SynthesisThe British journal of dermatology2016
Oral fumaric acid esters for psoriasis: abridged Cochrane systematic review including GRADE assessments.
Synthesis in The British journal of dermatology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dimethyl fumarate is efficacious in severe plaque psoriasis : Post hoc analysis from the BRIDGE trial in Austria.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2019Trial
- Cannabinoid Compounds as a Pharmacotherapeutic Option for the Treatment of Non-Cancer Skin Diseases.Cells · 2022Review
- Dimethyl fumarate titration for the systemic treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.Drugs in context · 2021Article
- Assessing the compliance of systematic review articles published in leading dermatology journals with the PRISMA statement guidelines: A systematic review.JAAD international · 2020Review
- Dimethyl fumarate suppresses hepatocellular carcinoma progression via activating SOCS3/JAK1/STAT3 signaling pathway.American journal of translational research · 2019Article
- Long-term real-life safety profile and effectiveness of fumaric acid esters in psoriasis patients: a single-centre, retrospective, observational study.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2018Observational
- Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) vs. monoethyl fumarate (MEF) salts for the treatment of plaque psoriasis: a review of clinical data.Archives of dermatological research · 2018Review
- Depletion of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in psoriasis patients, restored by Dimethylfumarate therapy (DMF).PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fumaric acid esters (FAEs) are licensed for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis in Germany but are also used off-label in many other countries. We conducted this systematic review to synthesize the highest-quality evidence for the benefits and risks of FAEs for psoriasis. Our primary outcomes were change in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score and dropout rates due to adverse effects. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of FAEs or dimethylfumarate were included, with no restriction on age or psoriasis subtype. We searched the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, LILACS and five trials registers, and hand searched six conference proceedings. Six RCTs with a total of 544 participants were included, four of which were published only as abstracts or brief reports, limiting study reporting. Five RCTs compared FAEs with placebo, and all demonstrated benefit in favour of FAEs. However, meta-analysis was possible only for PASI 50 response after 12-16 weeks, which was achieved by 64% of participants on FAEs compared with 14% on placebo: risk ratio (RR) 4·55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2·80-7·40; two studies; 247 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in dropout rates due to adverse effects (RR 5·36, 95% CI 0·28-102·12; one study; 27 participants; very low-quality evidence and wide CI). More participants experienced nuisance adverse effects with FAEs (76%) than with placebo (16%) (RR 4·72, 95% CI 2·45-9·08; one study; 99 participants; moderate-quality evidence), mainly abdominal pain, diarrhoea and flushing. One head-to-head study of very low-quality evidence comparing FAEs with methotrexate reported comparable efficacy and dropout rates, although FAEs caused more flushing. The evidence in this review was limited and must be interpreted with caution; studies with better design and outcome reporting are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.