Advances in Clinical Medicine
Vol. 10  No. 05 ( 2020 ), Article ID: 35422 , 11 pages
10.12677/ACM.2020.105107

Network Meta-Analysis of 4 Systemic Treatments for Stevenson-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis

Ke Liu1,2, Yang Li3, Xia Qiao4, Feifei Yuan1,2, Guanzhi Chen2*

1Qingdao University, Qingdao Shandong

2Department of Dermatology, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao Shandong

3Department of Dermatology, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao Shandong

4Department of Plastic surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao Shandong

Received: Apr. 7th, 2020; accepted: Apr. 25th, 2020; published: May 6th, 2020

ABSTRACT

Objective: A network meta-analysis was used to compare the efficacy of four systemic and supportive treatments for Stevenson-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis. Methods: Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases were retrieved from 1994 to July 2019. Literature screening, data extraction and quality evaluation were completed according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and R software and STATA 14.0 were used for analysis. A total of 12,278 articles were retrieved from the database and 17 articles were eventually included, totaling 541 patients. In terms of reducing the time of complete reepithelialization, cyclosporine was superior to glucocorticoid, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The top three results of SUCRA sequencing were cyclosporine, IVIG combined with glucocorticoid and supportive therapy. Cyclosporine was superior to IVIG alone in reducing average hospital stay, and the results were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The top three results of SUCRA sequencing were cyclosporine, IVIG combined hormone and supportive therapy. Conclusion: The results of this network meta-analysis provide a basis for the clinical application of cyclosporine in the treatment of SJS/TEN.

Keywords:Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis, Network Meta-Analysis

4种系统治疗史蒂文斯–约翰逊综合征和中毒性表皮坏死松解症的网状Meta分析

刘珂1,2,李洋3,乔霞4,袁飞飞1,2,陈官芝2*

1青岛大学,山东 青岛

2青岛大学附属医院皮肤科,山东 青岛

3青岛市立医院皮肤科,山东 青岛

4青岛大学附属医院整形美容科,山东 青岛

收稿日期:2020年4月7日;录用日期:2020年4月25日;发布日期:2020年5月6日

摘 要

目的:运用网状Meta比较4种系统治疗和支持性治疗史蒂文斯–约翰逊综合征和中毒性表皮坏死松解症的疗效。方法:检索Pubmed、Embase和Cochrane数据库,时间设定为1994年至2019年7月。根据纳入排除标准完成文献筛选、数据提取及质量评价,使用R软件和STATA 14.0进行分析。结果:数据库共检索到12,278篇文章,最终纳入17篇文献,共541名患者。在减少完全再上皮化时间方面:环孢素优于激素,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。SUCRA排序结果前三名依次为环孢素、IVIG联合激素、支持性治疗。在减少平均住院日方面:环孢素优于单用IVIG,结果有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。SUCRA排序结果前三名依次为环孢素、IVIG联合激素、支持性治疗。结论:本次网状Meta分析结果为临床应用环孢素治疗SJS/TEN提供了依据。

关键词 :史蒂文斯–约翰逊综合征,中毒性表皮坏死松解症,网状Meta分析

Copyright © 2020 by author(s) and Hans Publishers Inc.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0).

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

1. 引言

史蒂文斯–约翰逊综合征(Stevens-Johnson syndrome, SJS)和中毒性表皮坏死松解症(toxic epidermal necrolysis, TEN)是一组主要表现为大面积红斑、水疱、表皮剥脱的疾病,属于皮肤病领域的急重症 [1]。目前公认SJS/TEN属于同一组疾病谱,区别在于表皮剥脱面积占体表总面积的不同。表皮剥脱面积占体表总面积比例 < 10%的为SJS,>30%的为TEN,介于二者之间的为SJS/TEN重叠综合征。SJS/TEN发病率较低而死亡率较高,因此如何有效治疗该病,是目前研究的热点与难点。国际上提出了多种针对SJS/TEN的系统治疗手段,常用的主要有环孢素(Cyclosporine)、糖皮质激素(Glucocorticosteroid)、静脉注射用人免疫球蛋白(Intravenous Immunoglobulin, IVIG)、IVIG联合糖皮质激素,然而当前尚无同时对以上系统治疗的疗效进行对比的证据。本文采用网状Meta分析(Network Meta-analysis, NMA)方法对以上4种系统治疗及单纯支持治疗的治疗效果进行直接和间接的比较,以期能为选择SJS/TEN治疗方案时提供参考。

2. 资料与方法

2.1. 文献检索策略

计算机检索PubMed、Embase和Cochrane数据库,时间设定为1994年至2019年7月。检索词为:“Stevens-Johnson Syndrome”OR“toxic epidermal necrolysis”。

2.2. 纳入排除标准

2.2.1. 纳入标准

① SJS/TEN治疗相关的研究;② 研究应包括环孢素、糖皮质激素、IVIG联合糖皮质激素、支持性治疗其中任意两种治疗方案;③ 研究需能准确提取任一指定结局指标的数据。

2.2.2. 排除标准

① 非英文文献;② 数据不全及重复发表的文献;③ 综述、个案报道及动物研究。

2.3. 结局指标

① 完全再上皮化时间:定义为表皮完全愈合而没有任何剥脱所需要的时间;② 平均住院时间。

2.4. 文献筛选与质量评价

2名研究人员根据预先设定的纳入排除标准进行独立的文献筛选工作,如有争议则与第3方协商解决。使用事先设计好的Excel表从纳入的文献中提取相关信息,如作者及发表年份、年龄分布、干预措施、文献质量评价得分等。观察性研究采用NOS量表 [2] 对纳入文献进行质量评价。

2.5. 统计分析

采用R软件基于随机效应模型进行网状Meta分析,Stata14.0软件进行绘图。连续型变量计算其均数差(MD)及95%可信区间(95% CI)。如存在闭合环即检测其不一致性因子(Inconsistency factor, IF),IF的95% CI下限包括0即认为一致性良好,可用一致性模型进行分析。对最终的网状meta结果进行最优排序,根据SUCRA值绘制排序图,根据漏斗图识别是否存在明显发表偏倚

3. 结果

3.1. 文献检索结果

根据预先设定的检索策略,共检索到相关文献12,278篇。各数据库文献具体为Pubmed (n = 5212),Embase (n = 6679),Cochrane (n = 351),其他来源(n = 19),最终纳入17篇文献,具体流程图见图1

3.2. 纳入研究特征及质量评价

纳入的17篇文献均报道了平均住院时间;有9篇文献报道了完全再上皮化时间的数据。全部文献的试验设计都是非随机化的,大部分都是回顾性研究。有关各研究组样本量、研究措施、质量评价等具体信息详见表1

3.3. 平均住院时间网状Meta结果

3.3.1. 网络证据图

顶点代表治疗措施,点的大小代表样本量大小。直线代表某两种治疗之间存在直接比较,线的粗细则代表这两种治疗比较的次数多少,见图2

3.3.2. 环不一致性检测及漏斗图

图3所示,IF的起点包括0,模型一致性稳健,选用一致性模型进行统计学分析。如图4所示,各点位于漏斗图的位置基本对称,Egger、Begg检验值均>0.05,证明无明显发表偏倚。

Figure 1. Flow chart of literature selection

图1. 文献筛选流程图

Table 1. The basic characteristics of the included literature

表1. 纳入文献基本特征表

注:Cyc环孢素;Sup一般支持治疗;Glu糖皮质激素;IVIG静脉注射人免疫球蛋白;IVIG_Glu静脉注射人免疫球蛋白联合糖皮质激素;RCT随机对照研究。

Figure 2. Network evidence graph of average length of stay

图2. 平均住院时间网络证据图

Figure 3. Inconsistency test of mean hospital days

图3. 平均住院时间不一致性检验

3.3.3. 网状Meta结果

表2可知,在减少平均住院时间方面,环孢素优于单用IVIG [OR = −9.59, 95%CI (−18.05, −0.74)],结果有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。此外,尽管无统计学意义,但IVIG联合激素似乎优于单用激素或IVIG;而除环孢素以外的3种药物方案在减少平均住院日方面也似乎没有显示出比纯支持性疗法更好的效果。减少平均住院日的最终疗效排序图显示:环孢素 > IVIG联合激素 > 支持性治疗 > 单用激素 > 单用IVIG,见图5

3.4. 完全再上皮化时间网状Meta结果

3.4.1. 网络证据图

图6所示,IVIG+激素组和单用激素组的直接对比次数最多,激素组的样本量最大。

Figure 4. Funnel chart

图4. 漏斗图

Table 2. The result of network meta analysis of mean hospital days

表2. 平均住院日网状Meta结果

注:表中字体加黑加粗表示两者间比较有统计学差异。

Figure 5. The sorting diagram of mean hospital days

图5. 平均住院时间排序图

Figure 6. Complete reepithelialization of the time network evidence graph

图6. 完全再上皮化时间网络证据图

3.4.2. 环不一致性检测及漏斗图

根据图6可直观看到,该指标内涉及的治疗方案之间不存在闭合环,故无需进行环不一致性检验。且该指标内纳入文献少于10篇,也无需绘制漏斗图评估有无发表偏倚。

3.4.3.网状Meta结果

表3所示,环孢素比单用激素更能改善患者的再上皮化时间[OR = −8.37, 95%CI (−16.54, −0.15)],其结果有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。根据SUCRA值计算的疗效排序为:环孢素 > IVIG联合激素 > 支持性治疗 > IVIG > 单用激素,见图7

Table 3. Results of a network meta-analysis of the total reepithelialization time

表3. 完全再上皮化时间网状Meta结果

4. 讨论

SJS/TEN患者的主要临床特点是大面积表皮剥脱,因此可能造成体液、白蛋白的大量丢失,以及皮肤屏障受到严重破坏进而造成感染等一系列的问题。因此如何能更快促进剥脱的表皮愈合、减少住院时间以减轻患者负担,是国内外关注的焦点。临床上曾提出多种药物方案治疗SJS/TEN,现有的证据基本来自于观察性研究。Wolkenstein等人曾于上世纪九十年代开展沙利度胺治疗TEN的小样本随机对照试验,但由于沙利度胺组患者死亡率过高而提前终止 [20]。现临床应用较广泛的系统治疗有单用糖皮质激素、IVIG、IVIG联合激素、环孢素等,但缺少基于循证证据的对以上方案的疗效对比。

Figure 7. Complete reepithelialization of sorting diagram

图7. 完全再上皮化时间排序图

糖皮质激是国内外治疗SJS/TEN的经典药物,但其造成的异常代谢、感染等副作用也较为明显。有研究表明激素与单纯支持性治疗相比,并不能更快地阻止疾病进展 [15]。90年代有学者发现IVIG可以通过阻断Fas受体从而在治疗TEN时获得较好效果 [21],后IVIG逐渐广泛应用于临床。有些研究支持IVIG有减少住院时间、促进表皮愈合的倾向 [22],但多数因为样本量较少,而并没有统计学意义。陆续也有回顾性分析发现IVIG与支持性治疗相比疗效并无明显差异 [18] [23],大剂量应用IVIG也可能导致肾灌注受损。IVIG联合激素也是常用的一种治疗方案,有文献报道称联合治疗有加快表皮愈合和减少住院日的倾向 [8] [9]。近年来,环孢素作为一种免疫抑制剂较多应用于SJS/TEN中。国外有回顾性研究显示环孢素与激素、支持性治疗相比,在加快皮损愈合、阻断疾病进展等方面均有明显的优势 [3] [6]。虽然关于环孢素的疗效数据不如应用已久的激素和IVIG多,但相对来说有关环孢素的研究质量更高一些。

网状结果提示环孢素相较于其他几种治疗,在促进表皮愈合、减少住院日方面疗效均优于其他治疗方法,其次则是IVIG联合激素,而单用IVIG或单用激素则效果较差。尽管有报道称环孢素作为一种免疫抑制剂可能会影响肾功能、而且有可能诱发恶性肿瘤,但实际在既往SJS/TEN应用环孢素的报道中这种几率很小,且多数停药后肾功能即可恢复。

本网状Meta的优势是创新性的对激素、IVIG、激素联合IVIG、环孢素以及单纯支持性治疗以上临床应用较多的治疗方案进行综合比较,能够更好地指导临床。缺点是RCT研究只有1篇,总体证据水平不算高,以及仅纳入了英文文献,未考虑其他语种。

综上所述,本次网状Meta对多种SJS/TEN的治疗方案进行了客观的网状分析,得出无论在改善完全再上皮化时间还是减少平均住院日方面,都是环孢素效果最佳的结论。因此,临床在治疗SJS/TEN时,在排除相关禁忌症的情况下,可尝试应用环孢素治疗。未来希望有更大规模的实验设计以及尽可能地开展随机对照研究。

文章引用

刘 珂,李 洋,乔 霞,袁飞飞,陈官芝. 4种系统治疗史蒂文斯–约翰逊综合征和中毒性表皮坏死松解症的网状Meta分析
Network Meta-Analysis of 4 Systemic Treatments for Stevenson-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis[J]. 临床医学进展, 2020, 10(05): 683-693. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2020.105107

参考文献

  1. 1. Dodiuk-Gad, R.P., Chung, W.H., Valeyrie-Allanore, L., et al. (2015) Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: An Update. American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, 16, 475-493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40257-015-0158-0

  2. 2. 曾宪涛, 黄伟, 田国祥. Meta分析系列之九: Meta分析的质量评价工具[J]. 中国循证心血管医学杂志, 2013, 5(1): 3-5.

  3. 3. Singh, G.K., Chatterjee, M. and Verma, R. (2013) Cyclosporine in Stevens Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis and Retrospective Comparison with Sys-temic Corticosteroid. Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, 79, 686-692. https://doi.org/10.4103/0378-6323.116738

  4. 4. Kirchhof, M.G., Miliszewski, M.A., Sikora, S., et al. (2014) Ret-rospective Review of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome/Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis Treatment Comparing Intravenous Im-munoglobulin with Cyclosporine. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 71, 941-947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2014.07.016

  5. 5. Lee, H.Y., Fook-Chong, S., Koh, H.Y., et al. (2017) Cyclosporine Treatment for Stevens-Johnson Syndrome/Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: Retrospective Analysis of a Cohort Treated in a Specialized Referral Center. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 76, 106-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2016.07.048

  6. 6. Mohanty, S., Das, A., Ghosh, A., et al. (2017) Effectiveness, Safety and Tolerability of Cyclosporine versus Supportive Treatment in Stevens-Johnson Syndrome/Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: A Record-Based Study. Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, 83, 312-316. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijdvl.IJDVL_201_16

  7. 7. Stella, M., Clemente, A., Bollero, D., et al. (2007) Toxic Epi-dermal Necrolysis (TEN) and Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS): Experience with High-Dose Intravenous Immuno-globulins and Topical Conservative Approach. A Retrospective Analysis. Burns: Journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries, 33, 452-459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2006.08.014

  8. 8. Yang, Y., Xu, J., Li, F., et al. (2009) Combination Therapy of Intravenous Immunoglobulin and Corticosteroid in the Treatment of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis and Stevens-Johnson Syndrome: A Retrospective Comparative Study in China. International Journal of Dermatology, 48, 1122-1128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-4632.2009.04166.x

  9. 9. Zhu, Q.Y., Ma, L., Luo, X.Q., et al. (2012) Toxic Epi-dermal Necrolysis: Performance of SCORTEN and the Score-Based Comparison of the Efficacy of Corticosteroid Therapy and Intravenous Immunoglobulin Combined Therapy in China. Journal of Burn Care & Research, 33, e295-e308. https://doi.org/10.1097/BCR.0b013e318254d2ec

  10. 10. Jagadeesan, S., Sobhanakumari, K., Sadanandan, S.M., et al. (2013) Low Dose Intravenous Immunoglobulins and Steroids in Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: A Prospective Comparative Open-Labelled Study of 36 Cases. Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, 79, 506-511. https://doi.org/10.4103/0378-6323.113080

  11. 11. Lalosevic, J., Nikolic, M., Gajic-Veljic, M., et al. (2015) Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: A 20-Year Single-Center Experience. International Journal of Dermatology, 54, 978-984. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijd.12702

  12. 12. Sato, S., Kanbe, T., Tamaki, Z., et al. (2018) Clinical Features of Ste-vens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. Pediatrics International, 60, 697-702. https://doi.org/10.1111/ped.13613

  13. 13. Léauté-Labrèze, C., Lamireau, T., Chawki, D., et al. (2000) Diagnosis, Classification, and Management of Erythema Multiforme and Stevens-Johnson Syndrome. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 83, 347-352. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.83.4.347

  14. 14. Brand, R. and Rohr, J.B. (2000) Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis in Western Australia. The Australasian Journal of Dermatology, 41, 31-33. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-0960.2000.00384.x

  15. 15. Koh, M.J. and Tay, Y.K. (2010) Stevens-Johnson Syn-drome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis in Asian Children. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 62, 54-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2009.06.085

  16. 16. Chatproedprai, S., Wutticharoenwong, V., Tempark, T., et al. (2018) Clinical Features and Treatment Outcomes among Children with Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: A 20-Year Study in a Tertiary Referral Hospital. Dermatology Research and Practice, 2018, Article ID: 3061084. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3061084

  17. 17. Brown, K.M., Silver, G.M., Halerz, M., et al. (2004) Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: Does Immunoglobulin Make a Difference? The Journal of Burn Care & Rehabilitation, 25, 81-88. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BCR.0000105096.93526.27

  18. 18. Shortt, R., Gomez, M., Mittman, N., et al. (2004) Intravenous Immunoglobulin Does Not Improve Outcome in Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. The Journal of Burn Care & Rehabilitation, 25, 246-255. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BCR.0000124746.33279.86

  19. 19. Gravante, G., Delogu, D., Marianetti, M., et al. (2007) Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis and Steven Johnson Syndrome: 11-Years Experience and Outcome. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, 11, 119-127.

  20. 20. Wolkenstein, P., Latarjet, J., Roujeau, J.C., et al. (1998) Randomised Comparison of Thalidomide versus Placebo in Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. The Lancet (London, England), 352, 1586-1589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)02197-7

  21. 21. Viard, I., Wehrli, P., Bullani, R., et al. (1998) Inhibition of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis by Blockade of CD95 with Human Intravenous Immunoglobulin. Science (New York, NY), 282, 490-493. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.282.5388.490

  22. 22. Kim, K.J., Lee, D.P., Suh, H.S., et al. (2005) Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: Analysis of Clinical Course and SCORTEN-Based Comparison of Mortality Rate and Treatment Modalities in Korean Patients. Acta Dermato-Venereologica, 85, 497-502.

  23. 23. Huang, Y.C., Chien, Y.N., Chen, Y.T., et al. (2016) Intravenous Immunoglobulin for the Treatment of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Giornale Italiano di Dermatologia e Venereologia, 151, 515-524.

  24. NOTES

    *通讯作者。

期刊菜单