4.6 Review

A systematic review of the safety and efficacy of systemic corticosteroids in atopic dermatitis

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2017.09.074

关键词

adrenal insufficiency; atopic dermatitis; atopic eczema; corticosteroids; eczema; intramuscular; intravenous; oral; rebound flaring; systemic side effects

资金

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [K12 HS023011]
  2. Dermatology Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Systemic corticosteroids are often used to treat atopic dermatitis (AD). However, few studies have assessed the safety and efficacy of systemic corticosteroids in AD. Objective: To systematically review the literature on efficacy and safety of systemic corticosteroid use (oral, intramuscular, and intravenous) in AD. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched. We included systematic reviews, guidelines, and treatment reviews of systemic corticosteroid use among patients of all ages with a diagnosis of AD (52 reviews and 12 studies). Results: There was general consensus in the literature to limit the use of systemic steroids to short courses as a bridge to steroid-sparing therapies. Systemic side effects include growth suppression in children, osteoporosis, osteonecrosis, adrenal insufficiency, Cushing syndrome, hypertension, glucose intolerance, diabetes, gastritis, gastroesophageal reflux, peptic ulcer disease, weight gain, emotional lability, behavioral changes, opportunistic infections, cataracts, glaucoma, myopathy, myalgia, dysaesthesia, pseudotumor cerebri, hyperlipidemia, malignancy, thrombosis, skin atrophy, sleep disturbance, and rebound flaring. Limitations: Baseline clinical severity, corticosteroid delivery and dose, and treatment response were reported incompletely and heterogeneously across studies. Conclusions: Evidence is not strong enough to determine optimal delivery or duration of systemic corticosteroids in AD. (J Am Acad Dermatol 2018;78:733-40.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据