Efficacy and Safety of Topical Roflumilast for the Treatment of Psoriasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.043 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".