↓ Skip to main content

Are Biologics Efficacious in Atopic Dermatitis? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Are Biologics Efficacious in Atopic Dermatitis? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Published in
American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40257-017-0324-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Igor Snast, Ofer Reiter, Emmilia Hodak, Rivka Friedland, Daniel Mimouni, Yael Anne Leshem

Abstract

Current systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis (AD) offer limited efficacy and are often restricted by safety concerns. Biologics may address the unmet need for improved AD therapeutics. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of biologic agents in AD. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating AD patients treated with biologics was performed. The primary outcome was the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI)-75 response, while secondary outcomes were SCOring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD)-75, EASI-50, SCORAD-50, Investigator Global Assessment 0/1 responses, change in responses from baseline, and adverse events. We included 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 10 observational studies evaluating nine biologics. High-quality evidence was available for dupilumab, nemolizumab and ustekinumab. Pooling five studies, at weeks 12-16 dupilumab 300 mg every week to every 2 weeks achieved EASI-75 responses of 55%, superior to placebo [relative risk (RR) 3.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.9-3.6]. Nemolizumab had similar EASI-75 responses as placebo, but significantly improved pruritus. In online reports, lebrikizumab demonstrated superior EASI-50 responses versus placebo (RR 1.3, 95% CI 1.04-1.7), while tralokinumab had superior SCORAD-50 responses versus placebo, with borderline significance (RR 1.7, 95% CI 0.97-3.1). In two RCTs each, omalizumab and ustekinumab were comparable with placebo, while antithymic stromal lymphopoietin receptor, infliximab, and rituximab lacked adequate evidence of efficacy. All medications had a comparable safety profile to placebo. Lack of RCTs and the use of variable outcome measures limited conclusions. Dupilumab is currently the only biologic with robust evidence of efficacy in AD. Nemolizumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab show promise but further data are needed. Longer follow-up and larger studies will establish their safety profile.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 13%
Other 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Student > Master 7 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 43 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 37%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 43 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,559,660
of 24,715,720 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Clinical Dermatology
#101
of 1,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,620
of 334,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Clinical Dermatology
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,715,720 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,044 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,940 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.