-
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 -
Immunotherapy Nov 2010Scleroderma is a multisystem autoimmune disease characterized by an abnormal immune activation associated with the development of underlying vascular and fibrotic... (Review)
Review
Scleroderma is a multisystem autoimmune disease characterized by an abnormal immune activation associated with the development of underlying vascular and fibrotic disease manifestations. This article highlights the current use of drugs targeting the immune system in scleroderma. Nonselective immunosuppression, and in particular cyclophosphamide, remains the main treatment for progressing skin involvement and active interstitial lung disease. Mycophenolate mofetil is a promising alternative to cyclophosphamide. The use of cyclosporine has been limited by modest efficacy and serious renal toxicity. Newer T-cell (sirolimus and alefacept) and B-cell (rituximab)-targeted therapies have provided some encouraging results in small pilot studies. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation can be effective for severe fibrotic skin disease, but toxicity remains a concern. Clinical efficacy and safety of antifibrotic treatments (e.g., imatinib) await confirmation. Newer biological agents targeting key molecular or cellular effectors in scleroderma pathogenesis are now available for clinical testing.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Benzamides; Cyclophosphamide; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Imatinib Mesylate; Immunosuppressive Agents; Immunotherapy; Piperazines; Protein-Tyrosine Kinases; Pyrimidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Scleroderma, Systemic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 21091117
DOI: 10.2217/imt.10.69 -
American Family Physician Feb 2006Chronic plaque psoriasis, the most common form of psoriasis, is a papulosquamous disease defined by erythematous plaques with a silvery scale. The diagnosis usually is... (Review)
Review
Chronic plaque psoriasis, the most common form of psoriasis, is a papulosquamous disease defined by erythematous plaques with a silvery scale. The diagnosis usually is clinical, but occasionally a biopsy is necessary. Psoriasis affects 0.6 to 4.8 percent of the U.S. population, and about 30 percent of affected patients have a first-degree relative with the disease. Psoriasis is a T-cell-mediated autoimmune disease, but certain medications and infections are well-known risk factors. Management of psoriasis includes education about chronicity, realistic expectations, and use of medication. Steroids and vitamin D derivatives (e.g., calcipotriene) are the mainstays of topical therapy. Topical steroids and calcipotriene together may work better than either agent alone. Patients with psoriasis involving more than 20 percent of their skin or those not responding to topical therapy are candidates for light therapy; traditional systemic therapy; or systemic treatment with immunomodulatory drugs such as alefacept, efalizumab, and etanercept.
Topics: Algorithms; Calcitriol; Chronic Disease; Comorbidity; Dermatologic Agents; Humans; Psoriasis; Risk Factors; Ultraviolet Therapy
PubMed: 16506705
DOI: No ID Found -
American Journal of Transplantation :... Oct 2008The first decade of the new millennium has been disappointing for transplant therapeutics: no new immunosuppression agents have been approved. Several high profile drugs... (Review)
Review
The first decade of the new millennium has been disappointing for transplant therapeutics: no new immunosuppression agents have been approved. Several high profile drugs and biologics failed the rigors of clinical trials or had disappointing preclinical results (FTY720, FK778, anti-CDI54, anti-IL15, anti-CD28, R3421). Several challenges face the industry and clinical investigators in bringing novel drugs to the clinic including the difficulty in targeting new endpoints for toxicities or chronic allograft disease since acute rejection has been reduced to below 15% as well as the Food and Drug Administration insistence of excluding the use of immunosuppression regimens embraced by the transplant community in control arms of clinical trials. Currently six new agents, 3 small molecules (ISA247, a semisynthetic analogue of cyclosporine; AEB071, a protein kinase C isoforms inhibitor; CP 690,550, a selective Janus kinase inhibitor) are in phase II trials and 3 biologics (belatacept, a second generation CTLA4Ig; efalizumab, a humanized antiCD11a [LFA1] monoclonal antibody; and alefacept, a LFA3-IgG1 fusion receptor protein) are in phase II/III clinical trials. The preclinical pipeline is not only full but promises to address previously neglected targets and fulfill unmet medical needs in transplant therapeutics.
Topics: B-Lymphocytes; Biological Products; Cell Adhesion; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cytokines; Drug Design; Drug Industry; Humans; Immunosuppression Therapy; Immunosuppressive Agents; Models, Biological; Organ Transplantation; Reperfusion Injury; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 18828764
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2008.02403.x -
Experimental and Clinical... Mar 2014Induction therapy after kidney transplantation is intensive immunosuppression in the initial days after transplant when the immune system of the recipient has the first... (Review)
Review
Induction therapy after kidney transplantation is intensive immunosuppression in the initial days after transplant when the immune system of the recipient has the first contact with donor antigens. Initial intensive immunosuppression may be required to prevent acute rejection and graft loss, and subsequent immunosuppression may be decreased to minimize adverse events associated with immunosuppressive drugs. Induction agents include lymphocyte-depleting antibodies such as rabbit antithymocyte globulin, alemtuzumab, muromonab-CD3, rituximab, and bortezomib; lymphocyte-nondepleting antibodies such as interleukin 2 receptor antibodies; and other discontinued or investigational agents such as efalizumab and alefacept. Induction therapy may be adjusted for special situations such as living-donor kidney transplant, pediatric transplant, hepatitis C virus-seropositive recipients, recipients who require desensitization, patients who are at risk for developing delayed graft function, and old donors. The optimal immunosuppressive regimen may vary, and clinical practice guidelines are available.
Topics: Acute Disease; Drug Administration Schedule; Graft Rejection; Graft Survival; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Kidney Transplantation; Patient Selection; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24635795
DOI: 10.6002/ect.25liver.l58 -
World Journal of Transplantation Dec 2013Excellent outcomes have been achieved in the field of renal transplantation. A significant reduction in acute rejection has been attained at many renal transplant... (Review)
Review
Excellent outcomes have been achieved in the field of renal transplantation. A significant reduction in acute rejection has been attained at many renal transplant centers using contemporary immunosuppressive, consisting of an induction agent, a calcineurin inhibitor, an antiproliferative agent plus or minus a corticosteroid. Despite improvements with these regimens, chronic allograft injury and adverse events still persist. The perfect immunosuppressive regimen would limit or eliminate calcineurin inhibitors and/or corticosteroid toxicity while providing enhanced allograft outcomes. Potential improvements to the calcineurin inhibitor class include a prolonged release tacrolimus formulation and voclosporin, a cyclosporine analog. Belatacept has shown promise as an agent to replace calcineurin inhibitors. A novel, fully-human anti-CD40 monoclonal antibody, ASKP1240, is currently enrolling patients in phase 2 trials with calcineurin minimization and avoidance regimens. Another future goal of transplant immunosuppression is effective and safe treatment of allograft rejection. Novel treatments for antibody mediated rejection include bortezomib and eculizumab. Several investigational agents are no longer being pursed in transplantation including the induction agents, efalizumab and alefacept, and maintenance agents, sotrastaurin and tofacitinib. The purpose of this review is to consolidate the published evidence of the effectiveness and safety of investigational immunosuppressive agents in renal transplant recipients.
PubMed: 24392311
DOI: 10.5500/wjt.v3.i4.68 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2009Psoriasis affects 1-3% of the population, in some people causing changes to the nails and joints in addition to skin lesions. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Psoriasis affects 1-3% of the population, in some people causing changes to the nails and joints in addition to skin lesions.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of systemic drug treatments, topical drug treatments, and non-drug treatments (other than ultraviolet light) for chronic plaque psoriasis? What are the effects of ultraviolet light treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis? What are the effects of combined treatment with drugs plus ultraviolet light on chronic plaque psoriasis? What are the effects of combined systemic plus topical drug treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to August 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 122 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture, adding calcipotriol (topical) to psoralen plus ultraviolet light A or ultraviolet light B, adding oral retinoids to psoralen plus ultraviolet A (PUVA), alefacept, balneotherapy, ciclosporin, dithranol, T cell-targeted therapies, cytokine blocking agents, emollients (alone or plus ultraviolet light B), etanercept, fish oil supplementation, fumaric acid derivatives, Goeckerman treatment, heliotherapy, infliximab, Ingram regimen, keratolytics (salicylic acid, urea), leflunomide, methotrexate, oral pimecrolimus, phototherapy plus balneotherapy, psoralen plus ultraviolet A, psychotherapy, oral retinoids (alone or with ultraviolet light B), systemic drug treatments plus topical vitamin D derivatives, tars, tazarotene, topical corticosteroids (alone or plus oral retinoids), topical Vitamin D derivatives, ultraviolet light A, and ultraviolet light B.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Animals; Dermatologic Agents; Humans; Phototherapy; Psoriasis; Ultraviolet Rays; Ultraviolet Therapy
PubMed: 19445765
DOI: No ID Found -
ImmunoTargets and Therapy 2013The treatment of psoriasis has been revolutionized since the introduction of biologic therapies. Prior to their introduction, it was unclear if psoriasis was primarily a... (Review)
Review
The treatment of psoriasis has been revolutionized since the introduction of biologic therapies. Prior to their introduction, it was unclear if psoriasis was primarily a keratinocyte signaling dysfunction or an autoimmune T-cell mediated pathway. Nonspecific T-cell targeting treatments had been used with some success, but they were limited by a narrow therapeutic index. The nonspecific nature of these agents was fraught with side effects, and the efficacy of these treatments pales in comparison to current treatments. The initial biologic molecules, alefacept and efalizumab, were not specific for any T-cell driven pathway, and neither are currently available in the USA. The successors to these early therapies have shown high efficacy and low side effects in psoriasis and other autoimmune diseases through the specific targeting of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α). Since the initial use of antitumor necrosis factor agents, a renaissance in our understanding of psoriasis has been underway, leading to the elucidation of the T-helper 17 (Th17) from the Th1 pathway. With each new treatment, the pathogenesis for psoriasis continues to be more defined, allowing for improved targeted therapies and the ability to achieve new milestones in efficacy.
PubMed: 27471688
DOI: 10.2147/ITT.S32038