Efficacy and safety of cyclosporine versus methotrexate in severe psoriasis: a study from north India

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

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.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

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 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 living systematic review we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to September 2020: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers to the same date. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to eligible RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic 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. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several 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 PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse events). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons, according to CINeMA, as either 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 on treatment hierarchy: 0% (treatment is the worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (treatment is the best for effectiveness or safety).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 158 studies (18 new studies for the update) in our review (57,831 randomised participants, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (58%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 20 treatments. In all, 133 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (53/158) as being at high risk of bias; 25 were at an unclear risk, and 80 at low risk. Most studies (123/158) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report their source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in reaching PASI 90. At class level, in 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 non-biological systemic agents. At drug level, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, risankizumab and guselkumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab, and etanercept. Ustekinumab and adalimumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than etanercept; ustekinumab was more effective than certolizumab, and the clinical effectiveness of ustekinumab and adalimumab was similar. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and three non-biological drugs: fumaric acid esters (FAEs), ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab, and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar, except for ixekizumab which had a better chance of reaching PASI 90 compared with secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab. The clinical effectiveness of these seven drugs was: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 50.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 20.96 to 120.67, SUCRA = 93.6; high-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 32.48, 95% CI 27.13 to 38.87; SUCRA = 90.5; high-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.76, 95% CI 23.96 to 34.54; SUCRA = 84.6; high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86; SUCRA = 81.4; high-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 25.79, 95% CI 21.61 to 30.78; SUCRA = 76.2; high-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.52, 95% CI 21.25 to 30.64; SUCRA = 75; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 23.55, 95% CI 19.48 to 28.48; SUCRA = 68.4; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as mirikizumab, tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to moderate certainty for all the comparisons. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. 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, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 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. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the evidence for all the interventions was of low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials directly comparing active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between non-biological systemic agents 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 participants, 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. 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.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

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. This is the baseline update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2017, in preparation for this Cochrane Review becoming a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our research using the following databases to January 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and the conference proceedings of a number of dermatology meetings. We also searched five trials registers and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) reports (until June 2019). We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic 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. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse effects (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several 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 PASI 90 score) 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, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 140 studies (31 new studies for the update) in our review (51,749 randomised participants, 68% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (59%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 19 treatments. In all, 117 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (57/140) as being at high risk of bias; 42 were at an unclear risk, and 41 at low risk. Most studies (107/140) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report the source of funding. 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. At class level, 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. At drug level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, infliximab, all of the anti-IL17 drugs (ixekizumab, secukinumab, bimekizumab and brodalumab) and the anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab, but not tildrakizumab) were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and 3 anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept. Adalimumab and ustekinumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than certolizumab and etanercept. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and between two conventional drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness for these seven drugs was similar: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 29.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 19.94 to 43.70, Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) = 88.5; moderate-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.12, 95% CI 23.17 to 34.12, SUCRA = 88.3, moderate-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 27.67, 95% CI 22.86 to 33.49, SUCRA = 87.5, high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86, SUCRA = 83.5, low-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.84, 95% CI 20.90 to 31.95; SUCRA = 81; moderate-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 23.97, 95% CI 20.03 to 28.70, SUCRA = 75.4; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 21.96, 95% CI 18.17 to 26.53, SUCRA = 68.7; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to very low certainty for just under half of the treatment estimates in total, and moderate for the others. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For 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 several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab were the best choices for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence (low-certainty evidence for bimekizumab). This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 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, but the evidence for all the interventions was of very low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. 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 participants, 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. 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.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

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.

Psoriasis treatment: Unconventional and non-standard modalities in the era of biologics

Psoriasis is a potentially debilitating inflammatory dermatosis affecting 0.2%-4.8% of the population worldwide causing a significant occupational, personal or psychosocial morbidity to these patients for life. The basic aim of psoriasis therapy is to control the disease to maximum possible extent and improve the patient’s quality of life. Management of triggers for flare-ups, lifestyle modifications, and dietary supplements are often recommended. Intermittent or rotational therapy with frequent alterations in treatment options is usually needed to reduce toxicity of anti-psoriatic drugs in the absence of safer alternatives. Currently, several biological agents categorized as either T-cell targeted (e.g., Alefacept, Efalizumab) or cytokine modulating (e.g., Adalimumab, Infliximab, Etanercept) are available for treating severe psoriasis. However, their high cost is often precluding for most patients. The usefulness of systemic (methotrexate, cyclosporine, acitretin or several other therapeutic agents) or topical (tar, anthralin, corticosteroids or calcipotriol ointments, phototherapy with or without psoralens) therapies has been well established for the management of psoriasis. The literature is also replete with benefits of less used non-standard and unconventional treatment modalities (hydroxycarbamide, azathioprine, leflunomide, mycophenolate mofetil, isotretinoin, fumarates, topical calcineurin inhibitors, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors agonists, statins, sulfasalazine, pentoxifylline, colchicine, grenz ray therapy, excimer laser, climatotherapy and balneophototherapy, peritoneal dialysis, tonsillectomy, ichthyotherapy, etc.). These can be used alternatively to treat psoriasis patients who have mild/minimal lesions, are intolerant to conventional drugs, have developed side effects or achieved recommended cumulative dose, where comorbidities pose unusual therapeutic challenges, or may be as intermittent, rotational or combination treatment alternatives.

Systemic methotrexate for the treatment of psoriasis

In the era of biologic therapies, methotrexate (MTX), a classic immunomodulator, is still the cornerstone of systemic treatment of psoriasis. MTX has been used for many years, achieving good responses with a good safety profile. However, only a few randomized clinical trials have been performed involving MTX, and most of the current evidence comes from pivotal studies of biologic drugs. The aim of this article is to make an extensive review of the MTX mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety and tolerability, especially focusing on the future perspective of this old drug and recent advances in the field of pharmacogenetics.

Current and emerging systemic treatment strategies for psoriasis

Psoriasis is a common chronic inflammatory disease of the skin that has a significant impact on quality of life. A small number of systemic therapies are well established in psoriasis management. These have immunosuppressive and/or anti-proliferative effects on the skin and immune system. As understanding of the pathogenesis of psoriasis has advanced over the last 2 decades, there has been clearer appreciation of the genetic, cellular and immunological components of disease expression, which has provided new insight into potential therapeutic targets, including the development of biological therapies. Biologics offer a unique opportunity to block or inhibit specific key components of psoriasis pathogenesis. The introduction of tumour necrosis factor (TNF).α and interleukin (IL)-12/-23 inhibitors has resulted in remarkable clinical responses in patients with severe psoriasis and has led to the development of a range of other cytokine modulators currently undergoing investigation. More recently, research in keratinocyte biology and immune cell function, particularly intracellular signalling, has afforded additional opportunities to develop a range of small-molecule oral preparations that may prove effective in disease control. This paper reviews current and emerging systemic treatments in the management of psoriasis.

Update of the management of chronic psoriasis: new approaches and emerging treatment options

Psoriasis is a common, chronic inflammatory skin disease which is associated with a number of significant co-morbidities including: impairment of quality of life; cardiovascular disease; and a seronegative arthritis known as psoriatic arthritis. Our understanding of the pathogenesis of psoriasis has developed at a remarkable rate in recent years. These new insights have significantly changed our perception of the condition and have led to the development of several new treatment strategies. Biological agents have proved a major step forward in therapeutic options for psoriasis. The ability to clear, or almost clear, cutaneous disease has changed the outcomes and expectations of many patients with this disease. The impact on both physical and psychological health may be great. This review covers the clinical features and management of psoriasis with specific reference to new therapeutic options.

The use of ciclosporin in psoriasis

Ciclosporin is a cyclic undecapeptide discovered in the 1970s to possess a potent inhibitory action on T lymphocytes. The subsequent discovery, in 1979, that it was remarkably effective in treatment of psoriasis transformed thinking about the nature of the disease, which subsequently became generally recognized as autoimmune in nature. Ciclosporin remains one of the most effective and rapidly acting treatments currently available for psoriasis. Virtually all the diverse manifestations of this disease can respond. The main side effects are nephrotoxicity and hypertension. There is considerable variation between individuals in susceptibility to these so careful monitoring is required. Ciclosporin should be used in single or intermittent short courses for all except the most severe cases as this is safer than continuous treatment. The rate of improvement depends very much on the dose, which ranges from 2 to 5.0 mg/kg/day. Ciclosporin can be combined with any topical treatment and a useful dose-sparing effect can be achieved in this way if patients are compliant. In severe cases ciclosporin is often used in combination with other systemic antipsoriatic drugs in order to spare the dose of each agent and reduce toxicity. Concurrent or intercurrent use of ultraviolet therapy is discouraged due to the increased risk of non-melanoma skin cancer. This article reviews the mode of action, pharmacokinetics, indications, contraindications, side effects, dosage regimens, pretreatment screening and monitoring, drug interactions, and use of treatment combinations with ciclosporin in the management of psoriasis.

Methotrexate versus hydroxycarbamide (hydroxyurea) as a weekly dose to treat moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis: a comparative study

BACKGROUND

Literature is replete with reports on the therapeutic efficacy and toxicity of methotrexate or hydroxycarbamide for treating chronic plaque psoriasis but no comparative study on their efficacy/safety has been carried out. While methotrexate has long been used in weekly doses in the treatment of psoriasis, the efficacy of hydroxycarbamide as a weekly therapy remains universally unexplored.

METHODS

Two groups of 15 patients each having moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis were given weekly doses of methotrexate (15-20 mg/week) or hydroxycarbamide (3-4.5 g/week). The clinical response was assessed by the percentage reduction in the baseline PASI scores for the next 12 weeks.

RESULTS

At the end of 12 weeks, the mean percentage reduction in the PASI score was 77.28+/-18.80 in the methotrexate group and 48.47+/-26.53 in the hydroxycarbamide group. Ten (66.66%) patients in the methotrexate group achieved >75% reduction in the PASI score, while in the hydroxycarbamide group only two (13.33%) patients showed similar results, signifying that methotrexate leads to a faster clearance of the disease. The methotrexate-related side effects, however, were also higher.

CONCLUSIONS

Weekly doses of hydroxycarbamide can be used as an alternative to methotrexate in patients who either experience intolerable methotrexate side effects or have achieved its recommended cumulative dose.

Methotrexate vs. ciclosporin in psoriasis: effectiveness, quality of life and safety. A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

When this study was initiated, no previous studies comparing methotrexate and ciclosporin for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis had been performed.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness, quality of life and side-effects of methotrexate and ciclosporin treatments in a context reflecting normal clinical practice.

METHODS

Eighty-four patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis were randomized to treatment with methotrexate or ciclosporin for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI). The secondary outcome was quality of life, measured by the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). A visual analogue scale (VAS) was used for patients' assessment.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients started treatment and were included in the analysis. Dropout before initiation of treatment was higher in the ciclosporin group. Mean PASI change from baseline at 12 weeks was 58% in the methotrexate group and 72% in the ciclosporin group, showing ciclosporin to be more effective than methotrexate. Improvement of the VAS score was higher in the ciclosporin group. The methotrexate group showed a greater improvement in the subscale Physical Functioning of the SF-36. No significant difference between the groups was found for DLQI.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with methotrexate or ciclosporin for chronic plaque psoriasis brings satisfactory disease control, improved quality of life and tolerable side-effects. A statistically significant difference in effectiveness between treatment groups was recorded, showing ciclosporin to be more effective than methotrexate in a short-term perspective.

Current and future management of psoriasis

Management of psoriasis begins with identification of the extent of cutaneous disease. However, a holistic, contractual approach to treatment is encouraged, with particular reference to psychosocial disability and quality-of-life issues. The presence of psoriasis on palms, soles, body folds, genitals, face, or nails, and concomitant joint disease, are also important when considering treatment options. An evidence-based approach is essential in delineating differences between the many available treatments. However, archaic approaches, especially combinational ones, are routinely used by some clinicians, with inadequate prospective or comparative evidence. Treatments currently available are: topical agents used predominantly for mild disease and for recalcitrant lesions in more severe disease; phototherapy for moderate disease; and systemic agents including photochemotherapy, oral agents, and newer injectable biological agents, which have revolutionised the management of severe psoriasis. Other innovative treatments are undergoing clinical studies, with the aim of maintaining safe, long-term control of the condition.

An attempt to formulate an evidence-based strategy in the management of moderate-to-severe psoriasis: a review of the efficacy and safety of biologics and prebiologic options

Psoriasis is a chronic skin disorder affecting up to 2.5% of the world's population. Despite the myriad treatment options available, there is no uniformly accepted therapeutic approach for moderate-to-severe psoriasis. The objective of this review is to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of available therapeutic options and to formulate general recommendations for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. MEDLINE and Evidence Based Medicine (Cochrane) were used to perform a comprehensive search of the literature from 1986 to 2006. The most scientifically rigorous clinical trial published in the literature was selected for Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) comparison. Only information from clinical trials, human subjects and English language journals are reported in this study. The percentage of PASI 75 reduction at approximately 12 weeks obtained by the following treatment options were: Goeckerman and RePUVA, 100%; calcipotriene plus PUVA, 87%; ciclosporin, 78.2-80.3%; infliximab, 80%; adalimumab 40 mg every other week, 53% and 40 mg/week, 80%; PUVA, 63%; methotrexate, 60%; NB-UVB, 55%; acitretin 52%; etanercept 50 mg twice weekly, 49% and 25 mg twice weekly, 34%; efalizumab, 31.4%; and alefacept 21%. Psoriatic treatments with safer profiles compared with other agents include bath PUVA, Goeckerman and RePUVA. Based on the literature review of efficacy and safety of biologics and prebiologic treatment options for moderate-to-severe psoriasis, the risk:benefit ratio seems most favorable for Goeckerman and RePUVA, followed by either etanercept or adalimumab.

Basic immunosuppressive drugs outside solid organ transplantation

Immunosuppressive drugs are the backbone of solid organ transplantation. The introduction of new immunosuppressive drugs led to improved patient and organ survival rates. Nowadays, acute rejection can be reduced to a minimum. Individualization and avoidance of drug-related adverse effects became a new goal to achieve. The potency of immunosuppressive drugs makes them attractive for use in various autoimmune diseases; therefore, the experience on immunosuppressive drugs outside the field of organ transplantation is analysed in this review.

The cost-effectiveness and cost of treatment failures associated with systemic psoriasis therapies

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is difficult at times to treat and treatment failures are not uncommon regardless of approach. With the advent of expensive biologic therapies for psoriasis there is increasing discussion on the cost efficacy of a given systemic or biologic agent. An alternative and overlooked aspect of cost efficacy is the cost that accrues from treatment failures.

METHODS

We review the literature and develop a model to analyze the cost-effectiveness and the cost of treatment failures per success for various systemic psoriasis agents using a 12-week treatment period.

RESULTS

For continuous-dose agents, the cost-effectiveness results are: methotrexate $623, acitretin $2729, cyclosporine $2969, nUVB $3692, PUVA $4668, etanercept $16 312, and efalizumab $17 196. The cost of expected treatment failures to achieve one success for the same agents were: methotrexate $187, cyclosporine $505, PUVA $767, nUVB $1034, acitretin $1310, etanercept $8319, and efalizumab $12 897.

CONCLUSIONS

Methotrexate appears to be the most cost-effective agent for the treatment of severe psoriasis. However, greater efficacy can be achieved with cyclosporine and PUVA, albeit at a greater cost. Because of the high cost of treatment failures, access to a wide array of therapies and combination regimens should not be discouraged by physicians or insurers.

[Mechanisms and treatment of psoriasis]

Psoriasis is a common dermatosis that affects 3-5% of the European population. Current treatments offer considerable clinical benefits, but their use is limited due to tolerance problems. Recent years have seen the development of new treatments, used separately or in combination to improve the chronic lesions caused by this disease. T cells play an important role in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. Various techniques target the T cells and the immunological mechanisms involved in their activation. In 2005, treatment of psoriasis is directed essentially towards immunological pathways.

Traditional therapies in the management of moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis: an assessment of the benefits and risks

Psoriasis is a chronic, recurrent disease that affects between 1% and 3% of the population. Patients with moderate to severe disease generally require phototherapy (e.g. narrowband ultraviolet B radiation), photochemotherapy (oral psoralen plus ultraviolet A radiation) or systemic agents (e.g. ciclosporin, methotrexate, oral retinoids, fumaric acid esters) to control their disease adequately. In general, these therapeutic modalities have proven to be highly effective in the treatment of psoriasis. However, potentially serious toxicities can limit their long-term use. Given that there is no standard therapeutic approach for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, the benefits and risks of phototherapy, photochemotherapy and systemic therapy must be weighed carefully for each patient, and treatment individualized accordingly. This review summarizes the benefits and risks of traditional, nonbiological therapies for moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis.