TY - JOUR
T1 - Systematic review on antipruritic therapies for patients with Epidermolysis bullosa
AU - Welponer, Tobias
AU - Puttinger, Christian
AU - Korte, Eva W.H.
AU - van der Werf, Sjoukje
AU - Prodinger, Christine
AU - Bolling, Marieke C.
AU - Laimer, Martin
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Introduction: Itch is one of the most burdensome symptoms in epidermolysis bullosa (EB), indicating a hitherto unmet therapeutic need. This review leverages existing data on efficacy of itch treatment in EB to support sound decision making. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed on 29 March 2022. Studies written later than 1991 and reporting outcomes in patients with EB treated for itch were considered. Results: Of the 3,099 articles screened, 21 studies met eligibility criteria, comprising 353 patients (65.9%) diagnosed for recessive dystrophic EB. Only two studies (9.5%) evaluated itch as primary endpoint, of which solely one revealed a significant relief of self-reported itch upon topical skin care. In those studies assessing itch as secondary endpoint (19/21, 90.5%), only 36.8% studies (n = 7/19) revealed a statistically significant itch reduction of up to 42%. Methodological limitations (heterogeneity of outcomes, inconsistent data assessment) in addition to limited superiority over control were implicated to account for low treatment efficacy observed in most studies. Conclusion: Current data quality impairs comparative efficacy analyses of itch treatments in EB. Large scale randomized clinical trials and more personalized approaches applying validated measurement instruments for core outcomes are needed to substantiate evidence-based treatment approaches for EB-associated itch.
AB - Introduction: Itch is one of the most burdensome symptoms in epidermolysis bullosa (EB), indicating a hitherto unmet therapeutic need. This review leverages existing data on efficacy of itch treatment in EB to support sound decision making. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed on 29 March 2022. Studies written later than 1991 and reporting outcomes in patients with EB treated for itch were considered. Results: Of the 3,099 articles screened, 21 studies met eligibility criteria, comprising 353 patients (65.9%) diagnosed for recessive dystrophic EB. Only two studies (9.5%) evaluated itch as primary endpoint, of which solely one revealed a significant relief of self-reported itch upon topical skin care. In those studies assessing itch as secondary endpoint (19/21, 90.5%), only 36.8% studies (n = 7/19) revealed a statistically significant itch reduction of up to 42%. Methodological limitations (heterogeneity of outcomes, inconsistent data assessment) in addition to limited superiority over control were implicated to account for low treatment efficacy observed in most studies. Conclusion: Current data quality impairs comparative efficacy analyses of itch treatments in EB. Large scale randomized clinical trials and more personalized approaches applying validated measurement instruments for core outcomes are needed to substantiate evidence-based treatment approaches for EB-associated itch.
KW - disease severity
KW - Epidermolysis bullosa
KW - itch treatment
KW - quality of life
KW - study outcomes
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85199936264&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/09546634.2024.2381762
DO - 10.1080/09546634.2024.2381762
M3 - Review article
C2 - 39069296
AN - SCOPUS:85199936264
SN - 0954-6634
VL - 35
JO - Journal of dermatological treatment
JF - Journal of dermatological treatment
IS - 1
M1 - 2381762
ER -