Background. Crisaborole has been considered a promising alternative for topical treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD), mainly supported by AD-301 and AD-302. However, critical insights into these two studies have previously been proposed. Objective. To make a comprehensive assessment of the application of crisaborole in mild to moderate AD. Methods. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted, in which only randomized controlled trials comparing the application of crisaborole twice daily to vehicle or other active treatment in patients with mild to moderate AD were included. The selection of outcomes was based on the recommendation of the HOME initiative. Patient-reported symptoms, clinician-reported signs, health-related quality of life, and the safety of crisaborole were all assessed using appropriate measurement instruments. Results. Eight RCTs with 2266 patients were included in the pooled analysis. Compared to those treated with vehicle, patients on crisaborole experienced a greater improvement in NRS (MD −0.70; 95% CI −0.94 to −0.47), POEM (MD −3.50; 95% CI −4.34 to −2.66), EASI (MD −14.49%; 95% CI −18.24% to −10.73%), ISGA (RR 1.45; 95% CI 1.28 to 1.63), DLQI (MD −1.54; 95% CI −2.17 to −0.92), and DFI (MD −1.16; 95% CI −1.72 to −0.59) during the 4-week treatment. More patients achieved EASI 75 (RR 1.71; 95% CI 1.43 to 2.04) with crisaborole administration. There was no significant difference between two interventions in the incidence of AEs (RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.29), SAEs (RR 1.89; 95% CI 0.47 to 7.60), or AE-related withdrawal (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.60). One RCT also made comparison between crisaborole and pimecrolimus, suggesting that no significant difference was detected in the improvement of EASI or NRS at most time points. Conclusion. High-quality evidence was provided to demonstrate that the short-term application of crisaborole is safe and efficacious for the treatment of mild to moderate AD.Thepractical efficacy of crisaborole is similar to that of pimecrolimus.
Loading....