METHODS: Data on 1249 patients from the Swiss IBD Cohort Study (SIBDCS) were analyzed. All EIMs were diagnosed by relevant specialists. Response was classified into improvement, stable disease, and clinical worsening based on the physician's interpretation.

RESULTS: Of the 366 patients with at least 1 EIM, 213 (58.2%) were ever treated with an anti-TNF. A total of 299 treatments were started for 355 EIMs. Patients with EIM were significantly more often treated with anti-TNF compared with those without EIM (58.2% versus 21.0%, P < 0.001). Infliximab was the most frequently used drug (63.2%). In more than 71.8%, a clinical response of the underlying EIM to anti-TNF therapy was observed. In 92 patients (43.2%), anti-TNF treatments were started for the purpose of treating EIM rather than IBD. Response rates to anti-TNF were generally good and best for psoriasis, aphthous stomatitis, uveitis, and peripheral arthritis. In 11 patients, 14 EIM occurred under anti-TNF treatment.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of different types of systemic immunosuppressive treatments for moderate to severe eczema using NMA and to generate rankings of available systemic immunosuppressive treatments for eczema according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to August 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic immunosuppressive agents for moderate to severe atopic eczema when compared against placebo or any other eligible eczema treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We synthesised data using pair-wise analysis and NMA to compare treatments and rank them according to their effectiveness. Effectiveness was assessed primarily by determining the proportion of participants who achieved at least 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75) and improvement in the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). Safety was evaluated primarily by considering the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) and infection. We deemed short-term follow-up as ≤ 16 weeks and long-term follow-up as > 16 weeks. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for these primary outcomes using six domains of CiNEMA grading.

MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 74 studies, with 8177 randomised participants. Approximately 55% of participants were male, with average age of 32 years (range 2 to 84 years), although age and gender were unreported for 419 and 902 participants, respectively. Most of the included trials were placebo controlled (65%), 34% were head-to-head studies (15% assessed the effects of different doses of the same drug), and 1% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. All trials included participants with moderate to severe eczema, but 62% of studies did not separate data by severity; 38% of studies assessed only severe eczema. The total duration of included trials ranged from 2 weeks to 60 months, whereas treatment duration varied from a single dose (CIM331, KPL-716) to 60 months (methotrexate (MTX)). Seventy studies were available for quantitative synthesis; this review assessed 29 immunosuppressive agents from three classes of interventions. These included (1) conventional treatments, with ciclosporin assessed most commonly; (2) small molecule treatments, including phosphodiesterase (PDE)-4 inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors; and (3) biological treatments, including anti-CD31 receptors, anti-interleukin (IL)-22, anti-IL-31, anti-IL-13, anti-IL-12/23p40, anti-OX40, anti-TSLP, anti-CRTH2, and anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) monoclonal antibodies, but most commonly dupilumab. Most trials (73) assessed outcomes at a short-term duration ranging from 2 to 16 weeks, whereas 33 trials assessed long-term outcomes, with duration ranging from 5 to 60 months. All participants were from a hospital setting. Fifty-two studies declared a source of funding, and of these, pharmaceutical companies funded 88%. We rated 37 studies as high risk; 21, unclear risk, and 16, low risk of bias, with studies most commonly at high risk of attrition bias. Network meta-analysis suggests that dupilumab ranks first for effectiveness when compared with other biological treatments. Dupilumab is more effective than placebo in achieving EASI75 (risk ratio (RR) 3.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.51 to 3.69) and improvement in POEM score (mean difference 7.30, 95% CI 6.61 to 8.00) at short-term follow-up (high-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain of the effects of dupilumab when compared with placebo, in terms of the proportion of participants who achieve EASI75 (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.60) at longer-term follow-up. Low-certainty evidence indicates that tralokinumab may be more effective than placebo in achieving short-term EASI75 (RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.21 to 5.34), but there was no evidence for tralokinumab to allow us to assess short-term follow-up of POEM or long-term follow-up of EASI75. We are uncertain of the effect of ustekinumab compared with placebo in achieving EASI75 (long-term follow-up: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.45; short-term follow-up: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.97; both very low certainty). We found no evidence on ustekinumab for the POEM outcome. We are uncertain whether other immunosuppressive agents that targeted our key outcomes influence the achievement of short-term EASI75 compared with placebo due to low- or very low-certainty evidence. Dupilumab and ustekinumab were the only immunosuppressive agents evaluated for longer-term EASI75. Dupilumab was the only agent evaluated for improvement in POEM during short-term follow-up. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence indicates a lower proportion of participants with SAEs after treatment with QAW039 and dupilumab compared to placebo during short-term follow-up, but low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in SAEs during short-term follow-up of other immunosuppressive agents compared to placebo. Evidence for effects of immunosuppressive agents on risk of any infection during short-term follow-up and SAEs during long-term follow-up compared with placebo was of low or very low certainty but did not indicate a difference. We did not identify differences in other adverse events (AEs), but dupilumab is associated with specific AEs, including eye inflammation and eosinophilia.

METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of childhood primary sclerosing cholangitis-inflammatory bowel disease from three tertiary centers in Singapore and Malaysia.

RESULTS: Of 24 patients (boys, 58%; median age at diagnosis: 6.3 years) with primary sclerosing cholangitis-inflammatory bowel disease (ulcerative colitis, n = 21; Crohn's disease, n = 1; undifferentiated, n = 2), 63% (n = 15) were diagnosed during follow-up for colitis, and 21% (n = 5) presented with acute or chronic hepatitis, 17% (n = 4) presented simultaneously. Disease phenotype of liver involvement showed 79% had sclerosing cholangitis-autoimmune hepatitis overlap, 54% large duct disease, and 46% small duct disease. All patients received immunosuppression therapy. At final review after a median [±S.D.] duration follow-up of 4.7 [±3.8] years, 12.5% patients had normal liver enzymes, 75% persistent disease, and 12.5% liver failure. The proportion of patients with liver cirrhosis increased from 13% at diagnosis to 29%; 21% had portal hypertension, and 17% had liver dysfunction. One patient required liver transplant. Transplant-free survival was 95%. For colitis, 95% had pancolitis, 27% rectal sparing, and 11% backwash ileitis at initial presentation. At final review, 67% patients had quiescent bowel disease with immunosuppression. One patient who had UC with pancolitis which was diagnosed at 3 years old developed colorectal cancer at 22 years of age. All patients survived.

METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, time-to-event trial, 143 adults were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either intravenous eculizumab (at a dose of 900 mg weekly for the first four doses starting on day 1, followed by 1200 mg every 2 weeks starting at week 4) or matched placebo. The continued use of stable-dose immunosuppressive therapy was permitted. The primary end point was the first adjudicated relapse. Secondary outcomes included the adjudicated annualized relapse rate, quality-of-life measures, and the score on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), which ranges from 0 (no disability) to 10 (death).

RESULTS: The trial was stopped after 23 of the 24 prespecified adjudicated relapses, given the uncertainty in estimating when the final event would occur. The mean (±SD) annualized relapse rate in the 24 months before enrollment was 1.99±0.94; 76% of the patients continued to receive their previous immunosuppressive therapy during the trial. Adjudicated relapses occurred in 3 of 96 patients (3%) in the eculizumab group and 20 of 47 (43%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02 to 0.20; P<0.001). The adjudicated annualized relapse rate was 0.02 in the eculizumab group and 0.35 in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.15; P<0.001). The mean change in the EDSS score was -0.18 in the eculizumab group and 0.12 in the placebo group (least-squares mean difference, -0.29; 95% CI, -0.59 to 0.01). Upper respiratory tract infections and headaches were more common in the eculizumab group. There was one death from pulmonary empyema in the eculizumab group.

METHODS: In this phase Ib, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients received AMG 557 210 mg (n = 10) or placebo (n = 10) weekly for 3 weeks, then every other week for 10 additional doses. The corticosteroid dosage was tapered to ≤7.5 mg/day by day 85, and immunosuppressants were discontinued by day 29. Primary end points on day 169 were safety, immunogenicity, the Lupus Arthritis Response Index (LARI; defined by a reduction in the tender and swollen joint counts), ≥1-letter improvement in the musculoskeletal domain of the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) index, and medication discontinuation. The secondary/exploratory end points were changes in the tender and swollen joint counts, BILAG index scores (musculoskeletal, global), and the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI).

RESULTS: The incidence of adverse events, most of which were mild, was similar between groups. LARI responses occurred in 3 of 10 patients receiving AMG 557 and 1 of 10 patients receiving placebo (P = 0.58). More patients in the AMG 557 group achieved a ≥4-point improvement in the SLEDAI score on day 169 (7 of 10 patients) compared with the placebo group (2 of 10 patients) (P = 0.07). Patients treated with AMG 557 (versus placebo) had greater improvements from baseline in the global BILAG index scores (-36.3% versus -24.7%) and the SLEDAI score (-47.8% versus -10.7%) and in tender (-22.8% versus -13.5%) and swollen (-62.1% versus -7.8%) joint counts on day 169.

(: MVD) is the quantification method of various aspects of tumor vasculature that indicates angiogenic activity. This study aims to analyze the correlation between MVD to the expression of VEGFRs on breast cancer tissue.

Materials and Method: A total of 60 N-methyl-N-nitrosourea (MNU)-induced breast carcinomas in rats were suppressed by using antiangiogenic drugs. The rats were then sacrificed, and the tumor was fixed in 10% formalin, paraffin embedded, and immunohistochemistry stained using VEGFRs and CD34.

Result: One-way ANOVA test showed a significant difference in all markers that have been used (P < 0.05) on MNU-breast tumor treated with rapamycin (M= 90.1664, SD= 7.4487), PF4 (M= 93.7946, SD= 7.1303) and rapamycin + PF4 (M= 93.6990, SD= 1.8432). We obtained a significant reduction of MVD count on breast carcinoma for rapamycin group (M= 25.6786, SD= 9.7075) and rapamycin + PF4 group (M= 30.5250, SD= 13.6928) while PF4 group (M=47.7985, SD=4.8892) showed slightly increase compared to control (M= 45.1875, SD= 4.4786). There was a moderately strong, positive correlation between angiogenic markers; Flt-1 (r= 0.544, n=60, P < 0.005) and Flt-4 (r= 0.555, n= 60, P < 0.005) while Flk-1 (r= 0.797, n= 60, P < 0.005) showed a strong, positive correlation with MVD.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of rapamycin or rapalogs in people with tuberous sclerosis complex for decreasing tumour size and other manifestations and to assess the safety of rapamycin or rapalogs in relation to their adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS: Relevant studies were identified by authors from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, and clinicaltrials.gov. Relevant resources were also searched by the authors, such as conference proceedings and abstract books of conferences, from e.g. the Tuberous Sclerosis Complex International Research Conferences, other tuberous sclerosis complex-related conferences and the Human Genome Meeting. We did not restrict the searches by language as long as English translations were available for non-English reports.Date of the last searches: 14 March 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized studies of rapamycin or rapalogs in people with tuberous sclerosis complex.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted by two authors using standard acquisition forms. The data collection was verified by one author. The risk of bias of each study was independently assessed by two authors and verified by one author.

MAIN RESULTS: Three placebo-controlled studies with a total of 263 participants (age range 0.8 to 61 years old, 122 males and 141 females, with variable lengths of study duration) were included in the review. We found high-quality evidence except for response to skin lesions which was judged to be low quality due to the risk of attrition bias. Overall, there are 175 participants in the treatment arm (rapamycin or everolimus) and 88 in the placebo arm. Participants all had tuberous sclerosis complex as proven by consensus diagnostic criteria as a minimum. The quality in the description of the study methods was mixed, although we assessed most domains as having a low risk of bias. Blinding of treatment arms was successfully carried out in all of the studies. However, two studies did not report allocation concealment. Two of the included studies were funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals.Two studies (235 participants) used oral (systemic) administration of everolimus (rapalog). These studies reported response to tumour size in terms of the number of individuals with a reduction in the total volume of tumours to 50% or more relative to baseline. Significantly more participants in the treatment arm (two studies, 162 participants, high quality evidence) achieved a 50% reduction in renal angiomyolipoma size, risk ratio 24.69 (95% confidence interval 3.51 to 173.41) (P = 0.001). For the sub-ependymal giant cell astrocytoma, our analysis of one study (117 participants, high quality evidence) showed significantly more participants in the treatment arm achieved a 50% reduction in tumour size, risk ratio 27.85 (95% confidence interval 1.74 to 444.82) (P = 0.02). The proportion of participants who showed a skin response from the two included studies analysed was significantly increased in the treatment arms, risk ratio 5.78 (95% confidence interval 2.30 to 14.52) (P = 0.0002) (two studies, 224 participants, high quality evidence). In one study (117 participants), the median change of seizure frequency was -2.9 in 24 hours (95% confidence interval -4.0 to -1.0) in the treatment group versus -4.1 in 24 hour (95% confidence interval -10.9 to 5.8) in the placebo group. In one study, one out of 79 participants in the treatment group versus three of 39 in placebo group had increased blood creatinine levels, while the median percentage change of forced expiratory volume at one second in the treatment arm was -1% compared to -4% in the placebo arm. In one study (117 participants, high quality evidence), we found that those participants who received treatment had a similar risk of experiencing adverse events compared to those who did not, risk ratio 1.07 (95% confidence interval 0.96 - 1.20) (P = 0.24). However, as seen from two studies (235 participants, high quality evidence), the treatment itself led to significantly more adverse events resulting in withdrawal, interruption of treatment, or reduction in dose level, risk ratio 3.14 (95% confidence interval 1.82 to 5.42) (P < 0.0001).One study (28 participants) used topical (skin) administration of rapamycin. This study reported response to skin lesions in terms of participants' perception towards their skin appearance following the treatment. There was a tendency of an improvement in the participants' perception of their skin appearance, although not significant, risk ratio 1.81 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 4.06, low quality evidence) (P = 0.15). This study reported that there were no serious adverse events related to the study product and there was no detectable systemic absorption of the rapamycin during the study period.