Efficacy and tolerability of topical pimecrolimus and tacrolimus in the treatment of atopic dermatitis: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the efficacy and tolerability of topical pimecrolimus and tacrolimus compared with other treatments for atopic dermatitis.


METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis.


METHODS
Electronic searches of the Cochrane Library, Medline, and Embase.


METHODS
Randomised controlled trials of topical pimecrolimus or tacrolimus reporting efficacy outcomes or tolerability.


METHODS



RESULTS
investigators' global assessment of response; patients' global assessment of response; proportions of patients with flares of atopic dermatitis; and improvements in quality of life. Tolerability: overall rates of withdrawal; withdrawal due to adverse events; and proportions of patients with burning of the skin and skin infections.


RESULTS
4186 of 6897 participants in 25 randomised controlled trials received pimecrolimus or tacrolimus. Both drugs were significantly more effective than a vehicle control. Tacrolimus 0.1% was as effective as potent topical corticosteroids at three weeks and more effective than combined treatment with hydrocortisone butyrate 0.1% (potent used on trunk) plus hydrocortisone acetate 1% (weak used on face) at 12 weeks (number needed to treat (NNT) = 6). Tacrolimus 0.1% was also more effective than hydrocortisone acetate 1% (NNT = 4). In comparison, tacrolimus 0.03% was more effective than hydrocortisone acetate 1% (NNT = 5) but less effective than hydrocortisone butyrate 0.1% (NNT = -8). Direct comparisons of tacrolimus 0.03% and tacrolimus 0.1% consistently favoured the higher strength formulation, but efficacy differed significantly between the two strengths only after 12 weeks' treatment (rate ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 0.99). Pimecrolimus was far less effective than betamethasone valerate 0.1% (NNT = -3 at three weeks). Pimecrolimus and tacrolimus caused significantly more skin burning than topical corticosteroids. Rates of skin infections in any of the comparisons did not differ.


CONCLUSIONS
Both topical pimecrolimus and topical tacrolimus are more effective than placebo treatments for atopic dermatitis, but in the absence of studies that show long term safety gains, any advantage over topical corticosteroids is unclear. Topical tacrolimus is similar to potent topical corticosteroids and may have a place for long term use in patients with resistant atopic dermatitis on sites where side effects from topical corticosteroids might develop quickly. In the absence of key comparisons with mild corticosteroids, the clinical need for topical pimecrolimus is unclear. The usefulness of either treatment in patients who have failed to respond adequately to topical corticosteroids is also unclear.
Ashcroft
Darren M
DM
School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL. darren.ashcroft@manchester.ac.uk
Dimmock
Paul
P
Garside
Ruth
R
Stein
Ken
K
Williams
Hywel C
HC
D000287:Administration, Topical; D000328:Adult; D002648:Child; D003876:Dermatitis, Atopic / Q000188:drug therapy*; D003879:Dermatologic Agents / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000009:adverse effects; D006801:Humans; D009824:Ointments; D010349:Patient Compliance; D011788:Quality of Life; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D016559:Tacrolimus / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000031:analogs & derivatives*; D016896:Treatment Outcome
D003879:Dermatologic Agents; D009824:Ointments; C117268:pimecrolimus; D016559:Tacrolimus
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
12958120
Clin Exp Dermatol. 2003 Sep;28(5):549-53
12950351
Clin Exp Allergy. 2004 Apr;34(4):639-45
15080819
J Dermatolog Treat. 2004 Jun;15(3):169-78
15204150
Br J Dermatol. 2004 Jun;150(6):1174-81
15214906
Am J Clin Dermatol. 2004;5(4):267-79
15301573
Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
3802833
Control Clin Trials. 1996 Feb;17(1):1-12
8721797
N Engl J Med. 1997 Sep 18;337(12):816-21
9295241
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998 Oct;102(4 Pt 1):637-44
9802373
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999 Jan;103(1 Pt 1):125-38
9893196
Br J Dermatol. 2004 Mar;150(3):554-62
15030341
J Invest Dermatol. 2003 Jun;120(6):932-41
12787117
J Pediatr. 2003 Feb;142(2):155-62
12584537
Br J Dermatol. 2000 May;142(5):931-6
10809850
Arch Dermatol. 2000 Jun;136(6):763-9
10871941
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2001 Jan;44(1 Suppl):S28-38
11145793
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2001 Jan;44(1 Suppl):S47-57
11145795
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2001 Jan;44(1 Suppl):S65-72
11145797
Br J Dermatol. 2001 Jan;144(1):104-10
11167690
Br J Dermatol. 2001 Mar;144(3):507-13
11260007
Br J Dermatol. 2001 Mar;144(3):514-22
11260008
Br J Dermatol. 2001 Apr;144(4):788-94
11298538
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2002 Mar;109(3):539-46
11898004
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2002 Mar;109(3):547-55
11898005
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002 Apr;46(4):495-504
11907497
Int J Dermatol. 2002 Mar;41(3):151-8
12010340
BMJ. 2002 Jun 29;324(7353):1533-4
12089073
Pediatrics. 2002 Jul;110(1 Pt 1):e2
12093983
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2002 Aug;110(2):277-84
12170269
Dermatology. 2002;205(3):271-7
12399676
Pediatrics. 2002 Dec;110(6):1133-6
12456910