-
The British Journal of Dermatology May 2024Primary endpoint measures in clinical trials are typically measures of disease severity, with patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) relegated as secondary endpoints....
BACKGROUND
Primary endpoint measures in clinical trials are typically measures of disease severity, with patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) relegated as secondary endpoints. However validation of some PROMs may be more rigorous than that of disease severity measures, arguing for a primary role for PROMs.
OBJECTIVES
This study reports on 24 peer reviewed journal articles that used the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) as primary outcome, derived from a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) utlising DLQI covering all diseases and interventions.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
The study protocol was prospectively published on the PROSPERO database, and the study followed PRISMA guidelines. Searches were made with Medline, Cochrane library, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, CINAHL(EBSCO) and PsycINFO databases and records combined into an Endnote database. Records were filtered for duplicates and selected by study inclusion/exclusion criteria. Full text articles were sourced and data was extracted by two reviewers into a bespoke REDCap database, with a third reviewer adjudicating differences. The Jadad scoring method was used to determine risk of bias.
RESULTS
Of the 3,220 publications retrieved from online searching, 457 articles met eligibility criteria and included 198,587 patients. DLQI scores were primary outcomes in 24 (5.3%) of these studies comprising 15 different diseases and 3,436 patients. Most study interventions (17/24 studies, 68%) were systemic drugs with biologics (liraglutide, alefacept, secukinumab, ustekinumab, adalimumab) accounting for five out of 25 pharmacological interventions (20%). Topical treaments comprised 32% (8 studies) whereas non-pharmacological interventions (8) were 24% of the total interventions (33). Three studies used non-traditional medicines. Eight studies were multicentred (33.3%), with trials conducted in at least 14 different countries, and four (16.7%) were conducted in multiple countries. The Jadad risk of bias scale showed that bias was uncertain or low, as 87.5% of studies had Jadad scores of ≥3.
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides evidence for use of the DLQI as primary outcome in clinical trials to inform researchers' and clinicians' decisions for its further use.
PubMed: 38819233
DOI: 10.1093/bjd/ljae228 -
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 -
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 -
Medicine Oct 2021Biological therapy is effective for the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis; however, adverse effects related to immunosuppression, such as viral infections,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Biological therapy is effective for the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis; however, adverse effects related to immunosuppression, such as viral infections, have been reported. Amongst these infections, herpes zoster (HZ) is common.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the risk of HZ in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis patients treated with biological therapy.
DATA SOURCES
A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was performed using certain keywords until October 9, 2020. Nine studies were included after a detailed assessment.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
The eligibility criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis treated with biological therapies; compared with non-biological therapies, non-biological systemic therapies, or controls; with the incidence of HZ reported in case and control groups. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of the RCTs and observational studies, respectively. Data were extracted from 9 eligible studies and then analyzed using Stata software (Version 12.0).
RESULTS
The risk of HZ in biological therapies was higher than that in non-biological (odds ratios [OR]: 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.18-1.86; I2 = 0%) and non-biological systemic (OR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.02-1.71; I2 = 0%) therapies. Furthermore, the risk of HZ associated with tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors increased significantly (OR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.11-2.02; I2 = 0%). Notably, infliximab (OR: 2.43; 95% CI: 1.31-4.50; I2 = 0%) and etanercept (OR: 1.65; 95% CI: 1.07-2.56; I2 = 0%) increased the risk of HZ, while adalimumab (OR: 1.21; 95% CI: 0.64-2.30; I2 = 0%), ustekinumab (OR: 2.20; 95% CI: 0.89-5.44; I2 = 0%), alefacept (OR: 1.46; 95% CI: 0.20-10.47; I2 = 0%), and efalizumab (OR: 1.58; 95% CI: 0.22-11.34; I2 = 0%) did not.
LIMITATIONS
Few RCTs have reported HZ incidents; thus, our results require confirmation via large-scale RCTs.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS
Biological therapies, especially tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors, may lead to the risk of HZ in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis patients. Amongst these agents, infliximab and etanercept have been shown to significantly increase the risk of HZ. Additionally, younger age and female sex may be risk factors.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER
INPLASY202110027.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Biological Factors; Female; Herpes Zoster; Humans; Immunosuppression Therapy; Male; Middle Aged; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 34622837
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000027368 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2021Herpes zoster (HZ) has raised public concern. An increasing incidence of HZ can be seen in the immunocompromised population, such as the psoriasis patients taking...
Herpes zoster (HZ) has raised public concern. An increasing incidence of HZ can be seen in the immunocompromised population, such as the psoriasis patients taking biologics. Real-world evidences are still needed to investigate the risks of HZ among patients receiving different biologics treatments. This study aims to summarize the findings from cohort studies. Herein, we performed a meta-analysis of cohort studies. We included studies referred to seven biologics (adalimumab, alefacept, efalizumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, and ustekinumab) as well as methotrexate for psoriasis. We estimated summary relative risks (RRs) for HZ using pairwise and network meta-analysis. Overall, five studies were included for analysis. A total of 32827.6 patient-years were observed. The result of the meta-analysis showed that the pooled HZ incidence rate of adalimumab, which accounts for the most patient-years in our analysis, is 2.6 per 1,000 patient-years. Our analysis based on several cohorts showed an insignificant difference among the patients receiving adalimumab, alefacept, efalizumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, ustekinumab, and methotrexate. Based on this analysis, the type of mono-biologic treatment contributes little to the risk of HZ among psoriasis patients. Of note, the negative findings of our study do not mean the unnecessity of vaccination. More efforts must be taken to further determine HZ risk of different therapeutic strategies.
PubMed: 34150802
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.665559 -
The Australasian Journal of Dermatology Feb 2019A range of systemic treatments are used for alopecia areata with variable evidence supporting efficacy. In this systematic review, we evaluated the evidence surrounding...
A range of systemic treatments are used for alopecia areata with variable evidence supporting efficacy. In this systematic review, we evaluated the evidence surrounding systemic treatments for alopecia areata, alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis. A systematic search was conducted of the peer-reviewed literature published between 1946 and March 2018 via Medline, Embase, Amed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsychINFO and Lilacs. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of systemic treatments for individuals with alopecia areata, totalis or universalis were included. Sixteen studies were included with a total of 768 participants. We found eight placebo-controlled RCTs, three RCTs comparing two systemic treatments and five RCTs comparing three treatments. A total of 15 different systemic therapies were investigated. The most frequently investigated therapy was oral prednisolone pulse therapy and oral inosiplex. There was significant variability in the definition of treatment success. No study evaluated the impact of pharmacotherapy on quality of life using complete quantitative quality of life instruments. Adverse events were reported in 13 studies and were corticosteroid related or otherwise well tolerated. Relapse rates were considerable in the four studies that reported this outcome. There is currently no specific systemic therapy that is supported by robust body of evidence from RCTs. The current evidence suggests efficacy of oral prednisolone pulse therapy and oral inosiplex. Evidence does not support the use of oral zinc sulphate, alefacept and efalizumab. Future RCTs should be adequately powered and employ clearly defined clinical response endpoints to allow future meta-analyses.
Topics: Adjuvants, Immunologic; Administration, Intravenous; Administration, Oral; Alopecia; Alopecia Areata; Antidepressive Agents; Biological Products; Complementary Therapies; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Inosine Pranobex; Prednisolone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30191561
DOI: 10.1111/ajd.12913 -
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