The Efficacy of Different Treatment Options in Cutaneous Sarcoidosis: A Meta-analysis of RCTs
In brief
Drug add-on treatments failed to boost skin sarcoidosis response in pooled 156 patients
A meta-analysis of six randomized trials involving 156 adults found no significant improvement in clinical response to pharmacologic add-on therapy versus placebo, and only a non-significant trend toward better quality of life. Serious adverse events were similar between groups, highlighting the need for larger, better-designed trials before changing practice.
- Journal
- Acta dermato-venereologica (Q1)
- Published
- 8 September 2026
- Study design
- Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
- Authors
- Felicia C Thianich, Katharina M Wörgötter, Linda Bruckner, Martin R Grübler, Christian Posch
- PMID
- 42708647
- DOI
- 10.2340/actadv.v106.adv-2026-0490
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Dermatology (top studies of the week, 13 September 2026): Meta‑analysis of RCTs for cutaneous sarcoidosis
Abstract
Cutaneous sarcoidosis is a granulomatous skin disease associated with significant quality-of-life impairment. Evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) guiding systemic or targeted therapy remains limited. To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological therapies for cutaneous sarcoidosis in randomized placebo-controlled trials PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through January 2025. Eligible studies were RCTs including adults with cutaneous sarcoidosis randomized to pharmacological therapy versus placebo. Outcomes were clinical response, quality of life, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. Six RCTs including 156 participants were analyzedanalysed. Pharmacological therapies did not significantly improve clinical response compared with placebo (OR 2.24; 95% CI, 0.73-6.90; p=0.16). A non-significant trend toward improved quality of life was observed (OR 2.23; 95% CI, 0.87-5.73; p=0.09). No significant difference in SAEsserious adverse events was found between groups (OR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.48-1.96; p=0.93). Risk of bias ranged from moderate to high, with low statistical heterogeneity. Pharmacological add-on therapies showed no significant efficacy beyond corticosteroids but may improve quality of life. Larger, well-designed RCTs are needed.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.