Assessing the Quality and Coherence of Network Meta-Analyses of Biologics in Plaque Psoriasis: What Does All This Evidence Synthesis Tell Us?

Increasing transparency in indirect treatment comparisons: is selecting effect modifiers the missing part of the puzzle? A review of methodological approaches and critical considerations

Failure to adjust for effect modifiers (EMs) in indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) can produce biased and uncertain effect estimates. This is particularly important for health technology assessments (HTAs), where the availability of new treatments is based on comparative effectiveness results. Much emphasis has been placed on advancing ITC methods to adjust for EMs, yet whether EMs are appropriately identified for the conduct of ITCs in the first place is unclear. To understand the extent of guidance and requirements for the selection of EMs for ITCs currently available and if and how this guidance is applied in practice, a series of pragmatic reviews of guidance documents from HTA and non-payer organizations, primary published ITC analyses, and prior HTA submissions in two indications (non-small cell lung cancer and psoriasis) was conducted. The reviews showed that current ITC guidance mainly focused on developing analytical methods to adjust for EMs. Some organizations, such as HTA bodies in the UK, France and Germany, recommended the use of literature reviews, expert opinion and statistical methods to identify EMs. No detailed guidance on the selection process or the appropriate literature review approach was found. Similar trends were identified through the database search and review of prior HTA submissions; only few published ITCs and submissions included information on the EM selection process which was either based on findings from the literature, trial subgroup analyses, or clinical input. No reference to a systematic selection approach was found. There is an urgent need to fill the guidance gap identified across the reviews by including a step in ITC guidelines on how EMs should be identified through systematic reviews, formal expert elicitation, and a quantitative assessment of the EM distribution. Researchers and manufacturers are also encouraged to improve transparent reporting and justification of their selection of EMs to allow for an independent review of the set of factors being considered for adjustment. Both will contribute toward reducing bias in the ITC results and ultimately increase confidence in decision-making.

Tuscany consensus for the treatment of moderate-severe psoriasis: update and focus on practical guidelines for place in therapy of anti-IL-17 and anti-IL-23 biologics

Psoriasis is a common chronic skin disease characterized by a worldwide distribution and a natural tendency towards progression. According to the many clinical forms, the extension of the disease and the many comorbidities, almost the 20% of the patients require a systemic treatment. Biologics have greatly changed the ongoing of psoriasis and the quality of life of psoriasis patients. After the anti-TNF-alpha, which were the first biologics in use for psoriasis, the improvement in knowledge of the pathogenetic mechanisms underlying the disease has led to the development of a series of more specific therapies for psoriasis. This "second generation" of biologics includes the interleukin (IL)-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab, IL-17 inhibitors (secukinumab and ixekizumab), the IL-17 receptor A (IL-17RA) antagonist brodalumab, and the IL-23 inhibitors guselkumab, risankizumab and tildrakizumab. This study represents an update of the Tuscany consensus focused on the use of new drugs, such as anti-IL-17 and anti-IL-23 in moderate-to-severe psoriasis and their correct place in therapy according to specific clinical requests and in full respect of the current financial restrictions.

Efficacy of Bimekizumab and Other Biologics in Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis: A Systematic Literature Review and a Network Meta-Analysis

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.

Methods used for indirect comparisons of systemic treatments for psoriasis. A systematic review

Background

Indirect comparisons (including network meta-analyses [NMAs]) allow us to compare benefits and risks of multiple interventions for the same clinical condition when head-to-head comparisons are not feasible.

Objective

To provide guidance to the clinical community on better understanding indirect comparison methods to help them to interpret their results by applying two quality standards to published indirect comparisons of systemic biologics for moderate to severe psoriasis.

Methods

A systematic literature review (SLR) of published indirect comparisons of biologics for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis in adults was conducted. Data extraction was performed using a predefined subset of NICE TSD7 (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technical Support Document 7) checklist questions and methods used to perform each analysis were descriptively compared. Methodological quality of the SLR underlying each indirect comparison was assessed using AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews version 2).

Results

Twenty-two NMAs and four adjusted indirect comparisons (AICs) were identified. Although there were some similarities, for example, application of Bayesian random-effects models, several important methodological aspects varied considerably across NMAs identified, for example, classes of drugs, number of treatments and studies included, reporting and handling of different doses, and reporting of both checks for and investigations of inconsistency. Methodological comparisons across AICs were limited by the small number. The quality of most underlying SLRs described, assessed as overall level of confidence in the results, was 'critically low'.

Conclusions

Understanding that there are different methodologies employed to answer differing research questions is key to helping clinicians to interpret the indirect evidence currently available in psoriasis.

Targeted systemic therapies for psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and comparative synthesis of short-term articular, dermatological, enthesitis and dactylitis outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared biological and targeted systemic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDS) against placebo in psoriatic arthritis (PsA); few have compared them head to head.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of all evaluated DMARDs for active PsA, with a special focus on biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) licensed for PsA or psoriasis.

METHODS

A systematic review identified RCTs and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) compared treatments on efficacy (American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response, resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis) and safety (patients discontinuing due to adverse events (DAE)) outcomes. Subgroup analyses explored ACR response among patients with and without prior biological therapy exposure.

RESULTS

The NMA included 46 studies. Results indicate that some tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (anti-TNFs) may perform numerically, but not significantly, better than interleukin (IL) inhibitors on ACR response but perform worse on PASI response. Few significant differences between bDMARDs on ACR response were observed after subgrouping for prior bDMARD exposure. Guselkumab and IL-17A or IL-17RA inhibitors-brodalumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab-were best on PASI response. These IL-inhibitors and adalimumab were similarly efficacious on resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis. Infliximab with and without methotrexate, certolizumab 400 mg every 4 weeks and tildrakizumab showed the highest rates of DAE; abatacept, golimumab and the IL-inhibitors, the lowest.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite similar efficacy for ACR response, IL-17A and IL-17RA inhibitors and guselkumab offered preferential efficacy to anti-TNFs in skin manifestations, and for enthesitis and dactylitis, thereby supporting drug selection based on predominant clinical phenotype.

Short-Term Efficacy of Biologic Therapies in Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis: A Systematic Literature Review and an Enhanced Multinomial Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Many targeted, systemic therapies have been developed for treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis (PsO). A network meta-analysis (NMA) allows for comparison between treatments not directly compared in randomized controlled trials (RCT). This study's objective was to compare the short-term (10-16 weeks) clinical efficacy according to the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) among approved biologic treatments for moderate-to-severe PsO using a novel (enhanced) NMA model.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) of RCTs for patients with moderate-to-severe PsO was conducted. English publications in MEDLINE, Embase, and The Cochrane Library up to March 2019 were searched. An enhanced multinomial Bayesian NMA was performed to simultaneously adjust for baseline risk and utilize the conditional nature of the PASI (50, 75, 90, and 100) levels. The model relaxes typical constraints that all treatments must have the same ranks across PASI levels.

RESULTS

The SLR resulted in 319 relevant publications, of which 72 publications from 73 RCTs reporting 10- to 16-week data for at least one PASI response level (30,314 total patients) were included. Interleukin (IL) inhibitors (risankizumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, secukinumab, and guselkumab) were the best performing treatments for achieving all PASI levels. Etanercept was outperformed by the other subcutaneous tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors. Application of an enhanced NMA model that allowed treatment rankings to differ by PASI level tested the robustness of results of previous NMAs in PsO.

CONCLUSION

The results of this model confirmed that IL inhibitors are likely the best short-term treatment choices for improving all PASI levels.