Systemic immunomodulating therapies for epidermal necrolysis (Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis): A systematic review and meta-analysis

2Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Epidermal necrolysis is a rare but severe cutaneous reaction with high mortality. Limited evidence exists regarding the efficacy of systemic immunomodulatory therapies (SITs). Our systematic review aimed to compare SITs with supportive care or one another. Patients and Methods: Randomized controlled trials and controlled observational studies (≥ 5 patients of all ages per arm) using the international consensus classification for EN (Bastuji-Garin, 1993) with no significant baseline differences were included. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL (January 1, 1993–January 22, 2024). Two reviewers independently extracted study and outcome data. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Results: The main outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital stay duration, time to complete reepithelialization, complications, and sequelae. 43 studies with 58 treatment comparisons were analyzed. Cyclosporine was superior to IVIG regarding mortality (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05–0.58), and corticosteroids plus IVIG reduced serious complications compared to corticosteroids alone (sepsis, RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.31–0.77). Compared to supportive care, only etanercept showed a significant mortality benefit (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11–0.93; GRADE: imprecision/unclear clinical importance). Conclusions: There is no clear evidence of the superiority of SITs over supportive care, which remains the primary treatment for EN.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Heuer, R., Paulmann, M., Mockenhaupt, M., & Nast, A. (2026). Systemic immunomodulating therapies for epidermal necrolysis (Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis): A systematic review and meta-analysis. JDDG - Journal of the German Society of Dermatology, 24(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddg.15804

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free