-
Dermatology and Therapy Aug 2022Biologic treatments are increasingly being used in the management of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (PSO). Bimekizumab is a selective inhibitor of both interleukin...
INTRODUCTION
Biologic treatments are increasingly being used in the management of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (PSO). Bimekizumab is a selective inhibitor of both interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F approved for the treatment of moderate to severe PSO. Although bimekizumab trials provide comparisons to secukinumab, adalimumab and ustekinumab, there are no further head-to-head comparisons of bimekizumab to other biologics. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the short-term efficacy of bimekizumab versus other biologic systemic therapies for moderate to severe PSO.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with moderate to severe PSO. MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Database of Systematic Reviews and PsycINFO were searched on July 1, 2020. An enhanced multinomial Bayesian NMA model was used to evaluate the comparative efficacy in 50%, 75%, 90% and 100% improvement from baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 50/75/90/100) at 10-16 weeks. The model was also adjusted for baseline risk, given the variable placebo responses across the trials.
RESULTS
Eighty-six RCTs (including 34,476 patients) were included in the NMA. IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors were the most effective treatments across all PASI levels. At 10-16 weeks, bimekizumab had the highest probability of achieving PASI 75 (92.3%), PASI 90 (84.0%) and PASI 100 (57.8%). Bimekizumab demonstrated statistical superiority over all biologics in achieving PASI 90 and PASI 100 thresholds. For PASI 75, the benefit of bimekizumab was statistically significant compared to all other treatments except risankizumab and ixekizumab.
CONCLUSION
This analysis demonstrated that IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors were highly effective in achieving short-term improvement among patients with moderate to severe PSO. Patients receiving bimekizumab were significantly more likely to achieve PASI 90 or PASI 100 within 10-16 weeks of the first injection than all other biologics.
PubMed: 35798920
DOI: 10.1007/s13555-022-00760-8 -
Pharmaceutics Jun 2022Due to ethical and practical reasons, a knowledge gap exists on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-related drugs in pregnant women with IBD.... (Review)
Review
Due to ethical and practical reasons, a knowledge gap exists on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-related drugs in pregnant women with IBD. Before evidence-based dosing can be proposed, insight into the PK has to be gained to optimize drug therapy for both mother and fetus. This systematic review aimed to describe the effect of pregnancy and IBD on the PK of drugs used for IBD. One aminosalicylate study, two thiopurine studies and twelve studies with biologicals were included. Most drugs within these groups presented data over multiple moments before, during and after pregnancy, except for mesalazine, ustekinumab and golimumab. The studies for mesalazine, ustekinumab and golimumab did not provide enough data to demonstrate an effect of pregnancy on concentration and PK parameters. Therefore, no evidence-based dosing advice was given. The 6-thioguanine nucleotide levels decreased during pregnancy to 61% compared to pre-pregnancy levels. The potentially toxic metabolite 6-methylmercaptopurine (6-MMP) increased to maximal 209% of the pre-pregnancy levels. Although the PK of the thiopurines changed throughout pregnancy, no evidence-based dosing advice was provided. One study suggested that caution should be exercised when the thiopurine dose is adjusted, due to shunting 6-MMP levels. For the biologicals, infliximab levels increased, adalimumab stayed relatively stable and vedolizumab levels tended to decrease during pregnancy. Although the PK of the biologicals changed throughout pregnancy, no evidence-based dosing advice for biologicals was provided. Other drugs retrieved from the literature search were mesalazine, ustekinumab and golimumab. We conclude that limited studies have been performed on PK parameters during pregnancy for drugs used in IBD. Therefore, more extensive research to determine the values of PK parameters is warranted. After gathering the PK data, evidence-based dosing regimens can be developed.
PubMed: 35745812
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14061241 -
Biomedicines Jun 2022The treatment guidelines for hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) vary among different countries, and several biologics and small molecule inhibitors have been tested for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The treatment guidelines for hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) vary among different countries, and several biologics and small molecule inhibitors have been tested for treating moderate-to-severe HS over the past few years. However, treatment guidelines for HS vary among different countries.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to exam the efficacy and serious adverse events (SAEs) of biologics and small-molecule inhibitors in treating moderate-to-severe HS. Binary outcomes were presented as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
We included 16 RCTs with a total of 2076 participants on nine biologics and three small-molecule inhibitors for treating moderate-to-severe HS, including adalimumab, anakinra, apremilast, avacopan, bimekizumab, CJM112, etanercept, guselkumab, IFX-1, INCB054707, infliximab, and MABp1. The meta-analysis revealed only adalimumab (RR 1.77, 95% CI, 1.44-2.17) and bimekizumab (RR 2.25, 95% CI, 1.03-4.92) achieved significant improvement on hidradenitis suppurativa clinical response (HiSCR), and adalimumab was superior to placebo in achieving dermatology life quality index (DLQI) 0/1 (RR 3.97; 95% CI, 1.70-9.28). No increase in SAEs was found for all included active treatments when compared with placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Adalimumab and bimekizumab are the only two biologics effective in achieving HiSCR with acceptable safety profile, whereas adalimumab is the only biologic effective in achieving DLQI 0/1.
PubMed: 35740325
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10061303 -
Adalimumab Effect on Pain in Hidradenitis Suppurativa Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Dermatology Practical & Conceptual May 2022Pain is experienced by most patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) and has a severe impact on their quality of life. Its management still presents a challenge.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Pain is experienced by most patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) and has a severe impact on their quality of life. Its management still presents a challenge. Adalimumab, a TNF-a antagonist, has shown promising results in HS-related pain reduction.
OBJECTIVES
To aggregate and synthesize all existing evidence regarding the effect of adalimumab on HS-associated pain.
METHODS
We identified original controlled and uncontrolled studies with participants receiving adalimumab, which included change in pain score post-treatment compared to baseline as an end-point. We searched MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The primary endpoint of our study was the mean change (continuous variable) of pain scores at week 12 compared to baseline.
RESULTS
We performed a meta-analysis of 4 randomized controlled trials (282 patients in the intervention group and 266 patients in the control group). Adalimumab brought about a 0.418 reduction in mean pain score at its worst with 95%CI [-0.588, -0.248] and P = 0.000 at 12 weeks after treatment commencement. Four more studies were included in a qualitative synthesis, 2 of which reported statistically significant reduction in pain scores at week 12.
CONCLUSIONS
Adalimumab could be prescribed more readily in cases of HS associated with significant pain.
PubMed: 35646432
DOI: 10.5826/dpc.1202a99 -
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 -
Pharmaceutics May 2022Infliximab and adalimumab are monoclonal antibodies against tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) used to manage inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Therapeutic Drug Monitoring... (Review)
Review
Infliximab and adalimumab are monoclonal antibodies against tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) used to manage inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) has been proven to prevent immunogenicity, to achieve better long-term clinical results and to save costs in IBD treatment. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review on cost-effectiveness analyses of studies that apply TDM of anti-TNF in IBD and to provide a critical analysis of the best scientific knowledge available in the literature. The quality of the included studies was assessed using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). Cost-effectiveness of the TDM strategies was presented as total costs, cost savings, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Thirteen studies that examined the health economics of TDM of anti-TNF in IBD from 2013 to 2021 were included. Eight of them (61.5%) achieved a score between 17 and 23 on the CHEERS checklist. The comparison between the TDM strategy and an empirical strategy was cost saving. The ICER between reactive TDM and an empirical strategy was dominated (favorable) by reactive TDM, whereas the ICER value for proactive TDM compared to an empirical strategy ranged from EUR 56,845 to 3,901,554. This systematic review demonstrated that a TDM strategy is cost-effective or cost-saving in IBD.
PubMed: 35631594
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14051009 -
Biomedicines Apr 2022The long-term use of anti-TNF-α agents can lead to adverse effects, such as infections and immune-mediated cutaneous reactions. Whether de-escalation by dose reduction... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The long-term use of anti-TNF-α agents can lead to adverse effects, such as infections and immune-mediated cutaneous reactions. Whether de-escalation by dose reduction or interval lengthening reduces these adverse effects is uncertain. This systematic review aims to compare the incidence of infections and skin manifestations after anti-TNF-α dose de-escalation with standard dosing.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to 14 January 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing anti-TNF-α de-escalation strategies with standard dosing among patients with inflammatory conditions, that report on infections, skin manifestations, or both, were included. The risk of bias was assessed with the revised Cochrane risk-of bias tool (RCTs) or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (non-RCTs).
RESULTS
Fourteen RCTs and six observational studies (or 2706 patients) were included. Eight RCTs had low risk of bias or some concerns. Four non-RCTs were of good methodological quality. The studies described patients with axial spondyloarthritis (8 studies, 780 patients), rheumatoid arthritis (7 studies, 1458 patients), psoriasis (3 studies, 332 patients), or inflammatory bowel disease (2 studies, 136 patients). De-escalation strategies included interval lengthening (12 studies, 1317 patients), dose reduction (6 studies, 1130 patients), or both (2 studies, 259 patients). Overall, the occurrence of infections and skin manifestations did not differ between standard treatment and de-escalation. The disappearance of infections or skin manifestations after de-escalation was only reported in two studies. The majority of studies focused on etanercept and adalimumab. Heterogeneity in reporting of infections and skin manifestations precluded meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION
We found that anti-TNF-α de-escalation does not reduce infections or skin reactions. A de-escalation strategy should not be recommended for the sole purpose of reducing drug-related adverse effects. The meticulous documentation of adverse effects is recommended to further address this question.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42021252977.
PubMed: 35625771
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10051034 -
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 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Psoriasis is a chronic, immune-mediated skin disease that may occur at any age. Prevalence in children ranges between 0.5 and 1.0% across Europe. Approximately 10-20%...
Psoriasis is a chronic, immune-mediated skin disease that may occur at any age. Prevalence in children ranges between 0.5 and 1.0% across Europe. Approximately 10-20% of paediatric psoriasis patients are moderate-to-severe in severity and may require the use of systemic therapy. Recently, newer targeted, systemic therapies have been licensed for treatment of moderate-to-severe paediatric psoriasis. The objective of this study was to evaluate the short-term efficacy of available antipsoriatic systemic drugs in children with a narrative synthesis of key efficacy from randomized clinical trials. A systematic review of literature was performed on Medline and embase databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized clinical trials investigating the efficacy of treatments licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration and/or the European Medicines Agency for paediatric and adolescent psoriatic population were retrieved and analyzed. Data from this literature review was assessed in line with GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluations). The short-term (12-16 weeks) clinical efficacy from baseline was evaluated according to the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 and 90 compared to baseline. Illustrative comparative risks, relative risk (RR) and the number needed to treat (NNT) for response on PASI 75 and PASI 90 were extracted. A total of five relevant studies were identified on two TNF-alpha blockers (etanercept and adalimumab), the IL12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab and two IL-17 inhibitors (ixekizumab, secukinumab). Comparators were placebo (3 studies), placebo and etanercept (1 study) methotrexate (1 study). All examined drugs resulted efficacious. The probability to achieve PASI 75 and PASI 90 was higher for the IL-12/23 and IL-17 inhibitors. Overall, the anti-IL17s and the anti-IL12/23 antibodies showed a more favourable NNT for PASI 75, whereas IL-17 inhibitors for PASI 90. The approved biological therapies may be beneficial for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in children and adolescents. Since psoriasis is a chronic and often challenging condition with no definitive solution, systematic evaluations of long-term efficacy, drug survival and adverse effects may help careful, individualized, patient-centered clinical decision making.
PubMed: 35450044
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.847308 -
European Review For Medical and... Mar 2022For over ten years, adalimumab (ADA) has been approved for treating active moderate to severe Crohn's disease (CD), showing irreplaceable efficacy. However, the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
For over ten years, adalimumab (ADA) has been approved for treating active moderate to severe Crohn's disease (CD), showing irreplaceable efficacy. However, the difference in efficacy and prognosis when the disease pathology occurs in different locations of the body is still unclear. This study used systematic meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of ADA and prognosis in CD in different locations of disease pathology.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We used "Adalimumab OR ADA OR HUMIRA OR IgG1 monoclonal antibody" AND "Crohn disease OR Crohn's disease OR CD OR IBD OR inflammatory bowel disease" as search strategies for searching electronic databases in the Embase, PubMed and CNKI databases. A systematic meta-analysis of proportions was performed to analyze the data.
RESULTS
A total of 1,253 patients in 15 articles were included in our study. The results showed that treatment with ADA led to overall remission rates that were elevated (70%, 95% CI: 58%-79%) but a nonnegligible overall relapse rate (28%, 95% CI: 12%-53%) in patients with CD. More importantly, we indicated that the use of ADA in patients with colon only (L2), ileum and colon (L3) and upper gastrointestinal tract (L4) CD led to significantly lower clinical remission rates. The use of ADA in patients with L2 led to significantly higher relapse rates, but the use of ADA in patients with ileum only (L1) and L3 CD led to significantly lower relapse rates.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings clarify different remission and relapse rates depending on the location of the disease pathology and may be useful for clinicians' choice of treatment strategies.
Topics: Adalimumab; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Crohn Disease; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Prognosis; Remission Induction
PubMed: 35363354
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202203_28352