What do systematic reviews say?

Biologics vs placebo

Biologics showed no clear difference in clinical improvement (dichotomous) compared with placebo (low certainty).

• Medical treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.14 [0.85, 1.52]
  5 studies · 410 participants
  Low

Biologics vs placebo

• Medical treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  7 studies · 387 participants
  Moderate

Biologics vs placebo

Biologics probably leads to higher histological improvement (dichotomous) compared with placebo (moderate certainty).

• Medical treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 6.73 [2.58, 17.52]
  8 studies · 925 participants
  Moderate

Biologics vs placebo

• Medical treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  6 studies · 370 participants
  Very low

Biologics vs placebo

• Medical treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 11 participants
  Low

Biologics vs placebo

• Medical treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  3 studies · 197 participants
  Very low

Biologics vs placebo

Biologics showed no clear difference in withdrawals due to adverse events 12 to 44 weeks compared with placebo (low certainty).

• Medical treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.55 [0.88, 2.74]
  8 studies · 792 participants
  Low

Summary of findings table ‐ Subcutaneous biologics (dupilumab) vs placebo

Summary of findings table ‐ Subcutaneous biologics (dupilumab) showed no clear difference in short‐term hair regrowth ≥ 75% compared with placebo (low certainty).

• Treatments for alopecia areata: a network meta‐analysis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 3.59 [0.19, 66.22]
  1 study · 60 participants
  Low

Summary of findings table ‐ Subcutaneous biologics (dupilumab) vs placebo

Summary of findings table ‐ Subcutaneous biologics (dupilumab) showed no clear difference in incidence of serious adverse events compared with placebo (low certainty).

• Treatments for alopecia areata: a network meta‐analysis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.54 [0.07, 36.11]
  1 study · 60 participants
  Low

Summary of findings table ‐ Subcutaneous biologics (dupilumab) vs placebo

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Treatments for alopecia areata: a network meta‐analysis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings table ‐ Subcutaneous biologics (dupilumab) vs placebo

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Treatments for alopecia areata: a network meta‐analysis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Any topical or systemic intervention (topical/systemic steroids, ciclosporin, tacrolimus, retinoids, anti-malarials, biologics, phototherapy, surgery) vs Placebo, no treatment, another active intervention, or a different dose of the same intervention

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies reported this outcome.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Any topical or systemic intervention (topical/systemic steroids, ciclosporin, tacrolimus, retinoids, anti-malarials, biologics, phototherapy, surgery) vs Placebo, no treatment, another active intervention, or a different dose of the same intervention

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  None of the included studies assessed the effectiveness of treatments of genital ELP; thus, this outcome was not reported.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Any topical or systemic intervention (topical/systemic steroids, ciclosporin, tacrolimus, retinoids, anti-malarials, biologics, phototherapy, surgery) vs Placebo, no treatment, another active intervention, or a different dose of the same intervention

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies reported this outcome.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Any topical or systemic intervention (topical/systemic steroids, ciclosporin, tacrolimus, retinoids, anti-malarials, biologics, phototherapy, surgery) vs Placebo, no treatment, another active intervention, or a different dose of the same intervention

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies reported this outcome.
  0 studies
  No studies found