Efficacy and Safety of Topical Roflumilast for the Treatment of Psoriasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Plaque psoriasis is commonly treated topically with glucocorticoids and vitamin D derivatives. However, potential side effects such as skin atrophy underscore the need for safe and effective alternative topical therapies. Recently, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada approved roflumilast 0.3% cream as an option for treating this disease. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of topical roflumilast 0.3% compared with vehicle for plaque psoriasis. PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to 1 May 2024, assessing the outcomes of Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) or body-IGA success (clear or almost clear status plus an at least 2-grade improvement from baseline), Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI)-50, PASI-75, PASI-90, intertriginous-IGA success (clear or almost clear status on the intertriginous-IGA plus an at least 2-grade improvement from baseline), and adverse events (AEs). Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager, R software, and RStudio. Heterogeneity was determined using the Cochran Q test and I 2 statistics. Four RCTs were included, comprising a total of 1403 patients, of whom 885 (63.1%) received topical roflumilast 0.3% and 518 (36.9%) received vehicle. At week 8, the achievement of IGA or body-IGA success was significantly higher among those treated with topical roflumilast than in the vehicle group [relative risk (RR) 5.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.55–7.23; p < 0.01]. Similar findings were observed at week 8 for PASI-50 (RR 2.73; 95% CI 2.27–3.29; p < 0.01), PASI-75 (RR 4.48; 95% CI 2.26–8.89; p < 0.01), and PASI-90 (RR 5.61; 95% CI 2.57–12.25; p < 0.01). Corresponding outcomes were found at weeks 2, 4, and 6. Additionally, a higher percentage of patients treated with topical roflumilast 0.3% once daily achieved intertriginous-IGA success, compared with those receiving vehicle, at week 8 (71.9% versus 20.5%; RR 3.32; 95% CI 2.11–5.22; p < 0.01), with similar findings at weeks 2, 4, and 6. While a significant difference was observed in the overall incidence of AEs between the topical roflumilast and vehicle groups, there was no difference in treatment-related AEs, serious AEs, or AEs leading to study discontinuation. These findings support the superiority of topical roflumilast 0.3% over vehicle and suggest its use as a valuable asset for the treatment of plaque psoriasis. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), CRD42023456494.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,043 | 0,013 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».