Topical vitamin D analogues alone or in association with topical steroids for psoriasis: a systematic review

• Published in: Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Vol. 26; no. s3; pp. 52 - 60
• Main Authors: Devaux, S, Castela, A., Archier, E, Gallini, A, Joly, P., Misery, L., Aractingi, S., Aubin, F., Bachelez, H., Cribier, B., Jullien, D., Le Maître, M., Richard, M.-A., Ortonne, J.-P., Paul, C.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.05.2012; Wiley
• Subjects: Administration, Topical; Cancer; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Drugs; Humans; Life Sciences; Plaques; Psoriasis; Psoriasis - drug therapy; Quality of Life; Recurrence; Reviews; Steroid hormones; Vitamin D; Vitamin D - administration & dosage; Vitamin D - analogs & derivatives; Vitamin D - therapeutic use
• ISSN: 0926-9959; 1468-3083
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2012.04524.x

Objective  The objective of this systematic review was to prepare for evidence‐based recommendations on the use of vitamin D analogues, and their combination with topical steroids in psoriasis. Methods  Literature systematic review performed in May 2011. The Cochrane, PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched with different combinations: including Psoriasis AND calcipotriol expanded to all vitamin D analogues. To assess efficacy across studies, we used two predefined criteria to account for the numerous endpoints found in the literature, ‘Treatment success’ corresponding to 90% improvement in severity and ‘Satisfactory response’ corresponding to 75% improvement. We conducted a meta‐analysis comparing the efficacy of vitamin D analogues plus topical steroids (VDS) vs. vitamin D analogues alone (VD). To determine the relative cost‐efficacy of the topical drugs available on the market, cost/efficacy ratios were calculated for each product according to the approved therapeutic regimen. Results  51 articles were selected. The application duration varied between three to 52 weeks across studies. VD as monotherapy had a satisfactory response rate between 22% to 96% and a treatment success rate ranging from 4% to 40%. VDS had a satisfactory response rate between 35% to 86% and a treatment success rate ranging from 27% to 53%. A meta‐analysis found a probability of success twice higher with VDS than with VD in adult plaque psoriasis. The cost/efficacy ratio was evaluated as 1.2–1.8 times higher for VDS than for VD. Conclusion  VDS is twice more effective than VD and displays a better cost per success. Additional studies are needed to clarify maintenance treatment, impact on quality of life, treatment of non‐plaque psoriasis. It will be important to harmonize outcome measures in future studies with topical agents in psoriasis to better appraise their efficacy.