Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Department of Primary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Mar 11;3(3):CD013356. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013356.pub2.
Eczema is a common skin condition. Although topical corticosteroids have been a first-line treatment for eczema for decades, there are uncertainties over their optimal use.
To establish the effectiveness and safety of different ways of using topical corticosteroids for treating eczema.
We searched databases to January 2021 (Cochrane Skin Specialised Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; GREAT) and five clinical trials registers. We checked bibliographies from included trials to identify further trials.
Randomised controlled trials in adults and children with eczema that compared at least two strategies of topical corticosteroid use. We excluded placebo comparisons, other than for trials that evaluated proactive versus reactive treatment.
We used standard Cochrane methods, with GRADE certainty of evidence for key findings. Primary outcomes were changes in clinician-reported signs and relevant local adverse events. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported symptoms and relevant systemic adverse events. For local adverse events, we prioritised abnormal skin thinning as a key area of concern for healthcare professionals and patients.
We included 104 trials (8443 participants). Most trials were conducted in high-income countries (81/104), most likely in outpatient or other hospital settings. We judged only one trial to be low risk of bias across all domains. Fifty-five trials had high risk of bias in at least one domain, mostly due to lack of blinding or missing outcome data. Stronger-potency versus weaker-potency topical corticosteroids Sixty-three trials compared different potencies of topical corticosteroids: 12 moderate versus mild, 22 potent versus mild, 25 potent versus moderate, and 6 very potent versus potent. Trials were usually in children with moderate or severe eczema, where specified, lasting one to five weeks. The most reported outcome was Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) of clinician-reported signs of eczema. We pooled four trials that compared moderate- versus mild-potency topical corticosteroids (420 participants). Moderate-potency topical corticosteroids probably result in more participants achieving treatment success, defined as cleared or marked improvement on IGA (52% versus 34%; odds ratio (OR) 2.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 3.04; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled nine trials that compared potent versus mild-potency topical corticosteroids (392 participants). Potent topical corticosteroids probably result in a large increase in number achieving treatment success (70% versus 39%; OR 3.71, 95% CI 2.04 to 6.72; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled 15 trials that compared potent versus moderate-potency topical corticosteroids (1053 participants). There was insufficient evidence of a benefit of potent topical corticosteroids compared to moderate topical corticosteroids (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.89; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled three trials that compared very potent versus potent topical corticosteroids (216 participants). The evidence is uncertain with a wide confidence interval (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.09; low-certainty evidence). Twice daily or more versus once daily application We pooled 15 of 25 trials in this comparison (1821 participants, all reported IGA). The trials usually assessed adults and children with moderate or severe eczema, where specified, using potent topical corticosteroids, lasting two to six weeks. Applying potent topical corticosteroids only once a day probably does not decrease the number achieving treatment success compared to twice daily application (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.38; 15 trials, 1821 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Local adverse events Within the trials that tested 'treating eczema flare-up' strategies, we identified only 26 cases of abnormal skin thinning from 2266 participants (1% across 22 trials). Most cases were from the use of higher-potency topical corticosteroids (16 with very potent, 6 with potent, 2 with moderate and 2 with mild). We assessed this evidence as low certainty, except for very potent versus potent topical corticosteroids, which was very low-certainty evidence. Longer versus shorter-term duration of application for induction of remission No trials were identified. Twice weekly application (weekend, or 'proactive therapy') to prevent relapse (flare-ups) versus no topical corticosteroids/reactive application Nine trials assessed this comparison, generally lasting 16 to 20 weeks. We pooled seven trials that compared weekend (proactive) topical corticosteroids therapy versus no topical corticosteroids (1179 participants, children and adults with a range of eczema severities, though mainly moderate or severe). Weekend (proactive) therapy probably results in a large decrease in likelihood of a relapse from 58% to 25% (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.57; 7 trials, 1149 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Local adverse events We did not identify any cases of abnormal skin thinning in seven trials that assessed skin thinning (1050 participants) at the end of treatment. We assessed this evidence as low certainty. Other comparisons Other comparisons included newer versus older preparations of topical corticosteroids (15 trials), cream versus ointment (7 trials), topical corticosteroids with wet wrap versus no wet wrap (6 trials), number of days per week applied (4 trials), different concentrations of the same topical corticosteroids (2 trials), time of day applied (2 trials), topical corticosteroids alternating with topical calcineurin inhibitors versus topical corticosteroids alone (1 trial), application to wet versus dry skin (1 trial) and application before versus after emollient (1 trial). No trials compared branded versus generic topical corticosteroids and time between application of emollient and topical corticosteroids.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Potent and moderate topical corticosteroids are probably more effective than mild topical corticosteroids, primarily in moderate or severe eczema; however, there is uncertain evidence to support any advantage of very potent over potent topical corticosteroids. Effectiveness is similar between once daily and twice daily (or more) frequent use of potent topical corticosteroids to treat eczema flare-ups, and topical corticosteroids weekend (proactive) therapy is probably better than no topical corticosteroids/reactive use to prevent eczema relapse (flare-ups). Adverse events were not well reported and came largely from low- or very low-certainty, short-term trials. In trials that reported abnormal skin thinning, frequency was low overall and increased with increasing potency. We found no trials on the optimum duration of treatment of a flare, branded versus generic topical corticosteroids, and time to leave between application of topical corticosteroids and emollient. There is a need for longer-term trials, in people with mild eczema.
湿疹是一种常见的皮肤疾病。尽管外用皮质类固醇激素已在治疗湿疹方面应用数十年,但对于其最佳使用方法仍存在诸多不确定因素。
明确不同外用皮质类固醇激素治疗湿疹的方法的有效性和安全性。
我们检索了截至 2021 年 1 月的数据库(Cochrane 皮肤专业注册库;CENTRAL;MEDLINE;Embase;GREAT)和五个临床试验注册库。我们检查了纳入试验的参考文献,以确定是否有其他试验。
纳入了比较至少两种外用皮质类固醇激素使用策略的成人和儿童湿疹患者的随机对照试验。我们排除了安慰剂对照,除了评估主动治疗与被动治疗的试验以外。
我们使用标准的 Cochrane 方法,对关键发现进行了 GRADE 证据确定性评估。主要结局为临床医生报告的体征和相关局部不良事件的变化。次要结局为患者报告的症状和相关全身不良事件。对于局部不良事件,我们优先关注异常皮肤变薄,这是医疗保健专业人员和患者关注的一个关键领域。
我们纳入了 104 项试验(8443 名参与者)。大多数试验在高收入国家(81/104)进行,主要在门诊或其他医院环境中进行。我们仅对一项试验的所有领域的偏倚风险评估为低风险。55 项试验在至少一个领域存在高偏倚风险,主要是由于缺乏盲法或缺失结局数据。强效与弱效外用皮质类固醇激素:63 项试验比较了不同强度的外用皮质类固醇激素:12 项是中效与轻度,22 项是强效与轻度,25 项是强效与中效,6 项是超强效与强效。试验通常在患有中度或重度湿疹的儿童中进行,如具体说明的那样,持续时间为 1 至 5 周。报告最多的结局是临床医生报告的湿疹体征的研究者全球评估(IGA)。我们汇总了四项比较中效与轻度外用皮质类固醇激素的试验(420 名参与者)。中效外用皮质类固醇激素可能使更多的参与者达到治疗成功,定义为 IGA 评分清除或显著改善(52%比 34%;比值比(OR)2.07,95%置信区间(CI)1.41 至 3.04;中等确定性证据)。我们汇总了九项比较强效与轻度外用皮质类固醇激素的试验(392 名参与者)。强效外用皮质类固醇激素可能会显著增加达到治疗成功的人数(70%比 39%;OR 3.71,95%CI 2.04 至 6.72;中等确定性证据)。我们汇总了 15 项比较强效与中效外用皮质类固醇激素的试验(1053 名参与者)。与中效外用皮质类固醇激素相比,强效外用皮质类固醇激素的益处证据不足(OR 1.33,95%CI 0.93 至 1.89;中等确定性证据)。我们汇总了三项比较超强效与强效外用皮质类固醇激素的试验(216 名参与者)。证据不确定,置信区间较宽(OR 0.53,95%CI 0.13 至 2.09;低确定性证据)。每日两次或更多次与每日一次应用:我们汇总了 15 项比较中这两种应用的试验(1821 名参与者,均报告了 IGA)。这些试验通常评估了中度或重度湿疹的成人和儿童,如具体说明的那样,使用了强效外用皮质类固醇激素,持续时间为 2 至 6 周。与每日一次应用相比,每日两次或更多次应用强效外用皮质类固醇激素可能不会增加治疗成功的人数(OR 0.97,95%CI 0.68 至 1.38;15 项试验,1821 名参与者;中等确定性证据)。局部不良事件:在我们测试“治疗湿疹发作”策略的试验中,我们只从 2266 名参与者中发现了 26 例异常皮肤变薄(22 项试验中占 1%)。大多数病例来自于更高强度的外用皮质类固醇激素(16 例为超强效,6 例为强效,2 例为中效,2 例为轻度)。我们将这一证据评估为低确定性,除了超强效与强效外用皮质类固醇激素,这是非常低确定性证据。诱导缓解的长期与短期外用皮质类固醇激素治疗:未确定试验。每周两次应用(周末,或“主动治疗”)预防复发(发作)与不使用外用皮质类固醇激素/被动应用:九项试验评估了这种比较,通常持续 16 至 20 周。我们汇总了七项比较周末(主动)外用皮质类固醇激素治疗与不使用外用皮质类固醇激素(1179 名参与者,患有各种严重程度的湿疹的儿童和成人,尽管主要是中度或重度)的试验。与不使用外用皮质类固醇激素相比,周末(主动)治疗可能会使复发的可能性大大降低,从 58%降至 25%(风险比(RR)0.43,95%CI 0.32 至 0.57;7 项试验,1149 名参与者;中等确定性证据)。局部不良事件:我们在七项评估治疗结束时皮肤变薄的试验(1050 名参与者)中没有发现任何异常皮肤变薄的病例。我们将这一证据评估为低确定性。其他比较:其他比较包括新型与旧型外用皮质类固醇激素(15 项试验)、乳膏与软膏(7 项试验)、外用皮质类固醇激素联合湿包与无湿包(6 项试验)、每周应用天数(4 项试验)、相同外用皮质类固醇激素的不同浓度(2 项试验)、应用时间(2 项试验)、外用皮质类固醇激素交替与外用皮质类固醇激素单独治疗(1 项试验)、在湿皮肤与干皮肤上应用(1 项试验)以及在应用外用皮质类固醇激素之前或之后应用保湿剂(1 项试验)。没有试验比较过品牌与通用的外用皮质类固醇激素,以及应用保湿剂和外用皮质类固醇激素之间的时间间隔。
与轻度外用皮质类固醇激素相比,强效和中效外用皮质类固醇激素可能更有效,主要是在中度或重度湿疹中;然而,与强效外用皮质类固醇激素相比,超强效外用皮质类固醇激素具有优势的证据不确定。对于治疗湿疹发作的外用皮质类固醇激素的每日一次和每日两次(或更多次)频繁应用,以及预防湿疹复发(发作)的周末(主动)治疗优于不使用外用皮质类固醇激素/被动治疗,这两种治疗方法的有效性相似。不良事件报告不足,主要来自于低确定性或非常低确定性、短期试验。在报告异常皮肤变薄的试验中,总体频率较低,并且随着强度的增加而增加。我们没有发现关于治疗发作的最佳持续时间、品牌与通用外用皮质类固醇激素以及应用外用皮质类固醇激素和保湿剂之间时间的试验。需要在患有轻度湿疹的人群中进行更长时间的试验。