-
The Lancet. Gastroenterology &... Feb 2022There is a growing armamentarium for the treatment of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. We aimed to compare the relative efficacy and safety of biologics and small... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There is a growing armamentarium for the treatment of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. We aimed to compare the relative efficacy and safety of biologics and small molecule drugs for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis.
METHODS
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials without language restrictions for articles published between Jan 1, 1990, and July 1, 2021. Major congresses' databases from Jan 1, 2018, to July 3, 2021, were reviewed manually. Phase 3, placebo-controlled or head-to-head randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and safety of biologics or small molecule drugs as induction or maintenance therapies for patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis were included. Phase 2 RCTs were excluded because of their small sample sizes and inclusion of doses not further explored in phase 3 RCTs. Summary data from intention-to-treat analyses were extracted from included reports by JSL and PAO. The primary outcome was the induction of clinical remission. A network meta-analysis was done under the frequentist framework, obtaining pairwise odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) was used to rank the included agents for each outcome. Higher SUCRA scores correlate with better efficacy, whereas lower SUCRA scores correlate with better safety. Maintenance data on efficacy for treat-straight-through and randomised responder trials are also presented. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021225329.
FINDINGS
Our search yielded 5904 results, from which 29 studies (four being head-to-head RCTs) fulfilled our inclusion criteria and were included. Of these, 23 studies assessed induction therapy with either a biologic or small molecule drug, comprising 10 061 patients with ulcerative colitis. A risk of bias assessment showed a low risk of bias for most of the included studies. Upadacitinib was significantly superior to all other interventions for the induction of clinical remission (infliximab [OR 2·70, 95% CI 1·18-6·20], adalimumab [4·64, 2·47-8·71], golimumab [3·00, 1·32-6·82], vedolizumab [3·56, 1·84-6·91], ustekinumab [2·92, 1·31-6·51], etrolizumab [4·91, 2·59-9·31], tofacitinib [2·84, 1·28-6·31], filgotinib 100 mg [6·15, 2·98-12·72], filgotinib 200 mg [4·49, 2·18-9·24], and ozanimod (2·70, 1·18-6·20), and ranked highest for the induction of clinical remission (SUCRA 0·996). No differences between active interventions were observed when assessing adverse events and serious adverse events. Vedolizumab ranked lowest for both adverse events (SUCRA 0·184) and serious adverse events (0·139), whereas upadacitinib ranked highest for adverse events (0·843) and ozanimod ranked highest for serious adverse events (0·831).
INTERPRETATION
Upadacitinib was the best performing agent for the induction of clinical remission (the primary outcome) but the worst performing agent in terms of adverse events in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. Vedolizumab was the best performing agent for safety outcomes. With the paucity of direct comparisons in the published literature, our results might help clinicians to position drugs in treatment algorithms.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Biological Products; Colitis, Ulcerative; Humans; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 34856198
DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(21)00377-0 -
Gut Feb 2023There are numerous biological therapies and small molecules licensed for luminal Crohn's disease (CD), but these are often studied in placebo-controlled trials, meaning... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
There are numerous biological therapies and small molecules licensed for luminal Crohn's disease (CD), but these are often studied in placebo-controlled trials, meaning relative efficacy is uncertain. We examined this in a network meta-analysis.
DESIGN
We searched the literature to 1 July 2022, judging efficacy according to induction of clinical remission, clinical response and maintenance of clinical remission, and according to previous exposure or non-exposure to biologics. We used a random effects model and reported data as pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs, ranking drugs according to p-score.
RESULTS
We identified 25 induction of remission trials (8720 patients). Based on failure to achieve clinical remission, infliximab 5 mg/kg ranked first versus placebo (RR=0.67, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.79, p-score 0.95), with risankizumab 600 mg second and upadacitinib 45 mg once daily third. However, risankizumab 600 mg ranked first for clinical remission in biologic-naïve (RR=0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.85, p-score 0.78) and in biologic-exposed patients (RR=0.74, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.82, p-score 0.92). In 15 maintenance of remission trials (4016 patients), based on relapse of disease activity, upadacitinib 30 mg once daily ranked first (RR=0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72, p-score 0.93) with adalimumab 40 mg weekly second, and infliximab 10 mg/kg 8-weekly third. Adalimumab 40 mg weekly ranked first in biologic-naïve patients (RR=0.59, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.73, p-score 0.86), and vedolizumab 108 mg 2-weekly first in biologic-exposed (RR=0.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.86, p-score 0.82).
CONCLUSION
In a network meta-analysis, infliximab 5 mg/kg ranked first for induction of clinical remission in all patients with luminal CD, but risankizumab 600 mg was first in biologic-naïve and biologic-exposed patients. Upadacitinib 30 mg once daily ranked first for maintenance of remission.
Topics: Humans; Crohn Disease; Adalimumab; Infliximab; Network Meta-Analysis; Biological Therapy; Remission Induction
PubMed: 35907636
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2022-328052 -
Arthritis Care & Research Sep 2022To develop updated guidelines for the perioperative management of disease-modifying medications for patients with rheumatic diseases, specifically those with...
2022 American College of Rheumatology/American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Guideline for the Perioperative Management of Antirheumatic Medication in Patients With Rheumatic Diseases Undergoing Elective Total Hip or Total Knee Arthroplasty.
OBJECTIVE
To develop updated guidelines for the perioperative management of disease-modifying medications for patients with rheumatic diseases, specifically those with inflammatory arthritis (IA) and those with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), undergoing elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) or elective total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
METHODS
We convened a panel of rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, and infectious disease specialists, updated the systematic literature review, and included currently available medications for the clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using a group consensus process.
RESULTS
This guideline updates the 2017 recommendations for perioperative use of disease-modifying antirheumatic therapy, including traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologic agents, targeted synthetic small-molecule drugs, and glucocorticoids used for adults with rheumatic diseases, specifically for the treatment of patients with IA, including rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis, those with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, or those with SLE who are undergoing elective THA or TKA. It updates recommendations regarding when to continue, when to withhold, and when to restart these medications and the optimal perioperative dosing of glucocorticoids.
CONCLUSION
This updated guideline includes recently introduced immunosuppressive medications to help decision-making by clinicians and patients regarding perioperative disease-modifying medication management for patients with IA and SLE at the time of elective THA or TKA.
Topics: Adult; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic; Rheumatic Diseases; Rheumatology; Surgeons; United States
PubMed: 35718887
DOI: 10.1002/acr.24893 -
Clinical Gastroenterology and... Mar 2022We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize emerging data on the safety and effectiveness of dual biologic therapy in combination or with tofacitinib... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize emerging data on the safety and effectiveness of dual biologic therapy in combination or with tofacitinib in patients with refractory inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
METHODS
Through a systematic search of multiple electronic databases through November 9, 2020, we identified cohort studies or case series (>10 patients) reporting the safety and effectiveness of simultaneous use of biologic agents in combination or with tofacitinib in patients with IBD. Rates of adverse events, clinical remission, and endoscopic remission were synthesized using pooled data, and we identified factors associated with successful dual therapy.
RESULTS
We identified 30 studies reporting 288 trials of dual biologic or small molecule therapy in 279 patients (76% Crohn's disease; median duration of treatment 24 weeks (IQR-IQR 1332)). The main indications for dual therapy included medically refractory IBD (81%) and concurrent extra-intestinal manifestations or rheumatologic disease (12%). The most common combinations of dual therapy included tumor necrosis factor-α antagonists & anti-integrins (48%), ustekinumab & anti-integrins (19%); 61% of patients had previously failed at least one of the two therapies used in combination. Over a median follow-up of 32 weeks (IQR-IQR 24-52), pooled rates of adverse and serious adverse events were 31% (95% CI, 13%-54%) and 6.5% (95% CI, 2.1%-13.1%); pooled rates of clinical and endoscopic remission were 59% (95% CI, 42%-74%), and 34% (95% CI, 23%-46%), respectively. 12% (95% CI, 4%-24%) of patients required surgery. Rates of success were higher in patients on dual therapy due to EIM. Heterogeneity was not significant for endoscopic response (P = .88, I = 0%), endoscopic remission (P = .44, I = 0%), and malignancy (P = .87, I = 0%). However, significant heterogeneity existed for other outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Dual biologic or small molecule therapy may be a possible option in highly selected, refractory IBD patients at specialized centers. Higher quality combination of therapies with a significant improvement in the quality of data is required prior to more widespread use.
Topics: Biological Products; Cohort Studies; Crohn Disease; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Ustekinumab
PubMed: 33798711
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.03.034 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, 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. 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 non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2021: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety).
MAIN RESULTS
This update includes an additional 19 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 167, and randomised participants to 58,912, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.5 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (57%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (140) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (57/167) had high risk of bias; 23 unclear risk, and most (87) low risk. Most studies (127/167) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions, except anti-IL23. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23 and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 50.19, 95% CI 20.92 to 120.45), bimekizumab (RR 30.27, 95% CI 25.45 to 36.01), ixekizumab (RR 30.19, 95% CI 25.38 to 35.93), risankizumab (RR 28.75, 95% CI 24.03 to 34.39). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab and risankizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than other anti-IL17 drugs (secukinumab and brodalumab) and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab and brodalumab) and anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab) except tildrakizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents (adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept). Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab; adalimumab and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low- to moderate-certainty for all the comparisons (except methotrexate versus placebo, which was high-certainty). The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.5 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports from regulatory agencies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.
Topics: Adalimumab; Adult; Biological Products; Etanercept; Female; Humans; Infliximab; Male; Methotrexate; Network Meta-Analysis; Psoriasis; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha; Ustekinumab
PubMed: 35603936
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub5 -
Cell Communication and Signaling : CCS Feb 2020Breast cancer has grown to be the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in women. Only a few treatment options are available for breast cancer due to the... (Review)
Review
Breast cancer has grown to be the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in women. Only a few treatment options are available for breast cancer due to the widespread occurrence of chemoresistance, which emphasizes the need to discover and develop new methods to treat this disease. Signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) is an early tumor diagnostic marker and is known to promote breast cancer malignancy. Recent clinical and preclinical data indicate the involvement of overexpressed and constitutively activated STAT3 in the progression, proliferation, metastasis and chemoresistance of breast cancer. Moreover, new pathways comprised of upstream regulators and downstream targets of STAT3 have been discovered. In addition, small molecule inhibitors targeting STAT3 activation have been found to be efficient for therapeutic treatment of breast cancer. This systematic review discusses the advances in the discovery of the STAT3 pathways and drugs targeting STAT3 in breast cancer. Video abstract.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Biomarkers, Tumor; Breast Neoplasms; Cell Line, Tumor; Drug Resistance, Neoplasm; Female; Humans; STAT3 Transcription Factor; Signal Transduction
PubMed: 32111215
DOI: 10.1186/s12964-020-0527-z -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Mar 2023Biologics and small molecules for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may increase infection risk. Herpes zoster causes acute and long-term symptoms, but vaccination is not... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Biologics and small molecules for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may increase infection risk. Herpes zoster causes acute and long-term symptoms, but vaccination is not recommended in patients with IBD, unless >50 years of age.
AIMS
To examine risk of Herpes zoster infection with all licensed biologics and small molecules for IBD using network meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched the literature to 4th October 2022, for randomised controlled trials of these drugs in luminal Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis reporting data on occurrence of Herpes zoster infection during follow-up. We used a frequentist approach and a random effects model, pooling data as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
We identified 25 trials (9935 patients). Only tofacitinib 10 mg b.d. (RR = 6.90; 95% CI 1.56-30.63, number needed to harm (NNH) = 97; 95% CI 19-1022) and upadacitinib 45 mg o.d. (RR = 7.89; 95% CI 1.04-59.59, NNH = 83; 95% CI 10-14,305) were significantly more likely to increase risk of Herpes zoster infection. Janus kinase inhibitors were the most likely drug class to increase risk of infection, and risk increased with higher doses (RR with lowest dose = 3.16; 95% CI 1.02-9.84, NNH = 265; 95% CI 65-28,610, RR with higher dose = 5.91; 95% CI 2.21-15.82, NNH = 117; 95% CI 39-473).
CONCLUSIONS
In a network meta-analysis, the janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib, and all janus kinase inhibitors considered as a class, were most likely to increase risk of Herpes zoster infection. Risk increased with higher doses.
Topics: Humans; Biological Therapy; Crohn Disease; Herpes Zoster; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 36585944
DOI: 10.1111/apt.17379 -
Autoimmunity Reviews Jun 2021The primary vasculitides constitute a heterogeneous group of immune mediated diseases of incompletely understood pathogenesis currently classified by the size of blood... (Review)
Review
The primary vasculitides constitute a heterogeneous group of immune mediated diseases of incompletely understood pathogenesis currently classified by the size of blood vessels affected (Chapel Hill classification). In recent years, several drugs with well-characterized immunological targets have been tested in clinical trials in large vessel vasculitis and small vessel vasculitis. Such trials provide "reverse translational" or bedside to bench information about underlying pathogenic mechanisms. Therefore, the aim of this systematic literature review was to examine the evidence base for a more refined mechanistic immunological classification of vasculitis. A total of 40 studies (20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 16 prospective studies, 1 retrospective cohort study and 3 case series) were included for full qualitative assessment. RCTs concerning biologic therapy for large vessel vasculitis mainly supports interleukin 6 receptor inhibition (tocilizumab). RCTs concerning biologic therapy for granulomatosis with polyangiitis and microscopic polyangiitis mainly support anti-CD20 treatment (rituximab) and complement inhibition with a small molecule C5a receptor antagonist (avacopan) is an emerging treatment option. The biologic treatment of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis is centered around interleukin 5 inhibition (mepolizumab). Studies on tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibition (adalimumab, infliximab, and etanercept) showed negative results in giant cell arteritis but some effect in Takayasu arteritis. Taken together, clinical studies with cytokine and cell specific drugs are dissecting the heterogeneous immunopathogenic mechanisms of vasculitis and support a mechanistic immunological classification. Especially, cytokine antagonism is pointing towards immunological distinctions between eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis and granulomatosis with polyangiitis/microscopic polyangiitis and differences between giant cell arteritis and Takayasu arteritis.
Topics: Churg-Strauss Syndrome; Etanercept; Giant Cell Arteritis; Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis; Humans; Microscopic Polyangiitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rituximab; Takayasu Arteritis
PubMed: 33872767
DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2021.102829 -
Gut Dec 2021Biological therapies and small molecules continue to be evaluated in moderate to severely active ulcerative colitis, but are often studied in placebo-controlled trials,...
OBJECTIVE
Biological therapies and small molecules continue to be evaluated in moderate to severely active ulcerative colitis, but are often studied in placebo-controlled trials, meaning their relative efficacy and safety is unknown. We examined this in a network meta-analysis.
DESIGN
We searched the literature to October 2021 to identify eligible trials. We judged efficacy using clinical remission, endoscopic improvement, or clinical response, and according to previous exposure or non-exposure to antitumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α therapy. We also assessed safety. We used a random effects model and reported data as pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs. Interventions were ranked according to their P-score.
RESULTS
We identified 28 trials (12 504 patients). Based on failure to achieve clinical remission, upadacitinib 45 mg once daily ranked first versus placebo (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.80, P-score 0.98), with infliximab 5 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg second and third, respectively. Upadacitinib ranked first for clinical remission in both patients naïve to anti-TNF-α drugs (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.78, P-score 0.99) and previously exposed (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.85, P-score 0.99). Upadacitinib was superior to almost all other drugs in these analyses. Based on failure to achieve endoscopic improvement infliximab 10 mg/kg ranked first (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.72, P-score 0.97), with upadacitinib 45 mg once daily, second, and infliximab 5 mg/kg third. Upadacitinib was more likely to lead to adverse events, but serious adverse events were no more frequent, and withdrawals due to adverse events were significantly lower than with placebo. Infections were significantly more likely with tofacitinib than placebo (RR 1.41; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.91).
CONCLUSION
In a network meta-analysis, upadacitinib 45 mg once daily ranked first for clinical remission in all patients, patients naïve to anti-TNF-α drugs and patients previously exposed. Infliximab 10 mg/kg ranked first for endoscopic improvement. Most drugs were safe and well tolerated.
PubMed: 34937767
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-326390 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2023Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, 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. 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 benefits and harms of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their benefits and harms.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2022: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety).
MAIN RESULTS
This update includes an additional 12 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 179, and randomised participants to 62,339, 67.1% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.6 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (56%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (152) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (65/179) had high risk of bias, 24 unclear risk, and most (90) low risk. Most studies (138/179) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 49.16, 95% CI 20.49 to 117.95), bimekizumab (RR 27.86, 95% CI 23.56 to 32.94), ixekizumab (RR 27.35, 95% CI 23.15 to 32.29), risankizumab (RR 26.16, 95% CI 22.03 to 31.07). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab and ixekizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than secukinumab. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than brodalumab and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab), and anti-IL23 drugs except tildrakizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than ustekinumab, three anti-TNF alpha agents, and deucravacitinib. Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab. Adalimumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with very low- to moderate-certainty evidence for all the comparisons. The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.6 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was very low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.
Topics: Adult; Male; Humans; Female; Ustekinumab; Methotrexate; Infliximab; Network Meta-Analysis; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Psoriasis; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha; Biological Products
PubMed: 37436070
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub6