ABSTRACT
Atopic dermatitis remains a widespread problem affecting various populations globally. While numerous treatment options have been employed, pimecrolimus remains a potent and viable option. Recently, there has been increasing interest in comparing the safety and efficacy of pimecrolimus with its vehicle. Methods: The authors conducted a comprehensive search of several databases, including PubMed, COCHRANE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central, from inception to May 2022, using a wide search strategy with Boolean operators. The authors also employed backward snowballing to identify any studies missed in the initial search. The authors included randomized controlled trials in our meta-analysis and extracted data from the identified studies. The authors used Review Manager (RevMan) Version 5.4 to analyze the data, selecting a random-effects model due to observed differences in study populations and settings. The authors considered a P-value of 0.05 or lower to be statistically significant. Results: The authors initially identified 211 studies, of which 13 randomized controlled trials involving 4180 participants were selected for analysis. Our pooled analysis revealed that pimecrolimus 1% was more effective at reducing the severity of atopic dermatitis than its vehicles. However, no significant difference was observed in adverse effects between pimecrolimus and vehicle, except for pyrexia, nasopharyngitis, and headache, which were increased with pimecrolimus. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis showed that pimecrolimus 1% is more effective than vehicle, although the safety profile remains inconclusive. Pimecrolimus reduced the Investigator's Global Assessment score, Eczema Area and Severity Index score, and severity of pruritus when compared to its vehicle, indicating a higher efficacy profile. This is one of the first meta-analyses to assess the efficacy and safety profile of pimecrolimus 1% against a vehicle and may assist physicians in making informed decisions.
ABSTRACT
Despite the contemporary techniques and devices available for invasive cardiology procedures, the current diagnostic, and interventional modalities have many shortcomings. As a contemporary cross-disciplinary technique, nanotechnology has demonstrated great potential in interventional cardiology practice. It has a pivotal role in detecting sensitive cardiac biomarkers, nanoparticle-enhanced gadolinium (Gd) contrast to enhance the detection of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and multimodal imaging like including optical coherence tomography (OCT)/infrared luminescence (IR) for coronary plaque characterization. Furthermore, in invasive cardiology, the potential benefit is in miniaturized cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), including leadless pacemakers and piezoelectric nanogenerators to self-power symbiotic cardiac devices. Nanoparticles are ideal for therapeutic drug delivery systems for atherosclerotic plaque regression, regeneration of fibrotic cardiomyocytes, and disruption of bacterial biofilm to enhance and prolong the effects of antimicrobial agents in infective endocarditis (IE). In summary, nanotechnology-assisted therapies can overtake conventional invasive cardiology and expand the horizon of microtechnology in the diagnosis and treatment of CAD in the foreseeable future.
