1
|
Sbidian E, Chaimani A, Guelimi R, Garcia-Doval I, Hua C, Hughes C, Naldi L, Kinberger M, Afach S, Le Cleach L. Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 7:CD011535. [PMID: 37436070 PMCID: PMC10337265 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011535.pub6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/13/2023]
Abstract
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 benefits and harms 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 benefits and harms. SEARCH METHODS For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2022: 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 12 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 179, and randomised participants to 62,339, 67.1% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.6 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (56%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (152) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (65/179) had high risk of bias, 24 unclear risk, and most (90) low risk. Most studies (138/179) 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. 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) 49.16, 95% CI 20.49 to 117.95), bimekizumab (RR 27.86, 95% CI 23.56 to 32.94), ixekizumab (RR 27.35, 95% CI 23.15 to 32.29), risankizumab (RR 26.16, 95% CI 22.03 to 31.07). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab and ixekizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than secukinumab. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than brodalumab and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab), and anti-IL23 drugs except tildrakizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than ustekinumab, three anti-TNF alpha agents, and deucravacitinib. Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab. Adalimumab, tildrakizumab, 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 very low- to moderate-certainty evidence for all the comparisons. 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 44.6 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 very 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 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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emilie Sbidian
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Clinical Investigation Centre, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Anna Chaimani
- Université de Paris, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), INSERM, F-75004, Paris, France
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
| | - Robin Guelimi
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Ignacio Garcia-Doval
- Department of Dermatology, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo, Vigo, Spain
| | - Camille Hua
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Carolyn Hughes
- c/o Cochrane Skin Group, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Luigi Naldi
- Centro Studi GISED (Italian Group for Epidemiologic Research in Dermatology) - FROM (Research Foundation of Ospedale Maggiore Bergamo), Padiglione Mazzoleni - Presidio Ospedaliero Matteo Rota, Bergamo, Italy
| | - Maria Kinberger
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Sivem Afach
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Laurence Le Cleach
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Sbidian E, Chaimani A, Garcia-Doval I, Doney L, Dressler C, Hua C, Hughes C, Naldi L, Afach S, Le Cleach L. Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 5:CD011535. [PMID: 35603936 PMCID: PMC9125768 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011535.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emilie Sbidian
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Clinical Investigation Centre, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Anna Chaimani
- Université de Paris, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), INSERM, F-75004, Paris, France
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
| | - Ignacio Garcia-Doval
- Department of Dermatology, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo, Vigo, Spain
| | - Liz Doney
- Cochrane Skin, Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Corinna Dressler
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Camille Hua
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Carolyn Hughes
- c/o Cochrane Skin Group, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Luigi Naldi
- Centro Studi GISED (Italian Group for Epidemiologic Research in Dermatology) - FROM (Research Foundation of Ospedale Maggiore Bergamo), Padiglione Mazzoleni - Presidio Ospedaliero Matteo Rota, Bergamo, Italy
| | - Sivem Afach
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Laurence Le Cleach
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Sbidian E, Chaimani A, Garcia-Doval I, Doney L, Dressler C, Hua C, Hughes C, Naldi L, Afach S, Le Cleach L. Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 4:CD011535. [PMID: 33871055 PMCID: PMC8408312 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011535.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emilie Sbidian
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Clinical Investigation Centre, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Anna Chaimani
- Université de Paris, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), INSERM, F-75004, Paris, France
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
| | - Ignacio Garcia-Doval
- Department of Dermatology, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo, Vigo, Spain
| | - Liz Doney
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, Cochrane Skin Group, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Corinna Dressler
- Division of Evidence Based Medicine, Department of Dermatology, Venerology and Allergology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Camille Hua
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Carolyn Hughes
- c/o Cochrane Skin Group, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Luigi Naldi
- Centro Studi GISED (Italian Group for Epidemiologic Research in Dermatology) - FROM (Research Foundation of Ospedale Maggiore Bergamo), Padiglione Mazzoleni - Presidio Ospedaliero Matteo Rota, Bergamo, Italy
| | - Sivem Afach
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Laurence Le Cleach
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Schaap MJ, van Winden ME, Seyger MM, de Jong EM, Lubeek SF. Representation of older adults in randomized controlled trials on systemic treatment in plaque psoriasis: A systematic review. J Am Acad Dermatol 2020; 83:412-424. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.07.079] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2019] [Revised: 07/15/2019] [Accepted: 07/19/2019] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
|
5
|
Marsili F, Travaglini M, Stinco G, Manzoni R, Tiberio R, Prignano F, Mazzotta A, Cannavò SP, Cuccia A, Germino M, Bongiorno MR, Persechino S, Florio T, Pettinato M, Tabanelli M, Sarkar R, Aloisi E, Bartezaghi M, Orsenigo R. Effectiveness of cyclosporine A in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in a real-life clinical setting in Italy: the TRANSITION study. J DERMATOL TREAT 2020; 33:401-407. [PMID: 32349568 DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2020.1757017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
Abstract
Background: Cyclosporine A (CsA) is one of the systemic therapeutic options for moderate-to-severe psoriasis, based on its efficacy and rapidity of action. The current study investigated the response to CsA in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.Materials and Methods: TRANSITION was an observational, cross-sectional, multicentre study which evaluated the proportion of partial- and suboptimal-responders among patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis treated with continuous CsA for ≥12 weeks. Patients demonstrating a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response of ≥90, ≥75 and <90, ≥50 and <75 and <50 were defined as responders, suboptimal-responders, partial-responders, and non-responders, respectively.Results: A total of 196 patients (mean age, 46.6 years; 62.8% males) from 14 sites in Italy were evaluated. At the study visit, the mean (SD) PASI score was 4.2(5.5) compared with 15.3(7.1) prior to the last CsA cycle. For response categories, 39.8%, 22.4%, 16.8%, and 20.9% of patients were responders, suboptimal-responders, partial-responders, and non-responders to CsA treatment. Overall, 28.6% of patients permanently discontinued treatment with CsA (lack of efficacy [10.2%], poor tolerability and voluntary discontinuation [3.6% each], and other [11.7%]).Conclusion: Patients were only partially satisfied with CsA treatment, reporting measurable impact on quality of life. Only 40% patients showed a satisfactory response to CsA.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- F Marsili
- Unit of Dermatology, Versilia Hospital, Lido di Camaiore, Lucca, Italy
| | - M Travaglini
- Centro per la cura della Psoriasi, Hospital "Di Summa-Perrino", Brindisi, Italy
| | - G Stinco
- Institute of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, University Hospital, Udine, Italy
| | - R Manzoni
- Division of Dermatology, Azienda Sanitaria Locale of Biella, Ponderano, Italy
| | - R Tiberio
- SCDU Dermatology, AOU Maggiore della Carità, Novara, Italy
| | - F Prignano
- Department of Health Science Dermatology Unit, University of Florence, Firenze, Italy
| | - A Mazzotta
- Dermatology Unit, San Camillo-Forlanini Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | - S P Cannavò
- Dermatology Unit, University Hospital Policlinico "G. Martino", Messina, Italy
| | - A Cuccia
- Unit of Dermatology, San Donato Hospital, Arezzo, Italy
| | - M Germino
- Department of Dermatology, Hospital Policlinico Città di Udine, Udine, Italy
| | - M R Bongiorno
- Dermatology Unit, University Hospital Policlinico "P. Giaccone", Palermo, Italy
| | - S Persechino
- Dermatology Unit, NESMOS Department, S. Andrea Hospital, University of Rome "Sapienza", Rome, Italy
| | - T Florio
- Dermatology Unit, Hospital Di Venere-Carbonara di Bari, Bari, Italy
| | - M Pettinato
- Dermatology Unit, University Hospital "Policlinico-Vittorio Emanuele", Catania, Italy
| | - M Tabanelli
- U.O.C. Dermatologia Ravenna AUSL Romagna, Ospedale Santa Maria delle Croci, Ravenna, Italy
| | - R Sarkar
- Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland
| | - E Aloisi
- Novartis Farma SpA, Origgio, Italy
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Menter A, Gelfand JM, Connor C, Armstrong AW, Cordoro KM, Davis DMR, Elewski BE, Gordon KB, Gottlieb AB, Kaplan DH, Kavanaugh A, Kiselica M, Kivelevitch D, Korman NJ, Kroshinsky D, Lebwohl M, Leonardi CL, Lichten J, Lim HW, Mehta NN, Paller AS, Parra SL, Pathy AL, Prater EF, Rahimi RS, Rupani RN, Siegel M, Stoff B, Strober BE, Tapper EB, Wong EB, Wu JJ, Hariharan V, Elmets CA. Joint American Academy of Dermatology-National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines of care for the management of psoriasis with systemic nonbiologic therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol 2020; 82:1445-1486. [PMID: 32119894 DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.02.044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 174] [Impact Index Per Article: 43.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2019] [Revised: 02/10/2020] [Accepted: 02/14/2020] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease involving multiple organ systems and affecting approximately 2% of the world's population. In this guideline, we focus the discussion on systemic, nonbiologic medications for the treatment of this disease. We provide detailed discussion of efficacy and safety for the most commonly used medications, including methotrexate, cyclosporine, and acitretin, and provide recommendations to assist prescribers in initiating and managing patients on these treatments. Additionally, we discuss newer therapies, including tofacitinib and apremilast, and briefly touch on a number of other medications, including fumaric acid esters (used outside the United States) and therapies that are no longer widely used for the treatment of psoriasis (ie, hydroxyurea, leflunomide, mycophenolate mofetil, thioguanine, and tacrolimus).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Joel M Gelfand
- University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | | | | | - Kelly M Cordoro
- Department of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, San Diego, California
| | | | | | | | - Alice B Gottlieb
- Department of Dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai, New York, New York
| | | | | | - Matthew Kiselica
- Patient Advocate, National Psoriasis Foundation, Portland, Oregon
| | | | - Neil J Korman
- University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio
| | | | - Mark Lebwohl
- Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | | | - Jason Lichten
- Patient Advocate, National Psoriasis Foundation, Portland, Oregon
| | - Henry W Lim
- Department of Dermatology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan
| | - Nehal N Mehta
- National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Amy S Paller
- Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | | | - Arun L Pathy
- Colorado Permanente Medical Group, Centennial, Colorado
| | | | | | - Reena N Rupani
- Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | | | | | - Bruce E Strober
- Central Connecticut Dermatology, Cromwell, Connecticut; Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Elliot B Tapper
- Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Emily B Wong
- San Antonio Uniformed Services Health Education Consortium, Joint-Base San Antonio, Texas
| | - Jashin J Wu
- Dermatology Research and Education Foundation, Irvine, California
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Sbidian E, Chaimani A, Afach S, Doney L, Dressler C, Hua C, Mazaud C, Phan C, Hughes C, Riddle D, Naldi L, Garcia-Doval I, Le Cleach L. Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 1:CD011535. [PMID: 31917873 PMCID: PMC6956468 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011535.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 66] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emilie Sbidian
- Hôpital Henri Mondor, Department of Dermatology, 51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, Créteil, France, 94000
- Hôpital Henri Mondor, Clinical Investigation Centre, Créteil, France, 94010
- Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Créteil, France
| | - Anna Chaimani
- Université de Paris, Research Center in Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS-UMR1153), Inserm, Inra, F-75004, Paris, France
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
| | - Sivem Afach
- Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Epidemiology in dermatology and evaluation of therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Créteil, France
| | - Liz Doney
- Cochrane Skin Group, The University of Nottingham, Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, A103, King's Meadow Campus, Lenton Lane, Nottingham, UK, NG7 2NR
| | - Corinna Dressler
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Division of Evidence Based Medicine, Department of Dermatology, Venerology and Allergology, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin, Germany, 10117
| | - Camille Hua
- Hôpital Henri Mondor, Department of Dermatology, 51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, Créteil, France, 94000
| | - Canelle Mazaud
- Hôpital Henri Mondor, Department of Dermatology, 51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, Créteil, France, 94000
| | - Céline Phan
- Centre Hospitalier Victor Dupouy, Department of Dermatology, Argenteuil, France
| | - Carolyn Hughes
- The University of Nottingham, c/o Cochrane Skin Group, A103, King's Meadow Campus, Lenton Lane, Nottingham, UK, NG7 2NR
| | - Dru Riddle
- Texas Christian University (TCU), School of Nurse Anesthesia, Fort Worth, Texas, USA
| | - Luigi Naldi
- Padiglione Mazzoleni - Presidio Ospedaliero Matteo Rota, Centro Studi GISED (Italian Group for Epidemiologic Research in Dermatology) - FROM (Research Foundation of Ospedale Maggiore Bergamo), Via Garibaldi 13/15, Bergamo, Italy, 24122
| | - Ignacio Garcia-Doval
- Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo, Department of Dermatology, Meixoeiro sn, Vigo, Spain, 36214
| | - Laurence Le Cleach
- Hôpital Henri Mondor, Department of Dermatology, 51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, Créteil, France, 94000
- Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Créteil, France
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Berth-Jones J, Exton LS, Ladoyanni E, Mohd Mustapa MF, Tebbs VM, Yesudian PD, Levell NJ. British Association of Dermatologists guidelines for the safe and effective prescribing of oral ciclosporin in dermatology 2018. Br J Dermatol 2019; 180:1312-1338. [PMID: 30653672 DOI: 10.1111/bjd.17587] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/20/2018] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- J Berth-Jones
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, CV2 2DX, U.K
| | - L S Exton
- British Association of Dermatologists, Willan House, London, W1T 5HQ, U.K
| | - E Ladoyanni
- Department of Dermatology, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust, Dudley, DY1 2HQ, U.K
| | - M F Mohd Mustapa
- British Association of Dermatologists, Willan House, London, W1T 5HQ, U.K
| | - V M Tebbs
- formerly of George Eliot Hospital, College Street, Nuneaton, CV10 7DJ, U.K
| | - P D Yesudian
- Wrexham Maelor Hospital, Croesnewydd Road, Wrexham, LL13 7TD, U.K
| | - N J Levell
- Dermatology Department, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Colney Lane, Norwich, NR4 7UY, U.K
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Bardazzi F, Odorici G, Magnano M, Patrizi A, Tengattini V. Cyclosporine in clinical practice: a retrospective study comparing fixed dose and body weight-based dose regimens in psoriatic patients. GIORN ITAL DERMAT V 2018; 155:146-149. [PMID: 29368846 DOI: 10.23736/s0392-0488.18.05651-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In the treatment of various diseases, such as diabetes and arterial hypertension, fixed dose therapies have been reported to offer a method to simplify complex treatment regimens. There are numerous clinical trials proving the efficacy of cyclosporine in psoriasis in inducing remission and maintaining results, although there are few studies about the treatment optimization of cyclosporine. METHODS We performed a 15-year retrospective observational study comparing two groups of psoriatic patients matched for age and sex. We assessed the clinical response, the safety and the compliance who took fixed dose of 200 mg cyclosporine (range 2.2-3.3 mg/kg) compared with a group of patients who took body weight-based dosage. Student's t-test was used to assess the difference in terms of PASI 75 achievement, patient-reported compliance on a five-point scale, DLQI questionnaire, laboratory values and blood pressure. RESULTS PASI 75 achievement was not statistically different between the two groups. Compliance was good in both groups, and DLQI was also comparable. Laboratory values and blood pressure were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS Our study showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups in PASI reduction and PASI 75 achievement, even though the fixed dose was often lower (range 2.2-3.3 mg/kg) than the dosage administered depending on weight. Fixed dose cyclosporine is simple and practical to use in specific clinical settings, in particular when the patient's weight ranges from 60 to 90 kg. This approach can result in improved clinical outcomes and a better quality of life for psoriatic patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Federico Bardazzi
- Unit of Dermatology, Department of Specialized, Experimental and Diagnostic Medicine, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Giulia Odorici
- Unit of Dermatology, Department of Specialized, Experimental and Diagnostic Medicine, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy -
| | - Michela Magnano
- Unit of Dermatology, Department of Specialized, Experimental and Diagnostic Medicine, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Annalisa Patrizi
- Unit of Dermatology, Department of Specialized, Experimental and Diagnostic Medicine, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Vera Tengattini
- Unit of Dermatology, Department of Specialized, Experimental and Diagnostic Medicine, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Sbidian E, Chaimani A, Garcia‐Doval I, Do G, Hua C, Mazaud C, Droitcourt C, Hughes C, Ingram JR, Naldi L, Chosidow O, Le Cleach L. Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 12:CD011535. [PMID: 29271481 PMCID: PMC6486272 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011535.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 101] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Ignacio Garcia‐Doval
- Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de VigoDepartment of DermatologyTorrecedeira 10, 2º AVigoSpain36202
| | - Giao Do
- Hôpital Henri MondorDepartment of Dermatology51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de TassignyCréteilFrance94000
| | - Camille Hua
- Hôpital Henri MondorDepartment of Dermatology51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de TassignyCréteilFrance94000
| | - Canelle Mazaud
- Hôpital Henri MondorDepartment of Dermatology51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de TassignyCréteilFrance94000
| | - Catherine Droitcourt
- Université de Rennes 1Department of Dermatology2 rue Henri le GuillouxRennesFrance35000
| | - Carolyn Hughes
- The University of Nottinghamc/o Cochrane Skin GroupA103, King's Meadow CampusLenton LaneNottinghamUKNG7 2NR
| | - John R Ingram
- Cardiff UniversityDepartment of Dermatology & Wound Healing, Cardiff Institute of Infection & Immunity3rd Floor Glamorgan HouseHeath ParkCardiffUKCF14 4XN
| | - Luigi Naldi
- Padiglione Mazzoleni ‐ Presidio Ospedaliero Matteo RotaCentro Studi GISED (Italian Group for Epidemiologic Research in Dermatology) ‐ FROM (Research Foundation of Ospedale Maggiore Bergamo)Via Garibaldi 13/15BergamoItaly24122
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Assessment of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in psoriasis. Arch Dermatol Res 2017; 309:357-370. [DOI: 10.1007/s00403-017-1743-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/10/2016] [Revised: 04/23/2017] [Accepted: 05/03/2017] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
|
12
|
Kolios AG, Yawalkar N, Anliker M, Boehncke WH, Borradori L, Conrad C, Gilliet M, Häusermann P, Itin P, Laffitte E, Mainetti C, French LE, Navarini AA. Swiss S1 Guidelines on the Systemic Treatment of Psoriasis Vulgaris. Dermatology 2016; 232:385-406. [DOI: 10.1159/000445681] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2016] [Accepted: 03/20/2016] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
|
13
|
Ito T, Furukawa F, Iwatsuki K, Matsue H, Shimada S, Takigawa M, Tokura Y. Efficacious treatment of psoriasis with low-dose and intermittent cyclosporin microemulsion therapy. J Dermatol 2014; 41:377-81. [DOI: 10.1111/1346-8138.12455] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2013] [Accepted: 01/21/2014] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Taisuke Ito
- Department of Dermatology; Hamamatsu University School of Medicine; Hamamatsu Japan
| | - Fukumi Furukawa
- Department of Dermatology; Wakayama Medical University; Wakayama Japan
| | - Keiji Iwatsuki
- Department of Dermatology; Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine; Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences; Okayama Japan
| | - Hiroyuki Matsue
- Department of Dermatology; Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine; Chiba Japan
| | - Shinji Shimada
- Department of Dermatology; Faculty of Medicine; University of Yamanashi; Chuo Japan
| | - Masahiro Takigawa
- Department of Dermatology; Hamamatsu University School of Medicine; Hamamatsu Japan
| | - Yoshiki Tokura
- Department of Dermatology; Hamamatsu University School of Medicine; Hamamatsu Japan
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Cyclosporine regimens in plaque psoriasis: an overview with special emphasis on dose, duration, and old and new treatment approaches. ScientificWorldJournal 2013; 2013:805705. [PMID: 23983647 PMCID: PMC3745987 DOI: 10.1155/2013/805705] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2013] [Accepted: 07/02/2013] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Cyclosporine A (CsA) is one of the most effective systemic drugs available for the treatment of psoriasis, as evidenced by the results of several randomized studies and by a prolonged experience in dermatological setting. In clinical practice, CsA is usually used for the induction of psoriasis remission at a daily dose included in the range of 2.5–5 mg/kg and with intermittent short-term regimens, lasting on average 3–6 months. The magnitude and rapidity of response are dose dependent, as well as the risk of development of adverse events. Therefore, the dose should be tailored to patient's needs and general characteristics and adjusted during the treatment course according to both the efficacy and tolerability. Some studies support the feasibility of pulse administration of CsA for a few days per week for both the induction and the maintenance of response in psoriasis patients. This paper will review the data on CsA regimens for plaque-type psoriasis and will focus the attention on dose, treatment duration, novel schedules, and role in combination therapies, including the association with biologicals.
Collapse
|
15
|
Mrowietz U, de Jong EMGJ, Kragballe K, Langley R, Nast A, Puig L, Reich K, Schmitt J, Warren RB. A consensus report on appropriate treatment optimization and transitioning in the management of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2013; 28:438-53. [PMID: 23437792 DOI: 10.1111/jdv.12118] [Citation(s) in RCA: 96] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2012] [Accepted: 01/21/2013] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is limited information on systemic and biological treatment optimization and transitioning in routine clinical practice. OBJECTIVE To provide practical guidance on treatment optimization and transitioning for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. METHODS Dermatologists from 33 countries contributed to the Transitioning Therapies programme. Fourteen questions were identified. Answers were drafted based on systematic literature reviews (7/14 questions) and expert opinion (7/14 questions). Using a modified Delphi procedure, dermatologists from 30 countries voted on their level of agreement with each draft answer (scale: 1-9, strong disagreement to strong agreement). Consensus was defined as ≥75% of participants scoring within the 7-9 range. RESULTS Consensus was achieved on the answers to all questions. Recommendations for the use of cyclosporine and methotrexate were agreed. Transitioning from a conventional systemic therapy to a biological agent may be done directly or with an overlap (if transitioning is required because of lack of efficacy) or potentially with a treatment-free interval (if transitioning is required for safety reasons). Combination therapy may be beneficial. Continuous therapy for patients on biologicals is strongly recommended. However, during successful maintenance with biological monotherapy, a dosage reduction may be considered to limit drug exposure, although this may carry the risk of decreased efficacy. Switching biologicals for reasons of efficacy should be done without a washout period, but switching for reasons of safety may require a treatment-free interval. CONCLUSION This consensus provides practical guidance on treatment optimization and transitioning for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, based on literature reviews and the expert opinion of dermatologists from across the globe.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- U Mrowietz
- Department of Dermatology, Psoriasis-Center, University Medical Center, Schleswig-Holstein (Campus Kiel), Kiel, Germany
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Outcomes in Psoriasis Clinical Trials from January 2011 to March 2012. CURRENT DERMATOLOGY REPORTS 2012. [DOI: 10.1007/s13671-012-0019-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/28/2022]
|
17
|
Johanson M, Zhao XR, Huynh-Ba G, Villar CC. Matrix metalloproteinases, tissue inhibitors of matrix metalloproteinases, and inflammation in cyclosporine A-induced gingival enlargement: a pilot in vitro study using a three-dimensional model of the human oral mucosa. J Periodontol 2012; 84:634-40. [PMID: 22934840 DOI: 10.1902/jop.2012.120224] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND It has been suggested that cyclosporine A (CsA) induces gingival enlargement by promoting an increase in the gingival extracellular matrix (ECM). Nonetheless, the variable occurrence of CsA-induced gingival enlargement in patients receiving this medication indicates a multifactorial pathogenesis. Clinical observations suggest that local inflammation is associated with the development and severity of CsA-induced gingival enlargement. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of CsA and inflammation on the production of ECM homeostatic mediators. METHODS The effects of CsA and inflammation (as assessed using interleukin [IL]-1β) on the secretion of mediators involved in ECM homeostasis were determined using fibroblast monolayers and three-dimensional (3D) models of the human oral mucosa. Fibroblast monolayers and 3D cultures were treated with CsA alone or in combination with IL-1β for up to 72 hours, and the secretion of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, and 13 and tissue inhibitors of MMPs (TIMPs) 1, 2, and 4 into the culture medium was assessed using enzyme-linked immunoassay-based antibody arrays. RESULTS Fibroblast monolayers responded to CsA with no changes in the secretion of ECM mediators. Conversely, 3D cultures responded to CsA treatment with a reduction in MMP-10 secretion. IL-1β alone triggered higher secretory levels of MMPs in both fibroblast monolayers (MMP-3 and MMP-10) and 3D cultures (MMP-9 and MMP-10). Importantly, fibroblast monolayers and 3D cultures treated with a combination of IL-1β and CsA showed a decrease in the MMP-1/TIMP-1 ratio. CONCLUSIONS These data support the hypothesis that inflammation may alter the pathogenesis of CsA-induced gingival enlargement by promoting a synergistic decrease in the MMP-1/TIMP-1 ratio.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew Johanson
- Department of Periodontics, The University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|