The global incidence of bullous pemphigoid: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is an autoimmune blistering disorder that mainly affects older people. Although the disease is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality, the burden of disease worldwide is unclear. OBJECTIVES: The study aim is to pool the global incidence of BP and determine whether this varies according to geographic area, age group, setting and study quality. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and grey literature were systematically searched on 7 April 2020. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data and appraised each study's quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. Two domains, indicative of selection and survey bias, were used to identify high-quality studies. The cumulative incidence was standardized to 1 year and pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were identified, of which 23 provided cumulative incidence and four provided incidence rates. The cumulative incidence of BP was 8·2 [95% confidence interval (CI) 4·8-13.7] per million people whereas the incidence rate was 34·2 (95% CI 19·2-60·7) per million person-years. Of the continents that contributed more than one study, the cumulative incidence was 10·3 (95% CI 5·8-18·2) and 5·6 (95% CI 3·5-9·0) per million people in Europe and Asia, respectively. The incidence was highest in studies including adults only (n = 2), in population-based studies (n = 9) and in more recent years. The cumulative incidence was higher (13·3 per million people, 95% CI 6·0-29·5) when restricting the analysis to higher-quality studies (n = 11). High heterogeneity (I2 > 82%) was observed across all pooled estimates. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of BP varies globally, is generally low but appears to be increasing over time. The burden of disease is likely to be underestimated.

Comparative efficacy and safety of acetaminophen, topical and oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for knee osteoarthritis: evidence from a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and real-world data.

OBJECTIVE: Current global guidelines regarding the first-line analgesics (acetaminophen, topical or oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs]) for knee osteoarthritis remain controversial and their comparative risk-benefit profiles have yet to be adequately assessed. DESIGN: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from database inception to March 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acetaminophen, topical NSAIDs and oral NSAIDs directly or indirectly in knee osteoarthritis. Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted. A propensity-score matched cohort study was also conducted among patients with knee osteoarthritis in The Health Improvement Network database. RESULTS: 122 RCTs (47,113 participants) were networked. Topical NSAIDs were superior to acetaminophen (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.29, 95% credible interval [CrI]: -0.52 to -0.06) and not statistically different from oral NSAIDs (SMD = 0.03, 95% CrI: -0.16 to 0.22) for function. It had lower risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects (AEs) than acetaminophen (risk ratio [RR] = 0.52, 95%CrI: 0.35 to 0.76) and oral NSAIDs (RR = 0.46, 95%CrI: 0.34 to 0.61) in RCTs. In real-world data, topical NSAIDs showed lower risks of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52 to 0.68), cardiovascular diseases (HR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.63 to 0.85) and gastrointestinal bleeding (HR = 0.53, 95%CI: 0.41 to 0.69) than acetaminophen during the one-year follow-up (n = 22,158 participants/group). A better safety profile was also observed for topical than oral NSAIDs (n = 14,218 participants/group). CONCLUSIONS: Topical NSAIDs are more effective than acetaminophen but not oral NSAIDs for function improvement in people with knee osteoarthritis. Topical NSAIDs are safer than acetaminophen or oral NSAIDs in trials and real-world data.

Using electronic health records to inform trial feasibility in a rare autoimmune blistering skin disease in England.

BACKGROUND: Trials of novel agents are required to improve the care of patients with rare diseases, but trial feasibility may be uncertain due to concerns over insufficient patient numbers. We aimed to determine the size of the pool of potential participants in England 2015-2017 for trials in the autoimmune blistering skin disease bullous pemphigoid. METHODS: The size of the pool of potential participants was estimated using routinely collected healthcare data from linked primary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink; CPRD) and secondary care (Hospital Episode Statistics; HES) databases. Thirteen consultant dermatologists were surveyed to determine the likelihood that a patient would be eligible for a trial based on the presence of cautions or contra-indications to prednisolone use. These criteria were applied to determine how they influenced the potential pool of participants. RESULTS: Extrapolated to the population of England, we would expect approximately 10,800 (point estimate 10,747; 95% CI 7191 to 17,239) new cases of bullous pemphigoid to be identified in a three-year period. For a future trial involving oral prednisolone (standard care), the application of cautions to its use as exclusion criteria would result in approximately 365 potential participants unlikely to be recruited, a further 5332 could be recruited with caution, and 5104 in whom recruitment is still possible. 11-17% of potential participants may have pre-existing dementia and require an alternative consent process. CONCLUSIONS: Routinely collected electronic health records can be used to inform the feasibility of clinical trials in rare diseases, such as whether recruitment is feasible nationally and how long recruitment might take to meet recruitment targets. Future trials of bullous pemphigoid in England may use the data presented to inform trial design, including eligibility criteria and consent processes for enrolling people with dementia.

Incidence, prevalence and mortality of bullous pemphigoid in England 1998-2017: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A rising incidence and high mortality were found for bullous pemphigoid (BP) over a decade ago in the UK. Updated estimates of its epidemiology are required to understand the healthcare needs of an ageing population. OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence, prevalence and mortality rates of BP in England from 1998 to 2017. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of longitudinal electronic health records using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and linked Hospital Episode Statistics. Incidence was calculated per 100 000 person-years and annual point prevalence per 100 000 people. Multivariate analysis was used to determine incidence rate ratios by sociodemographic factors. Mortality was examined in an age-, sex- and practice-matched cohort, using linked Office of National Statistics death records. Hazard ratios (HRs) were stratified by matched set. RESULTS: The incidence was 7·63 [95% confidence interval (CI) 7·35-7·93] per 100 000 person-years and rose with increasing age, particularly for elderly men. The annual increase in incidence was 0·9% (95% CI 0·2-1·7). The prevalence almost doubled over the observation period, reaching 47·99 (95% CI 43·09-53·46) per 100 000 people and 141·24 (95% CI 125·55-158·87) per 100 000 people over the age of 60 years. The risk of all-cause mortality was highest in the 2 years after diagnosis (HR 2·96; 95% CI 2·68-3·26) and remained raised thereafter (HR 1·54; 95% CI 1·36-1·74). CONCLUSIONS: We report a modest increase in the incidence rate of BP, but show that the burden of disease in the elderly population is considerable. Mortality is high, particularly in the first 2 years after diagnosis.

The relative efficacy of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and capsaicin in osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with topical capsaicin for pain relief in osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: A systematic literature search was conducted for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining any topical NSAID or capsaicin in OA. Pain relief at or nearest to 4 weeks was pooled using a random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) in a Frequentist and Bayesian setting. Analysis was conducted for all trials and for trials using drugs listed as licensed for OA in the British National Formulary (BNF). RESULTS: The trial network comprised 28 RCTs (7372 participants), of which 17 RCTs (3174 participants) were included in the as licensed analyses. No RCTs directly compared topical NSAIDs with capsaicin. Placebo was the only common comparator for topical NSAIDs and capsaicin. Frequentist and Bayesian effect size (ES) estimates were in agreement. Topical NSAIDs were statistically superior to placebo overall (ES 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19 to 0.41) and as licensed (ES 0.32, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.39). However, capsaicin was only statistically superior to placebo when used at licensed doses (ES 0.41, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.64). No significant differences were observed in pain relief between topical NSAIDs and capsaicin (overall: ES 0.04, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.33; as licensed: ES-0.09, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence indicates that topical NSAIDs and capsaicin in licensed doses may be equally effective for pain relief in OA. Whether the equivalence varies between individuals remains unknown.