Dermatology Department, University Hospital of Getafe, Getafe, Madrid, Spain.
Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Príncipe de Asturias University Hospital, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Alcalá, Institute for Health Research IRYCIS, Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain.
J Invest Dermatol. 2017 Oct;137(10):2092-2100. doi: 10.1016/j.jid.2017.05.022. Epub 2017 Jun 17.
Several immunomodulatory agents are used in the treatment of epidermal necrolysis, but evidence of their efficacy is limited. The Autonomous Community of Madrid has two reference burn units to which all patients with epidermal necrolysis are referred. One burn unit has mostly used cyclosporine (CsA), and the other has used non-CsA therapies (mainly high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin). The allocation of patients to one or the other burn unit was mainly based on proximity, resembling a random assignment. Thus, we took advantage of this "natural experiment" to estimate the mortality risk ratio (MRR) of CsA (n = 26) compared with non-CsA (n = 16) treatment using hospital as an instrumental variable over the period from 2001 to 2015. We also computed the observed versus expected (O/E) MRR in a case series of 49 CsA-treated patients (including 23 patients from other regions treated in Madrid), and using the Score for Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (i.e., SCORTEN) scale to estimate the expected values. The instrumental variable-based MRR of CsA versus non-CsA was 0.09 (95% confidence interval = 0.00-0.49). The O/E analysis also showed a reduction in mortality risk (MRR = 0.42; 95% confidence interval = 0.14-0.99). We identified five other case series of CsA-treated patients providing MRR and meta-analyzed their results. The pooled MRR (including from this study) was 0.41 (95% confidence interval = 0.21-0.80). All three approaches consistently show that CsA reduces the mortality in epidermal necrolysis patients.
几种免疫调节剂被用于治疗表皮坏死松解症,但它们的疗效证据有限。马德里自治区有两个参考烧伤单位,所有表皮坏死松解症患者都被转至这两个单位。一个烧伤单位主要使用环孢素(CsA),另一个则使用非 CsA 疗法(主要是高剂量静脉注射免疫球蛋白)。将患者分配至一个或另一个烧伤单位主要基于就近原则,类似于随机分配。因此,我们利用这个“自然实验”,在 2001 年至 2015 年期间,将医院作为工具变量,估计 CsA(n=26)与非 CsA(n=16)治疗的死亡率风险比(MRR)。我们还计算了 49 例 CsA 治疗患者(包括在马德里接受治疗的来自其他地区的 23 例患者)的病例系列观察到的与预期的(O/E)MRR,并使用毒性表皮坏死松解症评分(即 SCORTEN 量表)来估计预期值。基于工具变量的 CsA 与非 CsA 的 MRR 为 0.09(95%置信区间=0.00-0.49)。O/E 分析也显示死亡率风险降低(MRR=0.42;95%置信区间=0.14-0.99)。我们确定了另外五个 CsA 治疗患者的病例系列,提供了 MRR,并对其结果进行了荟萃分析。包括本研究在内的汇总 MRR 为 0.41(95%置信区间=0.21-0.80)。这三种方法都一致表明 CsA 可降低表皮坏死松解症患者的死亡率。