-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2017Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head to head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional systemic agents (acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, methotrexate), small molecules (apremilast, tofacitinib, ponesimod), anti-TNF alpha (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab), anti-IL12/23 (ustekinumab), anti-IL17 (secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab), anti-IL23 (guselkumab, tildrakizumab), and other biologics (alefacept, itolizumab) for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases to December 2016: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) reports. We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant RCTs. We searched the trial results databases of a number of pharmaceutical companies and handsearched the conference proceedings of a number of dermatology meetings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic and biological treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate to severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI) 90) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse effects). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes, according to GRADE; we evaluated evidence as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 109 studies in our review (39,882 randomised participants, 68% men, all recruited from a hospital). The overall average age was 44 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo controlled (67%), 23% were head-to-head studies, and 10% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and placebo. We have assessed all treatments listed in the objectives (19 in total). In all, 86 trials were multicentric trials (two to 231 centres). All of the trials included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment at less than 24 weeks after randomisation); in fact, all trials included in the network meta-analysis were measured between 12 and 16 weeks after randomisation. We assessed the majority of studies (48/109) as being at high risk of bias; 38 were assessed as at an unclear risk, and 23, low risk.Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90.In terms of reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents. Small molecules were associated with a higher chance of reaching PASI 90 compared to conventional systemic agents.At drug level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, all of the anti-IL17 agents and guselkumab (an anti-IL23 drug) were significantly more effective than the anti-TNF alpha agents infliximab, adalimumab, and etanercept, but not certolizumab. Ustekinumab was superior to etanercept. No clear difference was shown between infliximab, adalimumab, and etanercept. Only one trial assessed the efficacy of infliximab in this network; thus, these results have to be interpreted with caution. Tofacitinib was significantly superior to methotrexate, and no clear difference was shown between any of the other small molecules versus conventional treatments.Network meta-analysis also showed that ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, certolizumab, and ustekinumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90: the most effective drug was ixekizumab (risk ratio (RR) 32.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 23.61 to 44.60; Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) = 94.3; high-certainty evidence), followed by secukinumab (RR 26.55, 95% CI 20.32 to 34.69; SUCRA = 86.5; high-certainty evidence), brodalumab (RR 25.45, 95% CI 18.74 to 34.57; SUCRA = 84.3; moderate-certainty evidence), guselkumab (RR 21.03, 95% CI 14.56 to 30.38; SUCRA = 77; moderate-certainty evidence), certolizumab (RR 24.58, 95% CI 3.46 to 174.73; SUCRA = 75.7; moderate-certainty evidence), and ustekinumab (RR 19.91, 95% CI 15.11 to 26.23; SUCRA = 72.6; high-certainty evidence).We found no significant difference between all of the interventions and the placebo regarding the risk of serious adverse effects (SAEs): the relative ranking strongly suggested that methotrexate was associated with the best safety profile regarding all of the SAEs (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.99; SUCRA = 90.7; moderate-certainty evidence), followed by ciclosporin (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.01 to 5.10; SUCRA = 78.2; very low-certainty evidence), certolizumab (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.36; SUCRA = 70.9; moderate-certainty evidence), infliximab (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.00; SUCRA = 64.4; very low-certainty evidence), alefacept (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.55; SUCRA = 62.6; low-certainty evidence), and fumaric acid esters (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.99; SUCRA = 57.7; very low-certainty evidence). Major adverse cardiac events, serious infections, or malignancies were reported in both the placebo and intervention groups. Nevertheless, the SAEs analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to very low certainty for just over half of the treatment estimates in total, moderate for the others. Thus, the results have to be considered with caution.Considering both efficacy (PASI 90 outcome) and acceptability (SAEs outcome), highly effective treatments also had more SAEs compared to the other treatments, and ustekinumab, infliximab, and certolizumab appeared to have the better trade-off between efficacy and acceptability.Regarding the other efficacy outcomes, PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1, the results were very similar to the results for PASI 90.Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for a third of the interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, certolizumab, and ustekinumab are the best choices for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate to severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. At class level, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents, too. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured between 12 to 16 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficiently relevant for a chronic disease. Moreover, low numbers of studies were found for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 44 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice.Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. Indeed, we found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs. Methotrexate appeared to have the best safety profile, but as the evidence was of very low to moderate quality, we cannot be sure of the ranking. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies as well.In terms of future research, randomised trials comparing directly active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between conventional systemic and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve patients, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents.
Topics: Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Chronic Disease; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Network Meta-Analysis; Psoriasis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 29271481
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub2 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2020The glycoprotein CD2 is a costimulatory receptor expressed mainly on T and NK cells that binds to LFA3, a cell surface protein expressed on e.g., antigen-presenting... (Review)
Review
The glycoprotein CD2 is a costimulatory receptor expressed mainly on T and NK cells that binds to LFA3, a cell surface protein expressed on e.g., antigen-presenting cells. CD2 has an important role in the formation and organization of the immunological synapse that is formed between T cells and antigen-presenting cells upon cell-cell conjugation and associated intracellular signaling. CD2 expression is upregulated on memory T cells as well as activated T cells and plays an important role in activation of memory T cells despite the coexistence of several other costimulatory pathways. Anti-CD2 monoclonal antibodies have been shown to induce immune modulatory effects and clinical studies have proven the safety and efficacy of CD2-targeting biologics. Investigators have highlighted that the lack of attention to the CD2/LFA3 costimulatory pathway is a . Overall, CD2 is an attractive target for monoclonal antibodies intended for treatment of pathologies characterized by undesired T cell activation and offers an avenue to more selectively target memory T cells while favoring immune regulation.
Topics: Animals; CD2 Antigens; Humans; Immunological Synapses; Lymphocyte Activation; T-Lymphocytes
PubMed: 32582179
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.01090 -
Inflammopharmacology Jun 2023Psoriasis represents an immune-mediated disease with an unclear cause that's marked by inflammation triggered by dysfunction in the immune system, which results in... (Review)
Review
Psoriasis represents an immune-mediated disease with an unclear cause that's marked by inflammation triggered by dysfunction in the immune system, which results in inflammation in various parts of the skin. There could be obvious symptoms, such as elevated plaques; these plaques may appear differently depending on the type of skin. This disease can cause inflammation in the elbows, lower back, scalp, knees, or other regions of the body. It can begin at any age, although it most commonly affects individuals between the ages of 50 and 60. Specific cells (such as T cells) have been observed to play an obvious role in the pathogenesis of psoriasis, in addition to specific immunological molecules such as TNF-, IL-12, IL-23, IL-17, and other molecules that can aid in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. So, during the past two decades, biologists have created chemical drugs that target these cells or molecules and therefore prevent the disease from occurring. Alefacept, efalizumab, Adalimumab, Ustekinumab, and Secukinumab are a few examples of chemical drugs. It was discovered that these chemical drugs have long-term side effects that can cause defects in the patient's body, such as the development of the rare but life-threatening disorder progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PCL). Its rapidly progressive infection of the central nervous system caused by the JC virus and other drugs may cause increased production of neutralising anti-drug antibodies (ADA) and the risk of infusion reactions like pruritus, flushing, hypertension, headache, and rash. So, our context intends to talk in our review about natural products or plants that may have therapeutic characteristics for this disease and may have few or no side effects on the patient's body.
Topics: Humans; Middle Aged; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Psoriasis; Adalimumab; Interleukin-12; Inflammation
PubMed: 36995575
DOI: 10.1007/s10787-023-01178-0 -
Indian Journal of Dermatology Sep 2014The advent of biologics in dermatologic treatment armentarium has added refreshing dimensions, for it is a major breakthrough. Several agents are now available for use.... (Review)
Review
The advent of biologics in dermatologic treatment armentarium has added refreshing dimensions, for it is a major breakthrough. Several agents are now available for use. It is therefore imperative to succinctly comprehend their pharmacokinetics for their apt use. A concerted endeavor has been made to delve on this subject. The major groups of biologics have been covered and include: Drugs acting against TNF-α, Alefacept, Ustekinumab, Rituximab, IVIG and Omalizumab. The relevant pharmacokinetic characteristics have been detailed. Their respective label (approved) and off-label (unapproved) indications have been defined, highlighting their dosage protocol, availability and mode of administration. The evidence level of each indication has also been discussed to apprise the clinician of their current and prospective uses. Individual anti-TNF drugs are not identical in their actions and often one is superior to the other in a particular disease. Hence, the section on anti-TNF agents mentions the literature on each drug separately, and not as a group. The limitations for their use have also been clearly brought out.
PubMed: 25284845
DOI: 10.4103/0019-5154.139859 -
International Journal of Molecular... Nov 2017Biological therapy became available for psoriasis with the introduction of alefacept at the beginning of this century. Up to then, systemic treatment options comprised... (Review)
Review
Biological therapy became available for psoriasis with the introduction of alefacept at the beginning of this century. Up to then, systemic treatment options comprised small molecule drugs, targeting the immune system in a non-specific manner. The first biologics targeted T-cell activation and migration and served as an alternative to small molecules. However, significant improvement in outcome was first accomplished with the introduction of tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors that were already approved for other inflammatory disorders, including rheumatic diseases. Along with the progress in understanding psoriasis pathogenesis, highly targeted and effective therapies have since developed with the perspective not only to improve but to clear psoriasis. These accomplishments enable future achievement of advanced goals to individualize treatment best suited for each patient. Mechanistic studies with patients treated with the new highly targeted biologics may guide us towards these goals. This review offers an overview of biologics developed for psoriasis and illustrate a historical progress in the treatment of this common chronic inflammatory skin condition.
Topics: Animals; Biological Products; Biological Therapy; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; Humans; Psoriasis
PubMed: 29104241
DOI: 10.3390/ijms18112297 -
Skin Research and Technology : Official... Mar 2024The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness and safety of oral and injectable systemic treatments, such as methotrexate, azathioprine, cyclosporine,... (Review)
Review
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness and safety of oral and injectable systemic treatments, such as methotrexate, azathioprine, cyclosporine, tofacitinib, baricitinib, corticosteroids, statins, zinc, apremilast, etc., for treating vitiligo lesions.
METHOD
Databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were meticulously searched for studies spanning from 2010 to August 2023, focusing on systemic oral and injectable therapies for vitiligo, using comprehensive keywords and search syntaxes tailored to each database. Key data extracted included study design, treatment efficacy, patient outcomes, patient satisfaction, and safety profiles.
RESULTS
In a total of 42 included studies, oral mini-pulse corticosteroid therapy (OMP) was the subject of six studies (14.2%). Minocycline was the focus of five studies (11.9%), while methotrexate, apremilast, and tofacitinib each were examined in four studies (9.5%). Antioxidants and Afamelanotide were the subjects of three studies each (7.1%). Cyclosporine, simvastatin, oral zinc, oral corticosteroids (excluding OMP) and injections, and baricitinib were each explored in two studies (4.8%). Azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, and Alefacept were the subjects of one study each (2.4%).
CONCLUSION
Systemic treatments for vitiligo have been successful in controlling lesions without notable side effects. OMP, Methotrexate, Azathioprine, Cyclosporine, Mycophenolate mofetil, Simvastatin, Apremilast, Minocycline, Afamelanotide, Tofacitinib, Baricitinib, Antioxidants, and oral/injectable corticosteroids are effective treatment methods. However, oral zinc and alefacept did not show effectiveness.
Topics: Humans; Methotrexate; Azathioprine; Vitiligo; Mycophenolic Acid; Minocycline; Alefacept; Cyclosporine; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Hypopigmentation; Simvastatin; Zinc; Purines; Pyrazoles; Sulfonamides; Azetidines; Thalidomide
PubMed: 38454597
DOI: 10.1111/srt.13642 -
JCI Insight Nov 2023Variation in the preservation of β cell function in clinical trials in type 1 diabetes (T1D) has emphasized the need to define biomarkers to predict treatment response....
Variation in the preservation of β cell function in clinical trials in type 1 diabetes (T1D) has emphasized the need to define biomarkers to predict treatment response. The T1DAL trial targeted T cells with alefacept (LFA-3-Ig) and demonstrated C-peptide preservation in approximately 30% of new-onset T1D individuals. We analyzed islet antigen-reactive (IAR) CD4+ T cells in PBMC samples collected prior to treatment from alefacept- and placebo-treated individuals using flow cytometry and single-cell RNA sequencing. IAR CD4+ T cells at baseline had heterogeneous phenotypes. Transcript profiles formed phenotypic clusters of cells along a trajectory based on increasing maturation and activation, and T cell receptor (TCR) chains showed clonal expansion. Notably, the frequency of IAR CD4+ T cells with a memory phenotype and a unique transcript profile (cluster 3) were inversely correlated with C-peptide preservation in alefacept-treated, but not placebo-treated, individuals. Cluster 3 cells had a proinflammatory phenotype characterized by expression of the transcription factor BHLHE40 and the cytokines GM-CSF and TNF-α, and shared TCR chains with effector memory-like clusters. Our results suggest IAR CD4+ T cells as a potential baseline biomarker of response to therapies targeting the CD2 pathway and warrant investigation for other T cell-related therapies.
Topics: Humans; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; CD4-Positive T-Lymphocytes; Alefacept; C-Peptide; Leukocytes, Mononuclear; Biomarkers; Receptors, Antigen, T-Cell
PubMed: 37751304
DOI: 10.1172/jci.insight.167881 -
Psoriasis (Auckland, N.Z.) 2022The quality of life in psoriatic patients is significantly impaired. Since this century, there have been biologics as a treatment for psoriasis. These biologics reduce... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The quality of life in psoriatic patients is significantly impaired. Since this century, there have been biologics as a treatment for psoriasis. These biologics reduce symptoms, but more knowledge is needed about potential improvements in quality of life. As a result, biological therapy may be more valuable for patients who experience a lot of burden from their chronic skin condition in daily life. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the possible improvement of the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) in psoriatic patients using biologics.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An online search was performed in the PubMed database to identify relevant articles. Inclusion criteria for studies were psoriatic patients, a measurement of DLQI with biologics and without biologics. Exclusion criteria for studies were abstracts not written in English, publications before 2012, full text unavailable, quality of life measurements other than DLQI. Results from the studies with different biologics were combined into the outcome measure: ≥5 points of improvement in the DLQI score. Results of the studies in which biologics were compared with (conventional) systemic therapy were combined in the outcome measure: improvement of the DLQI score is better with biologics than with systemic therapy.
RESULTS
There were nine included articles with a total of 19.926 patients. Adalimumab, alefacept, etanercept, infliximab, ustekinumab and secukinumab were included biologics. Six studies measured the change in DLQI of different biologics in number of points. Of these six studies, 22 sub-analyses were performed and 20 of them showed a DLQI improvement of ≥5 points. The improvement in DLQI was better with biologics than with systemic therapy in two of the three measured studies.
CONCLUSION
Quality of life of psoriatic patients will be improved by the studied biologics. In the future, more research is needed into biologics on patient and quality of life characteristics.
PubMed: 35637943
DOI: 10.2147/PTT.S356568 -
Rheumatology International May 2016The diverse clinical picture of PsA suggests the need to identify suitable therapies to address the different combinations of clinical manifestations. This review aimed... (Review)
Review
The diverse clinical picture of PsA suggests the need to identify suitable therapies to address the different combinations of clinical manifestations. This review aimed to classify the available biologic agents and new small molecule inhibitors (licensed and nonlicensed) based on their proven efficacy in treating different clinical manifestations associated with psoriasis and PsA. This review presents the level of evidence of efficacy of different biologic treatments and small molecule inhibitors for certain clinical features of treatment of PsA and psoriasis, which was graded in categories I-IV. The literature searches were performed on the following classes of biologic agents and small molecules: TNF inhibitors (adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, golimumab, certolizumab), anti-IL12/IL23 (ustekinumab), anti-IL17 (secukinumab, brodalumab, ixekizumab), anti-IL6 (tocilizumab), T cell modulators (alefacept, efalizumab, abatacept, itolizumab), B cell depletion therapy (rituximab), phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor (apremilast) and Janus kinase inhibitor (tofacitinib). A comprehensive table including 17 different biologic agents and small molecule inhibitors previously tested in psoriasis and PsA was generated, including the level of evidence of their efficacy for each of the clinical features included in our review (axial and peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, and nail and skin disease). We also proposed a limited set of recommendations for a sequential biologic treatment algorithm for patients with PsA who failed the first anti-TNF therapy, based on the available literature data. There is good evidence that many of the biologic treatments initially tested in psoriasis are also effective in PsA. Further research into both prognostic biomarkers and patient stratification is required to allow clinicians the possibility to make better use of the various biologic treatment options available. This review showed that there are many potentially new treatments that are not included in the current guidelines that can be used for selected categories of patients based on their disease phenotype, clinician experience and access to new biologic therapies.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Biological Products; Humans; Interleukins; Precision Medicine; Psoriasis; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 26892034
DOI: 10.1007/s00296-016-3436-0