montelukast and Eczema

This review forms part of an annual update series on atopic eczema (AE), where systematic reviews (SRs) are gathered and appraised to provide a summary of key recent research findings. The focus of this article is systemic therapies used in AE, while a review on prevention and topical therapies is provided in Part 1. In total, 17 SRs on various systemic treatments used in AE were first published or indexed in 2018. There is a lack of evidence to support vitamin D supplementation, montelukast and naltrexone in AE treatment. The adverse effects of systemic corticosteroids are the main barrier to their use, and there is also a lack of data to determine the optimal delivery and duration of treatment with them. Of other immunosuppressants, ciclosporin has the most robust evidence of efficacy. Biologic therapies in AE treatment are being increasingly investigated, and to date, the greatest quantity of data and evidence of efficacy relates to dupilumab. The most commonly reported adverse effects are injection-site reactions and conjunctivitis. Other biologics showing some evidence of efficacy include nemolizumab, lebrikizumab and tralokinumab, although further data are needed. There are currently insufficient data on oral small molecules, including Janus kinase inhibitors, in the treatment of AE. A Cochrane review on probiotics showed no significant benefit, and SRs and meta-analyses on complementary and alternative medicines, including probiotics, in paediatric AE demonstrated significant heterogeneity, thereby limiting their interpretation. This summary of recent SRs provides up-to-date evidence for clinicians on systemic therapies in AE.

Topics: Acetates; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Biological Therapy; Child; Complementary Therapies; Cyclopropanes; Cyclosporine; Cytochrome P-450 CYP1A2 Inducers; Dermatitis, Atopic; Eczema; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Naltrexone; Narcotic Antagonists; Omalizumab; Placebo Effect; Probiotics; Quinolines; Sulfides; Ustekinumab; Vitamin D

Eczema is a common, chronic, inflammatory skin condition that is frequently associated with atopic conditions, including asthma. Leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) have a corticosteroid-sparing role in asthma, but their role in eczema remains controversial. Currently available topical therapies for eczema are often poorly tolerated, and use of systemic agents is restricted by their adverse effect profile. A review of alternative treatments was therefore warranted.. To assess the possible benefits and harms of leukotriene receptor antagonists for eczema.. We searched the following databases to September 2017: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the GREAT database. We also searched five trial registries, and handsearched the bibliographies of all extracted studies for further relevant trials.. Randomised controlled trials of LTRAs alone or in combination with other (topical or systemic) treatments compared with other treatments alone such as topical corticosteroids or placebo for eczema in the acute or chronic (maintenance) phase of eczema in adults and children.. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome measures were change in disease severity, long-term symptom control, and adverse effects of treatment. Secondary outcomes were change in corticosteroid requirement, reduction of pruritis, quality of life, and emollient requirement. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome.. Only five studies (including a total of 202 participants) met the inclusion criteria, all of which assessed oral montelukast; hence, we found no studies assessing other LTRAs. Treatment ranged from four to eight weeks, and outcomes were assessed at the end of treatment; therefore, we could only report short-term measurements (defined as less than three months follow-up from baseline). Montelukast dosing was 10 mg for adults (age 14 years and above) and 5 mg for children (age 6 years to 14 years). One study included children (aged 6 years and above) among their participants, while the remaining studies only included adults (participant age ranged from 16 to 70 years). The participants were diagnosed with moderate-to-severe eczema in four studies and moderate eczema in one study. The study setting was unclear in two studies, multicentre in two studies, and single centre in one study; the studies were conducted in Europe and Bangladesh. Two studies were industry funded. The comparator was placebo in three studies and conventional treatment in two studies. The conventional treatment comparator was a combination of antihistamines and topical corticosteroids (plus oral antibiotics in one study).Four of the studies did not adequately describe their randomisation or allocation concealment method and were considered as at unclear risk of selection bias. Only one study was at low risk of performance and detection bias. However, we judged all studies to be at low risk of attrition and reporting bias.We found no evidence of a difference in disease severity of moderate-to-severe eczema after short-term use of montelukast (10 mg) when compared with placebo. The outcome was assessed using the modified EASI (Eczema Area and Severity Index) score and SASSAD (Six Area, Six Sign Atopic Dermatitis) severity score (standardised mean difference 0.29, with a positive score showing montelukast is favoured, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.23 to 0.81; 3 studies; n = 131; low-quality evidence).When short-term montelukast (10 mg) treatment was compared with conventional treatment in one study, the mean improvement in severity of moderate-to-severe eczema was greater in the intervention group (measured using SCORAD (SCORing of Atopic Dermatitis) severity index) (mean difference 10.57, 95% CI 4.58 to 16.56; n = 31); however, another study of 32 participants found no significant difference between groups using the same measure (mean improvement was 25.2 points with montelukast versus 2. The findings of this review are limited to montelukast. There was a lack of evidence addressing the review question, and the quality of the available evidence for most of the measured outcomes was low. Some primary and secondary outcomes were not addressed at all, including long-term control.We found no evidence of a difference between montelukast (10 mg) and placebo on disease severity, pruritus improvement, and topical corticosteroid use. Very low-quality evidence means we are uncertain of the effect of montelukast (10 mg) compared with conventional treatment on disease severity. Participants in only one study reported adverse events, which were mainly mild (low-quality evidence).There is no evidence that LTRA is an effective treatment for eczema. Serious limitations were that all studies focused on montelukast and only included people with moderate-to-severe eczema, who were mainly adults; and that each outcome was evaluated with a small sample size, if at all.Further large randomised controlled trials, with a longer treatment duration, of adults and children who have eczema of all severities may help to evaluate the effect of all types of LTRA, especially on eczema maintenance.

Topics: Acetates; Administration, Oral; Cyclopropanes; Eczema; Humans; Leukotriene Antagonists; Quinolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfides

Topics: Acetates; Adolescent; Albuterol; Androstadienes; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Black or African American; Child; Cross-Over Studies; Cyclopropanes; Drug Combinations; Drug Monitoring; Eczema; Female; Fluticasone; Fluticasone-Salmeterol Drug Combination; Hispanic or Latino; Humans; Male; Quinolines; Sulfides; White People

For children who have uncontrolled asthma despite the use of low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), evidence to guide step-up therapy is lacking.. We randomly assigned 182 children (6 to 17 years of age), who had uncontrolled asthma while receiving 100 microg of fluticasone twice daily, to receive each of three blinded step-up therapies in random order for 16 weeks: 250 microg of fluticasone twice daily (ICS step-up), 100 microg of fluticasone plus 50 microg of a long-acting beta-agonist twice daily (LABA step-up), or 100 microg of fluticasone twice daily plus 5 or 10 mg of a leukotriene-receptor antagonist daily (LTRA step-up). We used a triple-crossover design and a composite of three outcomes (exacerbations, asthma-control days, and the forced expiratory volume in 1 second) to determine whether the frequency of a differential response to the step-up regimens was more than 25%.. A differential response occurred in 161 of 165 patients who were evaluated (P<0.001). The response to LABA step-up therapy was most likely to be the best response, as compared with responses to LTRA step-up (relative probability, 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 2.3; P=0.004) and ICS step-up (relative probability, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2 to 2.4; P=0.002). Higher scores on the Asthma Control Test before randomization (indicating better control at baseline) predicted a better response to LABA step-up (P=0.009). White race predicted a better response to LABA step-up, whereas black patients were least likely to have a best response to LTRA step-up (P=0.005).. Nearly all the children had a differential response to each step-up therapy. LABA step-up was significantly more likely to provide the best response than either ICS or LTRA step-up. However, many children had a best response to ICS or LTRA step-up therapy, highlighting the need to regularly monitor and appropriately adjust each child's asthma therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00395304.)

Topics: Acetates; Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Oral; Adolescent; Adrenergic beta-Agonists; Albuterol; Androstadienes; Asthma; Bronchodilator Agents; Child; Cross-Over Studies; Cyclopropanes; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Eczema; Female; Fluticasone; Forced Expiratory Volume; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Leukotriene Antagonists; Logistic Models; Male; Prednisone; Quinolines; Salmeterol Xinafoate; Sulfides; Treatment Outcome

Montelukast is an orally administered cysteinyl receptor antagonist, approved for the treatment of asthma. There is pharmacological plausibility of its effectiveness in the treatment of other immunologically mediated conditions such as eczema and urticaria. The objective of this study was to determine whether there are any beneficial effects of montelukast on eczema and urticaria.. A non-interventional observational cohort study was conducted between February 1998 and December 1998 using Prescription-Event Monitoring (PEM). During PEM studies, patients are systematically identified from dispensed prescription data and questionnaires are sent to the prescribing general practitioner (GP) asking them to report events occurring during and after treatment. In this study, events reported as eczema or urticaria improved were identified. A simple questionnaire was sent to the GPs for additional information.. The cohort comprised 15,612 patients, in which 16 reports of eczema or urticaria improved were identified. Questionnaires were sent to the GPs for additional information. Fifteen of the 16 questionnaires were returned. In 5 cases the GPs thought that there was an improvement of eczema or urticaria with montelukast treatment in patients who had history of longstanding eczema or urticaria. Of the remaining 11 cases there was an alternative explanation for the improvement of eczema or urticaria in 10 cases and one was unassessable.. PEM is conducted to monitor the safety of medicines, and doctors report events including improvement in pre-existing conditions. Although the number of cases of improvement of eczema or urticaria in this cohort is small, there is a possibility that leukotriene inhibitors may be helpful in the treatment of these diseases. Further studies are needed to provide evidence as to whether montelukast will have a role in the treatment of these conditions.

Topics: Acetates; Adult; Aged; Child; Cohort Studies; Cyclopropanes; Drug Evaluation; Drug Monitoring; Eczema; England; Female; Humans; Leukotriene Antagonists; Male; Middle Aged; Quinolines; Sulfides; Surveys and Questionnaires; Treatment Outcome; Urticaria