligo regardless of language or publication status. At least two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and methodological quality and extracted data using data extraction forms approved by the Cochrane Skin Group. Our primary outcomes of interest were quality of life, > 75% repigmentation and adverse effects. We retrieved 96 studies, of which 39 were new studies, with an overall total of 4512 participants. Repigmentation was assessed in all studies, although only five reported on all three of our primary outcomes. Regarding our two secondary outcomes, six studies measured cessation of spread but none assessed long-term permanence of repigmentation at 2 years' follow-up. Most of the studies evaluated combination treatments, which generally showed better repigmentation than monotherapies. Of the new studies, seven were surgical interventions. The majority of the studies had fewer than 50 participants. The quality of the studies was poor to moderate at best. Very few studies specifically included children or participants with segmental vitiligo. Five years after the last update of this review, there are still important variations in study design and outcome measures in clinical trials for vitiligo, limiting the evidence for the efficacy of different therapeutic options. The best evidence from individual trials showed short-term benefit from topical corticosteroids and various forms of ultraviolet radiation combined with topical preparations. Long-term follow-up and patient-rated outcomes should be incorporated into study design, and more studies should assess psychological interventions.

Topical treatments for scalp psoriasis.

Topical treatments for scalp psoriasis.

Specific allergen immunotherapy for the treatment of atopic eczema.

Specific allergen immunotherapy for the treatment of atopic eczema.

Report from the kick-off meeting of the Cochrane Skin Group Core Outcome Set Initiative (CSG-COUSIN).

A major obstacle of evidence-based clinical decision making is the use of nonstandardized, partly untested outcome measurement instruments. Core Outcome Sets (COSs) are currently developed in different medical fields to standardize and improve the selection of outcomes and outcome measurement instruments in clinical trials, in order to pool results of trials or to allow indirect comparison between interventions. A COS is an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials of a specific disease or trial population. The international, multidisciplinary Cochrane Skin Group Core Outcome Set Initiative (CSG-COUSIN) aims to develop and implement COSs in dermatology, thus making trial evidence comparable and, herewith, more useful for clinical decision making. The inaugural meeting of CSG-COUSIN was held on 17-18 March 2015 in Dresden, Germany, as the exclusive theme of the Annual Cochrane Skin Group Meeting. In total, 29 individuals representing a broad mix of different stakeholder groups, professions, skills and perspectives attended. This report provides a description of existing COS initiatives in dermatology, highlights current methodological challenges in COS development, and presents the concept, aims and structure of CSG-COUSIN.

Anti-TNF agents for paediatric psoriasis.

Psoriasis is a chronic skin disease that may develop at any age. Estimates for the United States and Europe suggest that psoriasis accounts for 4% of skin diseases in children. In most cases, the condition is mild and can be treated with creams. However, a small percentage of children have moderate to severe disease that requires drugs, such as ciclosporin or methotrexate, and some will require injections with newer biological agents, such as anti-TNF (tumour necrosis factor) drugs. Anti-TNF drugs (among them etanercept, infliximab, and adalimumab) are designed to reduce inflammation in the body caused by tumour necrosis factor. Evidence for the safety and efficacy of these biological agents in paediatric psoriasis is lacking. To assess the efficacy and safety of anti-TNF agents for the treatment of paediatric psoriasis. We searched the following databases up to July 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched 13 trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies and key review articles for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We handsearched conference proceedings and attempted to contact trial authors and relevant pharmaceutical manufacturers. We searched the US Food and Drug Administration's and European Medicines Agency's adverse effects databases. All relevant RCTs that evaluated the efficacy and safety of anti-TNF agents for the treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis in individuals less than 18 years of age. Two review authors independently checked titles and abstracts and performed data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment of the included studies. One review author entered data into Review Manager (RevMan), and a second review author checked the data. We also attempted to obtain unclear data from the trial authors where possible.Our primary outcomes were investigator-assessed number of participants achieving a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index-75 (PASI 75) compared to baseline, improvement in quality of life using an instrument such as Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI), and adverse effects. Our secondary outcomes included the proportion of participants achieving PASI 50 and the Physician's Global Assessment (PGA). We included one study with 211 participants (median age 13 years), in which etanercept (dosage ranged from 0.8 to 50 mg per kilogram of body weight) was compared to placebo. Follow-up was over a 48-week period.At week 12, 57% versus 11% who received etanercept or placebo, respectively, achieved the PASI 75 (risk ratio 4.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.83 to 8.65; high-quality evidence). Absolute risk reduction and the number needed to treat to obtain a benefit with etanercept was 45% (95% CI 33.95 to 56.40) and 2 (95% CI 1.77 to 2.95), respectively.The percentage improvement from baseline of the CDLQI scores at week 12 was better in the etanercept group than the placebo group (52.3% versus 17.5%, respectively (P = 0.0001)). Analysis between the groups showed an effect size that was clinically important (mean difference 2.30, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.75; high-quality evidence). However, means, medians, and minimal important difference results and results of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory, Stein Impact on Family Scale, and Harter Self-Perception Profile for Children scores must be interpreted with caution, as they were not prespecified outcomes.Three serious adverse events were reported, but they were resolved without sequelae. Deaths or other events such as malignant tumours, opportunistic infections, tuberculosis, or demyelination were not reported in the included study.Also, 13% of participants in the placebo group and 53% in the etanercept group had a PGA of clear or almost clear (risk ratio 3.96, 95% CI 2.36 to 6.66; high-quality evidence) at week 12. This review found only one RCT evaluating the use of this type of biological therapy. Although the risk of publication bias was high, as we included only one industry-sponsored RCT, the risk of allocation, selection, performance, attrition, and selective reporting biases for all outcomes (except for CDLQI) was low, and no short-term serious adverse events were found.We can conclude, based on this single included study, that etanercept seems to be efficacious and safe (at least in the short term) for the treatment of paediatric psoriasis. However, as the GRADE approach refers not to individual studies but to a body of evidence, we shall wait for the results of the ongoing studies in a future update of this review. In addition, future studies should evaluate quality-of-life endpoints established a priori and standardise primary outcome measures such as PASI 75, and should include the PGA as a secondary endpoint. Also, collating and reporting adverse events uniformly is required to better evaluate safety.

Safety of topical corticosteroids in pregnancy.

Safety of topical corticosteroids in pregnancy.

Interventions for hidradenitis suppurativa.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition characterised by recurrent painful boils in flexural sites, such as the axillae and groin, that affects about 1% of the population, with onset in early adulthood. To assess the effects of interventions for HS in people of all ages. We searched the following databases up to 13 August 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched five trials registers and handsearched the conference proceedings of eight dermatology meetings. We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant trials. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of all interventions for hidradenitis suppurativa. Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and methodological quality and performed data extraction. Our primary outcomes were quality of life, measured by a validated dermatology-specific scale, and adverse effects of the interventions. Twelve trials, with 615 participants, met our inclusion criteria. The median number of participants in each trial was 27, and median trial duration was 16 weeks. The included studies were conducted over a 32-year time period, from 1983 to 2015. A single RCT that was underpowered to detect clinically meaningful differences investigated most interventions.There were four trials of anti-TNF-α (tumour necrosis factor-alpha) therapies, which included etanercept, infliximab, and adalimumab. Adalimumab 40 mg weekly improved the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score in participants with moderate to severe HS by 4.0 points relative to placebo (95% confidence interval (CI) -6.5 to -1.5 points), an effect size approximately equal to the DLQI minimal clinically important difference. We reduced the evidence quality to 'moderate' because the effect size was based on the results of only one study. In a meta-analysis of two studies with 124 participants, standard dose adalimumab 40 mg every other week was ineffective compared with placebo (moderate quality evidence). In a smaller study of 38 participants, of whom only 33 provided efficacy data, infliximab 5 mg/kg treatment improved DLQI by 8.4 DLQI points after eight weeks. Etanercept 50 mg twice weekly was well tolerated but ineffective.In a RCT of 200 participants, no difference was found in surgical complications (week one: risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.05, moderate quality evidence) or risk of recurrence (after three months: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.34, moderate quality evidence) in those randomised to receive a gentamicin-collagen sponge prior to primary closure compared with primary closure alone.RCTs of other interventions, including topical clindamycin 1% solution; oral tetracycline; oral ethinylestradiol 50 mcg with either cyproterone acetate 50 mg or norgestrel 500 mcg; intense pulsed light; neodymium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet (Nd:YAG) laser; methylene blue gel photodynamic therapy; and staphage lysate, were relatively small studies, preventing firm conclusions due to imprecision. Many knowledge gaps exist in RCT evidence for HS. Moderate quality evidence exists for adalimumab, which improves DLQI score when 40 mg is given weekly, twice the standard psoriasis dose. However, the 95% confidence interval includes an effect size of only 1.5 DLQI points, which may not be clinically relevant, and the safety profile of weekly dosing has not been fully established. Infliximab also improves quality of life, based on moderate quality evidence.More RCTs are needed in most areas of HS care, particularly oral treatments and the type and timing of surgical procedures. Outcomes should be validated, ideally, including a minimal clinically important difference for HS.