Safety and efficacy of alefacept, efalizumab, etanercept and infliximab in treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

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 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.

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.

Neutrophils in acute inflammation: current concepts and translational implications

Modulation of neutrophil recruitment and function is crucial for targeting inflammatory cells to sites of infection to combat invading pathogens while, at the same time, limiting host tissue injury or autoimmunity. The underlying mechanisms regulating recruitment of neutrophils, 1 of the most abundant inflammatory cells, have gained increasing interest over the years. The previously described classical recruitment cascade of leukocytes has been extended to include capturing, rolling, adhesion, crawling, and transmigration, as well as a reverse-transmigration step that is crucial for balancing immune defense and control of remote organ endothelial leakage. Current developments in the field emphasize the importance of cellular interplay, tissue environmental cues, circadian rhythmicity, detection of neutrophil phenotypes, differential chemokine sensing, and contribution of distinct signaling components to receptor activation and integrin conformations. The use of therapeutics modulating neutrophil activation responses, as well as mutations causing dysfunctional neutrophil receptors and impaired signaling cascades, have been defined in translational animal models. Human correlates of such mutations result in increased susceptibility to infections or organ damage. This review focuses on current advances in the understanding of the regulation of neutrophil recruitment and functionality and translational implications of current discoveries in the field with a focus on acute inflammation and sepsis.

Safety and Efficacy of Risankizumab and Infliximab in the Treatment of Plaque Psoriasis: Results From a Direct and Indirect Meta-Analysis

The objective of our study was to compare a potent drug of the anti-TNF class family, infliximab, with a potent drug of the IL-inhibitors family, risankizumab, in terms of efficacy and safety endpoints. Online databases were searched for relevant placebo-controlled, randomized trials. The following efficacy outcomes were included: PASI-75, PASI-90, and sPGA, as well as the incidence of any adverse events and serious adverse events. The risk ratios (RR) with the respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of different psoriasis scores were pooled in a meta-analysis model, using the Mantel-Haenszel method.

The combined risk ratios (RR) showed that infliximab and risankizumab are effective in increasing the number of patients with more than 75% improvement in the PASI (RR= 26.68, 95% CI [14.98, 47.51] p<0.001) and (RR= 10.17, 95% CI [7.24, 14.30] p<0.001), respectively. Test for subgroup differences showed that risankizumab is more effective. Regarding PASI-90 outcome, risankizumab and infliximab are more effective than placebo (RR= 26.22, 95% CI [14.20, 48.41], p<0.001), and (RR= 15.18, 95% CI [8.72, 26.45], p<0.001) respectively. The results showed that risankizumab does not cause significant serious adverse events (RR = 0.59, 95% CI [0.31, 1.13], p=0.12) while, on the other hand, infliximab causes significant serious adverse events (RR = 2.30, 95% CI [1.08, 4.88], p=0.03). The test of subgroup difference showed that risankizumab is safer (p<0.001). Analysis of the incidence of any adverse events showed that risankizumab is safer as well (p=0.007). Infection rates were similar among both drugs (p=0.05). In conclusion, risankizumab is preferred for the treatment of psoriasis than infliximab, and is significantly more effective and safe.

Emerging Pathophysiological Targets of Psoriasis for Future Therapeutic Strategies

Psoriasis is a chronic autoimmune skin disorder which involves complex interactions between genes, keratinocytes, T-cells and inflammatory cells. It affects 2-3% population worldwide. Molecular biology and cellular immunology of psoriasis, when linked with biotechnology and genetic studies can help researchers to understand the pathophysiology of psoriasis. T-cells activation, keratinocyte hyperproliferation, and angiogenesis are the core mechanisms entailed in the development of psoriasis lesion. Investigators are trying to overcome the challenges of complex pathophysiology pathways involved in this disorder. The different possible hypotheses for its pathophysiology such as growth factors, enzymes, inflammation, and genetic factors mediated pathophysiology have been described in the present review paper in detail. Clinically available drugs only control the symptoms of psoriasis but are not effective for the treatment of the disorder completely and are also associated with some side effects such as itching, renal disorders, hematologic, nonmelanoma skin cancer, pulmonary, gastrointestinal toxicity, etc. This paper made an effort to understand the pathophysiological targets, discuss the research done so far and the treatments available for the effective management of psoriasis.

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.

Safety update of etanercept treatment for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis

Introduction: Conventional topical therapies and disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for patients with psoriasis are often linked to inadequate outcomes and risk of multiple adverse effects. Biologic agents such as etanercept (ETN) have revolutionized the therapeutic management of psoriasis, allowing the treatment of most difficult cases, and fragile patients.Areas covered: The authors searched PubMed using the term 'psoriasis,' 'etanercept,' and 'safety.' Articles considered by the authors to be most relevant, such as randomized controlled studies, cohort studies, and review articles placing emphasis on studies of efficacy and safety were selected. Case reports and letters relating to safety were also included. The main sources of data referenced by these articles were also included in the review. Besides, to get the relevant studies, the reference lists were examined to identify the potentially available studies. The aim of this review is to describe the safety profile of ETN, used for psoriasis treatment, focusing on related clinical implications.Expert opinion: ETN has a favorable safety profile, and its use should be largely considered in psoriatic patients. Caution should be recommended in case of chronic heart failure, autoimmune disease, previous malignancies, familial history of demyelinating diseases, latent TBC infection, chronic HBV and HCV infection or HIV.

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.

Microencapsulated adult porcine islets transplanted intraperitoneally in streptozotocin-diabetic non-human primates

BACKGROUND

Xenogeneic donors would provide an unlimited source of islets for the treatment of type 1 diabetes (T1D). The goal of this study was to assess the function of microencapsulated adult porcine islets (APIs) transplanted ip in streptozotocin (STZ)-diabetic non-human primates (NHPs) given targeted immunosuppression.

METHODS

APIs were encapsulated in: (a) single barium-gelled alginate capsules or (b) double alginate capsules with an inner, islet-containing compartment and a durable, biocompatible outer alginate layer. Immunosuppressed, streptozotocin-diabetic NHPs were transplanted ip with encapsulated APIs, and graft function was monitored by measuring blood glucose, %HbA1c, and porcine C-peptide. At graft failure, explanted capsules were assessed for biocompatibility and durability plus islet viability and functionality. Host immune responses were evaluated by phenotyping peritoneal cell populations, quantitation of peritoneal cytokines and chemokines, and measurement of anti-porcine IgG and IgM plus anti-Gal IgG.

RESULTS

NHP recipients had reduced hyperglycemia, decreased exogenous insulin requirements, and lower percent hemoglobin A1c (%HbA1c) levels. Porcine C-peptide was detected in plasma of all recipients, but these levels diminished with time. However, relatively high levels of porcine C-peptide were detected locally in the peritoneal graft site of some recipients at sacrifice. IV glucose tolerance tests demonstrated metabolic function, but the grafts eventually failed in all diabetic NHPs regardless of the type of encapsulation or the host immunosuppression regimen. Explanted microcapsules were intact, "clean," and free-floating without evidence of fibrosis at graft failure, and some reversed diabetes when re-implanted ip in diabetic immunoincompetent mice. Histology of explanted capsules showed scant evidence of a host cellular response, and viable islets could be found. Flow cytometric analyses of peritoneal cells and peripheral blood showed similarly minimal evidence of a host immune response. Preformed anti-porcine IgG and IgM antibodies were present in recipient plasma, but these levels did not rise post-transplant. Peritoneal graft site cytokine or chemokine levels were equivalent to normal controls, with the exception of minimal elevation observed for IL-6 or IL-1β, GRO-α, I-309, IP-10, and MCP-1. However, we found central necrosis in many of the encapsulated islets after graft failure, and explanted islets expressed endogenous markers of hypoxia (HIF-1α, osteopontin, and GLUT-1), suggesting a role for non-immunologic factors, likely hypoxia, in graft failure.

CONCLUSIONS

With donor xenoislet microencapsulation and host immunosuppression, APIs corrected hyperglycemia after ip transplantation in STZ-diabetic NHPs in the short term. The islet xenografts lost efficacy gradually, but at graft failure, some viable islets remained, substantial porcine C-peptide was detected in the peritoneal graft site, and there was very little evidence of a host immune response. We postulate that chronic effects of non-immunologic factors, such as in vivo hypoxic and hyperglycemic conditions, damaged the encapsulated islet xenografts. To achieve long-term function, new approaches must be developed to prevent this damage, for example, by increasing the oxygen supply to microencapsulated islets in the ip space.

Positive effects of hydrogen-water bathing in patients of psoriasis and parapsoriasis en plaques

Psoriasis and parapsoriasis en plaques are chronic inflammatory skin diseases, both representing therapeutic challenge in daily practice and adversely affecting the quality of life. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) has been evidenced to be involved in the pathogenesis of the chronic inflammatory diseases. We now report that hydrogen water, an effective ROS scavenger, has significant and rapid improvement in disease severity and quality of life for patients with psoriasis and parapsoriasis en plaques. At week 8, our parallel-controlled trial revealed 24.4% of patients (10/41) receiving hydrogen-water bathing achieved at least 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) score compared with 2.9% of patients (1/34) of the control group (Pc = 0.022, OR = 0.094, 95%CI = [0.011, 0.777]). Of patients, 56.1% (23/41) who received bathing achieved at least 50% improvement in PASI score compared with only 17.7%(6/34) of the control group (P = 0.001, OR = 0.168, 95%CI = [0.057, 0.492]). The significant improvement of pruritus was also observed (P = 3.94 × 10⁻⁴). Besides, complete response was observed in 33.3% of patients (2/6) of parapsoriasis en plaques and partial response in 66.7% (4/6) at week 8. Our findings suggested that hydrogen-water bathing therapy could fulfill the unmet need for these chronic inflammatory skin diseases.

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.

Modeling clinical efficacy of the S1P receptor modulator ponesimod in psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Ponesimod is currently the only S1P receptor modulator studied in psoriasis. In a dose-finding study, the active doses showed similar efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

Prediction of efficacy at lower doses to aid clinical phase 3 planning with respect to dose selection, duration of treatment, and patient inclusion criteria based on pharma-co-kinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) modeling and simulation.

METHODS

The dose-finding study treated 326 patients (67 on placebo, 126 on 20mg, and 133 on 40mg) over 16 weeks. PK/PD modeling of steady-state trough concentrations and longitudinal PASI scores was employed to characterize data and simulate scenarios.

RESULTS

PASI score continually decreased with time on ponesimod treatment, reaching a plateau at 16 weeks. Absolute and relative (percent) PASI score change was larger in patients with higher PASI score at baseline. Doses below 10mg were predicted to show lower efficacy than doses of 10mg and higher.

CONCLUSION

Concentration-response modeling was able to predict the efficacy of doses that were not studied. In psoriasis patients, a dose of 10mg (not administered in the study) was predicted to show efficacy similar to 20mg. Disease status (PASI score at baseline) as study inclusion criterion has pronounced influence on study outcome.

Old and New Biological Therapies for Psoriasis

Biological therapy became available for psoriasis with the introduction of alefacept at the beginning of this century. Up to then, systemic treatment options comprised small molecule drugs, targeting the immune system in a non-specific manner. The first biologics targeted T-cell activation and migration and served as an alternative to small molecules. However, significant improvement in outcome was first accomplished with the introduction of tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors that were already approved for other inflammatory disorders, including rheumatic diseases. Along with the progress in understanding psoriasis pathogenesis, highly targeted and effective therapies have since developed with the perspective not only to improve but to clear psoriasis. These accomplishments enable future achievement of advanced goals to individualize treatment best suited for each patient. Mechanistic studies with patients treated with the new highly targeted biologics may guide us towards these goals. This review offers an overview of biologics developed for psoriasis and illustrate a historical progress in the treatment of this common chronic inflammatory skin condition.

T Cell Cosignaling Molecules in Transplantation

The ultimate outcome of alloreactivity versus tolerance following transplantation is potently influenced by the constellation of cosignaling molecules expressed by immune cells during priming with alloantigen, and the net sum of costimulatory and coinhibitory signals transmitted via ligation of these molecules. Intense investigation over the last two decades has yielded a detailed understanding of the kinetics, cellular distribution, and intracellular signaling networks of cosignaling molecules such as the CD28, TNF, and TIM families of receptors in alloimmunity. More recent work has better defined the cellular and molecular mechanisms by which engagement of cosignaling networks serve to either dampen or augment alloimmunity. These findings will likely aid in the rational development of novel immunomodulatory strategies to prolong graft survival and improve outcomes following transplantation.

Malignancy risk of anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha blockers: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

The objective of the study is to systematically review the malignancy risk of anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNFα) agents. Databases of PubMed Medline, OVID EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized control trials, observational studies, and case series that evaluated malignancy risk of anti-TNFα blockers. Search time duration was restricted from January 1st, 2000 to July 16th, 2015. Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaires were used to assess the quality of included reviews. Two methodology trained reviewers separately and repeatedly screened searched studies according to study selection criteria, collected data, and assessed quality. Totally, 42 reviews proved eligible with only one Cochrane review. Anti-TNFα antagonists were extensively used to treat various diseases; nevertheless, malignancy risks were most commonly described in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In RA patients, no increased risks of breast cancer, lymphoma, and non-melanoma skin cancer were found, but if the use of anti-TNFα agents was associated with elevated risk of overall malignancy was still uncertainty. In IBD patients, the use of anti-TNFα inhibitors was not connected with enhanced risk of overall cancer. No increased cancer risk was found in other disease conditions. Twenty-nine reviews were rated as good quality, 12 as moderate, and one as poor. There are no sufficient evidences to draw the conclusion that anti-TNFα blockers have relationship with increased malignancy risk.

The Role of Biologic Therapies in Dermatology

Biologic therapy has dramatically changed the way medicine, and specifically dermatology, is practiced today. The use of biologic agents in dermatology is evolving, with psoriasis being the most common indication for which biologics are used currently. However, several other dermatologic diseases seem to be responsive to biologic therapy, and continuing research and development efforts are elucidating the benefit-risk profiles of various biologic medications in these dermatologic conditions. Although biologic agents have revolutionized the management of dermatologic conditions, cost must also be considered when evaluating management options, especially compared with traditional agents. For example, the cost of 1 year of induction and maintenance treatment of psoriasis in 2014 was estimated to be $53,909 for ustekinumab, $46,395 for etanercept, and $39,041 for adalimumab. Nonetheless, because of their efficacy, the cost of a biologic may be offset by significant reductions in the number of hospital stays, reduction in use of other systemic therapies, and increased satisfaction by patients.32 Thus, understanding their mechanisms of action, labeled and off-label uses in dermatology, and common adverse effects helps to inform clinical decision making and improve patient outcomes.

Original inhibition method of excessive synthesis of pro-inflammatory cytokine of tumour necrosis factor α

Influence on pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines of an ill person is an urgent aspect of treatment of many diseases. For inhibition of synthesis of a high level of pro-inflammatory cytokines, medications which are recombinant monoclonal antibodies, especially to tumour necrosis factor α (TNF-α), are used. However, these methods of treatment require further improvement by elaborating new approaches with a wider spectrum of influence on the immune system.

A completely new method of reduction in high activity of TN F-α with the method of intradermal autoleukocyte immunization is presented in the article. Investigation was performed in a group of patients with psoriasis (24) with a high level of TNF-α in the blood (over 30 pg/ml). Simultaneously such investigation was performed on patients with psoriasis (9) without TNF-α detected (0 pg/ml).

As a result of immunization, a significant reduction in TNF-α occurred in all patients with its high level, in 16 (66.7%) from 24 patients – to 0-5 pg/ml. The level of reduction and duration of the achieved effect was of an individual character and requires further investigation. However, the achieved results prove the expediency of administration of this immunization method for patients requiring reduction of TNF-α synthesis.

However, the content of TNF-α in blood serum could not be detected in most patients with a low level of cytokine (in 6 from 9) after immunization (as well as before immunization), but an increase in its level from 0 to 5-8 pg/ml was observed in 3 patients. On the basis of the conducted research, the authors suggest that the influence of immunization on cytokine synthesis depends on the condition of immune cells and correlation of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines in a patient's skin.

Efficacy and safety of biologics in the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis: a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

We conducted a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials in moderate-to-severe psoriasis treated with biological agents, with a follow-up of 10-14 weeks. Overall, 41 studies, with mean Jadad score of 4.4, and 15,586 patients were included. For the efficacy outcomes PASI 50, 75 and 90 our findings are not conclusive to point what biological agent has the greatest response in short term follow-up. There were no statistical differences between placebo and biologics for the occurrence of infections and serious adverse events. Ustekinumab 45 mg showed lower withdrawal due to adverse events compared with the placebo. Based on data available up to now, it is not possible to determine which biological agent is the best for PASI 50, 75 or 90 after 10-14 weeks of treatment. At the same follow-up, overall safety seems to be the same for all biological agents and Ustekinumab 45 mg the most well tolerated drug. To better understand efficacy and safety, indirect meta-analysis comparing drug-to-drug is required since randomized placebo-controlled trials may not be feasible.

Biological drugs for the treatment of psoriasis in a public health system

OBJECTIVE; To analyze the access and utilization profile of biological medications for psoriasis provided by the judicial system in Brazil.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study. We interviewed a total of 203 patients with psoriasis who were on biological medications obtained by the judicial system of the State of Sao Paulo, from 2004 to 2010. Sociodemographics, medical, and political-administrative characteristics were complemented with data obtained from dispensation orders that included biological medications to treat psoriasis and the legal actions involved. The data was analyzed using an electronic data base and shown as simple variable frequencies. The prescriptions contained in the lawsuits were analyzed according to legal provisions.

RESULTS

A total of 190 lawsuits requesting several biological drugs (adalimumab, efalizumab, etanercept, and infliximab) were analyzed. Patients obtained these medications as a result of injunctions (59.5%) or without having ever demanded biological medication from any health institution (86.2%), i.e., public or private health services. They used the prerogative of free legal aid (72.6%), even though they were represented by private lawyers (91.1%) and treated in private facilities (69.5%). Most of the patients used a biological medication for more than 13 months (66.0%), and some patients were undergoing treatment with this medication when interviewed (44.9%). Approximately one third of the patients discontinued treatment due to worsening of their illness (26.6%), adverse drug reactions (20.5%), lack of efficacy, or because the doctor discontinued this medication (13.8%). None of the analyzed medical prescriptions matched the legal prescribing requirements. Clinical monitoring results showed that 70.3% of the patients had not undergone laboratory examinations (blood work, liver and kidney function tests) for treatment control purposes.

CONCLUSIONS

The plaintiffs resorted to legal action to get access to biological medications because they were either unaware or had difficulty in accessing them through institutional public health system procedures. Access by means of legal action facilitated long-term use of this type of medication through irregular prescriptions and led to a high rate of adverse drug reactions as well as inappropriate clinical monitoring.

Treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis

Skin and joint manifestations associated with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) can significantly impact a patient's quality of life. Successful treatment is imperative in order to improve signs and symptoms of the disease, and to alleviate physical or psychological distress. For patients with mild psoriasis with or without PsA, topical agents and targeted phototherapy are appropriate treatments for psoriasis. Systemic therapies, such as methotrexate and phototherapy are recommended options for patients with more severe psoriasis, but their long-term use is hindered by safety concerns. Advancements in understanding the pathogenesis of psoriasis, including the role of T cells and cytokines, have been crucial to the development of biological therapies. These target the immune system and are suitable options for patients with extensive disease. Biological therapies for the treatment of psoriasis include targeted therapies (alefacept) and anti-cytokine therapies (anti-tumour necrosis factor [TNF] therapies [adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab] and a monoclonal antibody against interleukin [IL]-12 and IL-23 [ustekinumab]). Patients with PsA should be treated appropriately in order to improve symptoms and inhibit structural joint damage. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or local intra-articular injections of corticosteroids can be used successfully in patients with mild PsA; however, neither treatment prevents the development of structural joint damage. For patients with moderate to severely active PsA, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (such as methotrexate), TNF inhibitor treatments (adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab and golimumab) or their combination are considered first-line treatment. This review provides a brief overview of treatment options for psoriasis and PsA, with an emphasis on the efficacy and safety of anti-TNF therapies.

Treatment of psoriasis: focus on clinic-based management with infliximab

Psoriasis is a disabling chronic inflammatory condition of the skin and joints that typically requires long-term treatment. Recommended treatments for psoriasis include a wide range of topical and systemic options, from topical agents and targeted phototherapy for mild psoriasis to traditional systemic agents such as methotrexate, cyclosporine and acitretin for more serious disease. The introduction of targeted biological agents such as T-cell-modulating agents, tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) antagonists and interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23 inhibitors has provided new choices for the management of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis that may offer better long-term efficacy and tolerability than traditional approaches. Most biological agents are administered by subcutaneous injection. Infliximab, a TNFα antagonist, is the only biological agent approved for psoriasis that is administered by intravenous infusion, in the setting of hospital-based or specialized infusion center-based clinics. Infliximab allows weight-based dosing and may offer more rapid disease control than other biological agents, with significant improvements seen as early as 1 week after treatment initiation. This article gives an overview of psoriasis management, focusing on clinic-based infusion therapy with infliximab.

Targeting co-stimulatory pathways: transplantation and autoimmunity

The myriad of co-stimulatory signals expressed, or induced, upon T-cell activation suggests that these signalling pathways shape the character and magnitude of the resulting autoreactive or alloreactive T-cell responses during autoimmunity or transplantation, respectively. Reducing pathological T-cell responses by targeting T-cell co-stimulatory pathways has met with therapeutic success in many instances, but challenges remain. In this Review, we discuss the T-cell co-stimulatory molecules that are known to have critical roles during T-cell activation, expansion, and differentiation. We also outline the functional importance of T-cell co-stimulatory molecules in transplantation, tolerance and autoimmunity, and we describe how therapeutic blockade of these pathways might be harnessed to manipulate the immune response to prevent or attenuate pathological immune responses. Ultimately, understanding the interplay between individual co-stimulatory and co-inhibitory pathways engaged during T-cell activation and differentiation will lead to rational and targeted therapeutic interventions to manipulate T-cell responses and improve clinical outcomes.

Efficacy of switching between tumor necrosis factor-alfa inhibitors in psoriasis: results from the Italian Psocare registry

BACKGROUND

Some studies have shown that switching patients from one tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alfa inhibitor to another may be beneficial when they have an inadequate response or an adverse event.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the variables predicting the efficacy of the second TNF-alfa inhibitor in patients discontinuing the first TNF-alfa inhibitor.

METHODS

Data from all 5423 consecutive patients starting TNF-alfa inhibitor therapy for psoriasis between September 2005 and September 2010 who were included in the Italian Psocare registry were analyzed.

RESULTS

In 105 patients who switched to a second TNF-alfa inhibitor who had complete follow-up data, 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area Severity Index score (PASI 75) was reached by 29% after 16 weeks and by 45.6% after 24 weeks. Patients who switched because of secondary loss of efficacy (loss of initial PASI 75 response) or adverse events/intolerance were more likely to reach PASI 75 than those who switched as a result of primary inefficacy (PASI 75 never achieved) (hazard ratio 2.7, 95% confidence interval 1.3-5.5 vs hazard ratio 2.0, 95% confidence interval 1.0-3.9 and 1, respectively).

LIMITATIONS

There was a small number of patients with complete follow-up data.

CONCLUSION

PASI 75 response in patients who switched from one anti-TNF-alfa agent to another was significantly reduced in patients who showed primary inefficacy of the first anti-TNF-alfa.

The Role of Biological and Small Molecule Therapy in the Management of Psoriatic Arthritis

The therapy of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) has blossomed in the past decade. Inhibition of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) has been at the fore of this approach and has paved the way for the investigation of many other potential pro-inflammatory and signaling pathways. Most of the initial studies of TNF inhibitors in PsA have been conducted in specific populations, largely focusing on those with established, peripheral joint disease. That said, in excess of 10 years’ worth of real world clinical experience has led to increased confidence in the wider use of these agents. We are now faced with an exciting time of discovery of many new molecules; these not only include new, large protein biological agents, but also smaller synthetic chemical molecules, many of which can be administered orally. Those currently under development are discussed within this article. Whilst there is scarce data about their real world efficacy and safety profile, it is evident that the therapeutic armamentarium for treating PsA will greatly increase in the foreseeable future and this is anticipated to improve patient outcomes.

The role of biologic agents in the management of non-infectious uveitis

INTRODUCTION

Uveitis is an intriguing group of disorders characterized by inflammation of the uveal tract. Due to the potential grave consequences of the disease process, it is important to assess the various therapeutic options available for treating uveitis, and their outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

This review discusses the use of conventional agents in the management of uveitis, including discussion of the molecular and clinical properties of corticosteroids, antimetabolites, calcineurin inhibitors and alkylating agents and their side effects. In addition, it also discusses the molecular and clinical properties of novel biologic agents and their side effects. Moreover, recommendations as to when biologic agents should be employed are also discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

We recommend that in general (except in selected cases of Adamantiades-Behçet's disease) biologics should not be used as a first-line therapy for uveitis due to inconvenience, high cost, and potential immunosuppressive effects. However, many biologics are potent in inducing drug-free remission of uveitis and may be employed to manage recurrent diseases or diseases not responsive to conventional agents.

Psoriasis, hepatitis B, and the tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitory agents: a review and recommendations for management

BACKGROUND

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitory agents are currently considered to be contraindicated in psoriatic patients with hepatitis B.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to provide guidance to dermatologists on the use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy in these patients.

METHODS

The current literature was reviewed regarding the use of tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitory agents (etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab) in psoriatic patients with particular reference to hepatitis B infection.

RESULTS

Tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitor therapy may result in reactivated hepatitis B in hepatitis B surface antigen-positive patients with psoriasis. This also occurs, although less frequently in patients with an isolated positive hepatitis B core antibody. Thus, all psoriasis patients should be screened for hepatitis B surface antigen plus hepatitis B core antibody prior to the initiation of tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitor therapy. Infliximab has been associated with more reactivation cases than the other 2 agents and fatalities have been reported with this agent. Evidence is presented that the risk of reactivation can be greatly minimized or eliminated by early or pre-emptive antiviral therapy.

LIMITATIONS

The data is largely based on small case series that are retrospective in nature.

CONCLUSIONS

Hepatitis B screening is essential prior to the initiation of tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitor therapy. Psoriatic patients found to be hepatitis B surface antigen or hepatitis B core antibody-positive should be referred to an appropriate specialist for evaluation and therapy. This would allow for the safe use of tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors in psoriatic patients despite recently published guidelines to the contrary.

Development of MGUS in psoriatic patients: a possible undiagnosed event during anti-TNF-α-treatment

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal gammopathies are haematological conditions characterized by the clonal proliferation of plasma cells which produce a monoclonal immunoglobulin that accumulates in the blood. They have already been reported during treatment with a range of drugs but never before during treatment with the anti-TNF-α treatments: adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab currently used in the therapy of moderate-severe psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

OBJECTIVE

This is a case series describing the development of MGUS in psoriatic patients treated with anti-TNF-α.

METHODS

Three hundred patients receiving an anti-TNF-α treatment for chronic plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis in a clinical setting in Italy, These patients were screened through serum protein electrophoresis to investigate the possible development of MGUS.

RESULTS

Eight patients were found to have developed monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. The median treatment duration for the eight patients was 1 year with excessive IgG present in five patients, IgM accumulation in one patient and a double monoclonal component in two patients.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that there may be an association between anti-TNF-α therapy and development of MGUS.

Biologic therapies in non-rheumatic diseases: lessons for rheumatologists?

Biologic therapies have been licensed to treat rheumatic diseases for more than a decade. In parallel, they have gained acceptance in a variety of non-rheumatic diseases, where their impact has been no less revolutionary. In this Review, we examine the application of biologics in a number of non-rheumatic autoimmune and inflammatory disorders-psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, uveitis, asthma, diabetes, congestive cardiac failure and multiple sclerosis. In particular, we have sought information, or lessons, that could influence their application in rheumatic diseases. For example, we highlight the potential to stratify asthma into groups that might require different targeted approaches, and focus on some of the less common adverse events associated with biologic therapies in multiple sclerosis. Similarly, we examine type 1 diabetes mellitus in the context of potential therapeutic induction of immune tolerance. Working collaboratively, across specialties, there is significant synergy to be gained in regard to understanding how biologic therapies work, how best to use them, and the adverse effects we should be conscious of.

Biological therapy of psoriasis

The treatment of psoriasis has undergone a revolution with the advent of biologic therapies, including infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, efalizumab, and alefacept. These medications are designed to target specific components of the immune system and are a major technological advancement over traditional immunosuppressive medications. These usually being well tolerated are being found useful in a growing number of immune-mediated diseases, psoriasis being just one example. The newest biologic, ustekinumab, is directed against the p40 subunit of the IL-12 and IL-23 cytokines. It has provided a new avenue of therapy for an array of T-cell-mediated diseases. Biologics are generally safe; however, there has been concern over the risk of lymphoma with use of these agents. All anti-TNF-α agents have been associated with a variety of serious and “routine” opportunistic infections.

A pharmacoeconomic analysis of severe psoriasis therapy: a review of treatment choices and cost efficiency

INTRODUCTION

Psoriasis is a chronic, inflammatory disease afflicting 2% of the US population; it results in significant morbidity. The annual healthcare costs related to psoriasis are an estimated $11.3 billion and, with an expanding biologic market, an updated costs analysis is needed.

AREAS COVERED

Current treatments, including systemic agents (acitretin, cyclosporine, methotrexate), phototherapies and all available biologics (adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, alefacept, ustekinumab) appropriate for severe psoriasis are described mechanistically and with regard to their efficacy, quality-of-life improvements and side effects. A cost-efficacy model considering US health-system-based annual costs, clinical and quality-of-life improvements was created. Reported Psoriasis Area and Severity Index improvement of 75% from baseline (PASI-75) scores, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) improvements and estimated costs of medications are described. Annual costs ranged from $1330 for methotrexate to $48,731 for high-dose etanercept. The lowest cost per achieving DLQI minimally important difference was from phototherapy; the highest was from alefacept. The lowest costs per patient achieving PASI-75 was from methotrexate and the highest was from alefacept.

EXPERT OPINION

Phototherapies and methotrexate offer high efficacy for their costs. Therapeutic approaches must be individualized for each patient given all considerations described.

[Clinical characteristics and disease course in patients treated with efalizumab following suspension of marketing authorization by the European medicines agency: a multicenter observational study]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The withdrawal of marketing authorization for efalizumab by the European Medicines Agency in February, 2009 provided a unique opportunity to assess the course of disease in patients who were not subject to the selection criteria and biases that were common in the pivotal trials. The aim of this study was to evaluate the course of psoriasis following forced suspension of efalizumab in a group of patients treated in normal clinical practice. As secondary objectives, we sought to assess the relationships between clinical characteristics, treatment response, and disease course during efalizumab treatment and 12 and 24 weeks after suspension.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Information on the epidemiological profile and disease course during treatment and following suspension of the drug was collected from a group of patients treated with efalizumab. Statistical analyses were performed to identify predictive factors.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-seven patients from 12 Spanish hospitals were included in the study. During treatment, 4% of patients were diagnosed with generalized inflammatory flares. Most patients could be classified as having a good (55%) or moderate (18%) response to treatment. Rebound following withdrawal of efalizumab was observed in 30% of patients. The likelihood of rebound was independent of clinical characteristics, treatment response, or therapeutic approach used by the dermatologist following suspension.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a high frequency of rebound following suspension of efalizumab, exceeding the rate reported in pivotal trials. This is particularly noteworthy given the large proportion of patients with a good response to treatment and therefore believed to have a better prognosis. Other significant findings were the higher frequency of positive treatment response than observed in previous studies (possibly influenced by the mean treatment duration) and the high frequency of generalized inflammatory flares.

Comparison of drug survival rates for adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab in patients with psoriasis vulgaris

BACKGROUND

Adherence to treatment is an indicator of treatment success. Long-term data on adherence to biologic treatment in psoriasis are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors regarding drug survival rate and safety in patients with psoriasis.

METHODS

This study is based on data from the Danish nationwide database DERMBIO covering patients with psoriasis treated with a biologic agent. All patients who received anti-TNF-α treatment in academic referral centres were included. Baseline data, adverse events, time on treatment and reason for stopping treatment were recorded. Hazard ratios (HRs) for factors determining drug survival were calculated by logistic regression.

RESULTS

In total, 882 treatment series with etanercept (n = 311), adalimumab (n = 427) or infliximab (n = 144) were administered to 747 patients. Significant predictors of drug survival were: sex, the anti-TNF-α agent and the previous response to an anti-TNF-α agent. In the group of anti-TNF-α-naïve patients the longest drug survival was observed for infliximab, followed by adalimumab [HR vs. infliximab 3·70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1·99-6·89] and etanercept (HR vs. infliximab 3·18, 95% CI 1·72-5·86). The 4-year drug survival is in the range of 40% for etanercept or adalimumab vs. 70% for infliximab. There was no difference in number of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall efficacy of anti-TNF-α drugs diminishes with time, as envisaged by the progressive loss of patient adherence to treatment. The major reasons for stopping treatment were loss of efficacy, followed by adverse events. Infliximab had the best patient retention ability, with 70% of patients still being on the drug after 4 years of treatment.

Selective targeting of human alloresponsive CD8+ effector memory T cells based on CD2 expression

Costimulation blockade (CoB), specifically CD28/B7 inhibition with belatacept, is an emerging clinical replacement for calcineurin inhibitor-based immunosuppression in allotransplantation. However, there is accumulating evidence that belatacept incompletely controls alloreactive T cells that lose CD28 expression during terminal differentiation. We have recently shown that the CD2-specific fusion protein alefacept controls costimulation blockade-resistant allograft rejection in nonhuman primates. Here, we have investigated the relationship between human alloreactive T cells, costimulation blockade sensitivity and CD2 expression to determine whether these findings warrant potential clinical translation. Using polychromatic flow cytometry, we found that CD8(+) effector memory T cells are distinctly high CD2 and low CD28 expressors. Alloresponsive CD8(+) CD2(hi) CD28(-) T cells contained the highest proportion of cells with polyfunctional cytokine (IFNγ, TNF and IL-2) and cytotoxic effector molecule (CD107a and granzyme B) expression capability. Treatment with belatacept in vitro incompletely attenuated allospecific proliferation, but alefacept inhibited belatacept-resistant proliferation. These results suggest that highly alloreactive effector T cells exert their late stage functions without reliance on ongoing CD28/B7 costimulation. Their high CD2 expression increases their susceptibility to alefacept. These studies combined with in vivo nonhuman primate data provide a rationale for translation of an immunosuppression regimen pairing alefacept and belatacept to human renal transplantation.