Comparison of three methods for measuring psoriasis severity in clinical studies (Part 2 of 2): use of quality of life to assess construct validity of the Lattice System Physician's Global Assessment, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index and Static Physician

An effective patient-supporting intervention for topical treatment of psoriasis is also cost-effective

BACKGROUND

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of topical treatment combined with regular patient support provided by dermatological nurses in structured consultations of 20-min duration every fourth week improved psoriasis severity, quality of life and treatment adherence compared with topical treatment combined with standard patient support, which is seeing a dermatologist every third month.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the economic impact of the patient support from a healthcare-sector perspective in the RCT.

METHODS

Costs for primary care, secondary healthcare services and costs of prescription medication were compared for the intervention and nonintervention groups over 48 weeks. Health benefits were expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) measured by the EuroQoL five-dimension three-level questionnaire. Regression analyses were used to estimate incremental cost and QALYs.

RESULTS

The incremental cost was estimated at £462, with an average increase of 0.08 QALYs per patients for participants receiving the intervention compared with those receiving standard care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for patients was £5999/QALY. The intervention had an almost 100% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30 000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Addressing adherence issues is critical to improving outcomes for patients with psoriasis who use topical treatment. The personal support intervention was effective with an acceptable increase in costs.

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.

Regular support provided by dermatological nurses improves outcomes in patients with psoriasis treated with topical drugs: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patient adherence to topical antipsoriatic drugs is often poor, leading to poor efficacy. Use of long-term support delivered by dermatological nurses to patients treated with topical drugs may improve outcome.

AIM

To evaluate whether regular support from dermatological nurses improves outcome and treatment adherence in patients with psoriasis receiving topical medications.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) (clinicaltrials.gov registration NCT04220554), in which patients received once-daily topical medications (containing corticosteroids and/or calcipotriol) for as long as their psoriasis was visible. The patients were randomly allocated to standard care by the dermatologist either with (n = 51) or without (n = 52) support from dermatological nurses. The nurse support intervention consisted of a structured dermatological consultation at baseline and Week 1, followed by contact with a nurse each month (in the outpatient clinic or by telephone). The primary outcome was severity of psoriasis, which was measured by the Lattice System Physician's Global Assessment (LS-PGA) and assessed by intention-to-treat analyses using linear mixed regression models for longitudinal data. Secondary outcomes were quality of life (measured by the Dermatology Life Quality Index; DLQI) and good adherence (defined as use of ≥ 80% of recommended doses).

RESULTS

In total, 92 patients (89%) completed the 48-week trial period. The intervention group improved more than the nonintervention group from baseline to Week 24 in LS-PGA (2.21 vs. 1.28, P = 0.001) and in DLQI at Week 12 (6.50 vs. 1.55, P < 0.001). Differences between the two groups in favour of the intervention were observed throughout the study period. More participants in the intervention group had good adherence compared with the nonintervention group (36% vs. 14%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Regular, continued patient support from dermatological nurses increased the efficacy of psoriasis treatment, improved quality of life and enhanced long-term adherence to topical antipsoriatic drugs. However, there is still room for more improvement.

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.

PSORS1 Locus Genotyping Profile in Psoriasis: A Pilot Case-Control Study

(1) Background: The psoriasis susceptibility 1 (PSORS1) locus, located within the major histocompatibility complex, is one of the main genetic determinants for psoriasis, the genotyping profile for three single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) comprising the PSORS1 locus: rs1062470 within PSORS1C1/CDSN genes, rs887466 within PSORS1C3 gene, rs10484554 within LOC105375015 gene, were investigated and correlated with psoriasis risk and severity. (2) Methods: This pilot case-controlled study involved 100 psoriatic patients and 100 healthy individuals. We investigated three SNPs and assessed the relative gene expression profile for the PSORS1C1 gene. We then correlated the results with both disease risk and severity. (3) Results: The most significantly associated SNP in PSORS1 locus with psoriasis was rs10484554 with its C/T genotype 5.63 times more likely to develop psoriasis under codominant comparison. Furthermore, C/T and T/T genotypes were 5 times more likely to develop psoriasis. The T allele was 3 times more likely to develop psoriasis under allelic comparison. The relative gene expression of PSORS1C1 for psoriatic patients showed to be under-expressed compared to normal controls. (4) Conclusions: Our study revealed the association of the three studied SNPs with psoriasis risk and severity in an Egyptian cohort, indicating that rs10484554 could be the major key player in the PSORS1 locus.

Practical update of the Recommendations Published by the Psoriasis Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (GPS) on the Treatment of Psoriasis with Biologic Therapy. Part 1. Concepts and General Management of Psoriasis with Biologic Therapy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

A new, updated AEDV Psoriasis Group consensus document on the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis was needed owing to the approval, in recent years, of a large number of new drugs and changes in the treatment paradigm.

METHODOLOGY

The consensus document was developed using the nominal group technique and a scoping review. First, a designated coordinator selected a group of Psoriasis Group members for the panel. The coordinator defined the objectives and key points for the document and, with the help of a documentalist, conducted a scoping review of articles in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to January 2021. The review included systematic reviews and meta-analyses as well as clinical trials not included in those studies and high-quality real-world studies. National and international clinical practice guidelines and consensus documents on the management of moderate to severe psoriasis were also reviewed. Based on these reviews, the coordinator drew up a set of proposed recommendations, which were then discussed and modified in a nominal group meeting. After several review processes, including external review by other GPs members, the final document was drafted.

RESULTS

The present guidelines include general principles for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and also define treatment goals and criteria for the indication of biologic therapy and the selection of initial and subsequent therapies. Practical issues, such as treatment failure and maintenance of response, are also addressed.

Deucravacitinib in Moderate to Severe Psoriasis: Clinical and Quality-of-Life Outcomes in a Phase 2 Trial

Introduction

Deucravacitinib is an oral, selective tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor that demonstrated therapeutic benefit in a Phase 2 clinical trial of adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. This analysis was designed to evaluate the effect of deucravacitinib on additional clinical and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes and assess the relationship between these outcomes in adults with psoriasis.

Methods

Post-hoc analysis of a 12-week Phase 2 trial was conducted for the three most efficacious dosage groups (3 mg twice daily, 6 mg twice daily, 12 mg once daily) and placebo. Investigator assessments for efficacy included Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), body surface area (BSA) involvement, and static Physician's Global Assessment; QoL was assessed using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). Treatment responses and their associations were evaluated over time.

Results

Deucravacitinib elicited improvement versus placebo as early as Week 4 for most efficacy measures (including changes in absolute PASI and BSA), with efficacy trends observed from Week 2 to Week 12. Improvements in QoL, assessed by achievement of a DLQI overall score of 0/1 (no effect at all on patient’s life), followed a pattern similar to deucravacitinib-related clinical outcomes over 12 weeks. Overall, patients with greater improvements in psoriasis-related clinical signs and symptoms also reported greater improvement in QoL. However, complete skin clearance was not required for achieving DLQI 0/1.

Conclusion

Deucravacitinib treatment produced early response and similar trends in improvements across multiple efficacy assessments and QoL in moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Deucravacitinib has the potential to become a promising new oral therapy for this condition.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier; NCT02931838.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13555-021-00649-y.

Psoriasis is a skin disease that affects up to 2% of the population. In psoriasis, red, scaly lesions develop on the skin driven by an aberrant immune response. Psoriasis impacts not only physical and mental health but also quality of life (QoL). Deucravacitinib is being investigated as a treatment for psoriasis. We performed a Phase 2 dose-ranging, placebo-controlled, 12-week study of deucravacitinib in adults with moderate to severe psoriasis. Patients in the USA, Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, Latvia, Mexico, and Poland participated. The study showed that oral treatment with deucravacitinib was effective using a disease severity score (percentage of patients with ≥ 75% reduction from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score) at Week 12—placebo 7% and deucravacitinib 67%–75% for the three highest dosages—and was generally well tolerated. We further analyzed the association between efficacy and a QoL measure, the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), in patients who received placebo or the most effective dosages of deucravacitinib (≥ 3 mg twice daily). Deucravacitinib was effective at the three dosage levels tested. Skin improvement occurred early during treatment and was mirrored by improvements in DLQI score during the 12 weeks of treatment. Although some patients did not have complete clearance of their psoriasis, a large percentage of those patients still achieved considerable improvement in QoL as measured by achieving a DLQI score of 0/1 (i.e., no effect at all on the patient’s QoL).

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.

Investigator and Patient Global Assessment Measures for Psoriasis Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review on Measurement Properties from the International Dermatology Outcome Measures (IDEOM) Initiative

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The International Dermatology Outcome Measures (IDEOM) has defined a core set of domains to be measured in all psoriasis clinical trials. This set comprises the following domains: skin manifestations, psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis symptoms, health-related quality of life, investigator global, patient global, and treatment satisfaction. The next step is to define how to measure these domains. The objective of this article was to evaluate the quality of available instruments to assess 'investigator global' and 'patient global' domains to identify the most appropriate instruments.

METHODS

Reviewers conducted a systematic literature review to retrieve studies on the measurement properties of instruments including either an investigator global assessment or a patient global assessment. Following the COnsensus based standards for the Selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist, three independent reviewers rated the quality of each study. We then performed a qualitative synthesis of the evidence.

RESULTS

We identified nine investigator global assessments and three patient global assessments, reflecting substantial variability in global assessment instruments. Overall, most measures lacked evidence for content validity and feasibility. The Lattice System-Physician Global Assessment, Product of the Investigator Global Assessment and Body Surface Area, and the professional-Simplified Psoriasis Index had higher levels of evidence for validity, reliability, and/or responsiveness than the 5- and 6-point investigator global assessments. The self-assessment-Simplified Psoriasis Index was the only patient global assessment with evidence for validity, reliability, and responsiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

The 5- and 6-point investigator global assessments, which are the most widely used investigator global assessments in registered clinical trials, have less evidence for measurement properties as compared with the Lattice System-Physician Global Assessment, professional-Simplified Psoriasis Index, and the Product of the Investigator Global Assessment and Body Surface Area. However, all instruments lack evidence for content validity and feasibility. Further validation studies of investigator global assessments and patient global assessments are required to recommend the best global measure for psoriasis clinical trials.

Disease activity and treatment efficacy using patient-level Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores from tildrakizumab phase 3 clinical trials

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether primary efficacy outcomes in plaque psoriasis clinical trials represent residual disease during treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate supplementing dichotomous efficacy with residual disease activity.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis used pooled, patient-level data after tildrakizumab 100 mg (N = 616) or placebo (N = 309) treatment from reSURFACE 1/2 (NCT01722331/NCT01729754) phase 3 clinical trials of patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

RESULTS

Median baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) was 17.9 for patients receiving tildrakizumab 100 mg. At Week 12, median PASI was 2.9, whereas dichotomous PASI 90 response rate was 36.9%, and absolute PASI <5.0, <3.0, and <1.0 were 64.0%, 50.8%, and 23.3%, respectively. At Week 28, median PASI was 1.7, whereas PASI 90 response rate was 51.9%, and absolute PASI <5.0, <3.0, and <1.0 were 75.3%, 62.8%, and 38.0%, respectively. Dermatology Life Quality Index and PASI scores were correlated through Week 28 (r = 0.51, p ≤ .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Disease activity was more reliably estimated by PASI scores than percentage PASI improvement; this may partially explain efficacy disparities between clinical trials and practice. These results suggest supplementing dichotomous PASI improvement with PASI scores and consideration of patient treatment goals could facilitate clinical decisions.

Outcome of cutaneous psoriasis in hepatitis C virus-infected patients treated with Direct-Acting Antiviral therapy

Apart from chronic liver disease, hepatitis C virus (HCV) may be responsible for several extra-hepatic manifestations. Its involvement in psoriasis development is still controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the possible effect of anti-HCV direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment on cutaneous psoriasis. Thirty-seven consecutive HCV patients with cutaneous psoriasis underwent efficacious DAA treatment, and all of them were efficiently cured as shown by HCV RNA negativity 24 weeks after stopping therapy (PT24W). An expert dermatologist evaluated the skin lesions at baseline, end of treatment (EOT) and PT24W using the psoriasis area severity index (PASI) scoring system. The impact on quality of life was measured with the Dermatologic Quality of Life Index (DLQI). Six patients had a stable disease throughout the study period, whereas 31/37 patients (83.8%) showed a significant improvement of the skin lesions at EOT (P < .0001). However, 24 of these 31 patients (77.4%) had a dramatic worsening of the psoriatic lesions at PT24W compared with EOT (P < .001), with lesion severity comparable to baseline. The outcome of psoriasis during and after treatment was independent of baseline PASI score, age, sex, HCV genotype, liver disease stage and of the presence of arterial hypertension, diabetes and autoimmune diseases. In conclusion, DAA-based HCV cure has only a transient effect on skin lesions of patients with concomitant cutaneous 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. 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.

A multi-item Physician Global Assessment scale to assess psoriasis disease severity: validation based on four phase III tofacitinib studies

BACKGROUND

Several different Physician Global Assessment (PGA) versions have been used in clinical studies as a co-primary end point to evaluate psoriasis severity. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor. We performed an analysis of the PGA using data from studies of tofacitinib in moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis.

METHODS

Data from 3641 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis, enrolled in one of four phase III tofacitinib studies (OPT Pivotal 1 and 2, OPT Compare and OPT Retreatment), were used to evaluate a three-item PGA scale.

RESULTS

Confirmatory Factor Analyses showed that equal weighting of the three items (erythema, induration and scaling) was appropriate. The PGA demonstrated acceptable test-retest reliability (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient, 0.7) and internal consistency (Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha ≥ 0.9 at primary time points). The Clinically Important Difference was estimated as 0.55 (95% confidence interval: 0.546-0.563). Known-group validity was shown by demonstrating that PGA scores could discriminate between different degrees of disease severity. The PGA was significantly correlated with other clinical end points in the studies (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, r = 0.75-0.79; Dermatology Life Quality Index, r = 0.44-0.57; Patient Global Assessment, r = 0.66-0.72).

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with previous findings from a phase II study, these results indicate that this PGA is a valid, reliable instrument for evaluating disease severity in clinical studies of psoriasis.

A smartphone application supporting patients with psoriasis improves adherence to topical treatment: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Adherence to topical psoriasis treatments is low, which leads to unsatisfactory treatment results. Smartphone applications (apps) for patient support exist but their potential to improve adherence has not been systematically evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether a study-specific app improves adherence and reduces psoriasis symptoms compared with standard treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT, clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT02858713). Patients received once-daily medication [calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate (Cal/BD) cutaneous foam] and were randomized to no app (n = 66) or app intervention (n = 68) groups. In total, 122 patients (91%) completed the 22-week follow-up. The primary outcome was adherence, which was defined as medication applied ≥ 80% of days during the treatment period and assessed by a chip integrated into the medication dispenser. Secondary outcomes were psoriasis severity measured by the Lattice System Physician's Global Assessment (LS-PGA) and quality of life, measured using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) at all visits.

RESULTS

Intention-to-treat analyses using regression was performed. More patients in the intervention group were adherent to Cal/BD cutaneous foam than those in the nonintervention group at week 4 (65% vs. 38%, P = 0·004). The intervention group showed a greater LS-PGA reduction than the nonintervention group at week 4 (mean 1·86 vs. 1·46, P = 0·047). A similar effect was seen at weeks 8 and 26, although it did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

This RCT demonstrates that the app improved short-term adherence to Cal/BD cutaneous foam treatment and psoriasis severity.

Can an app supporting psoriasis patients improve adherence to topical treatment? A single-blind randomized controlled trial

Background

Topical corticosteroid or corticosteroid/calcipotriol preparations are recommended first-line topical treatments of psoriasis, but a main cause for the lack of efficacy of topical treatments is considered low rates of adherence to topical drugs. Patient support by the use of applications (apps) for smartphones is suggested to improve medical adherence.

Methods/design

Design: An investigator-initiated, single-center, single-blind, parallel-group, phase-4 clinical superiority randomized controlled trial (RCT). Participants: 134 patients 18 to 75 years of age with mild-to-moderate psoriasis, who are capable of reading English language, own a smartphone, and are candidates for the study drug calcipotriol and betamethasone dipropionate (Cal/BD) cutaneous foam once daily prn (pro re nata). Intervention: A 28-day adherence-supporting app providing compulsory daily treatment reminders that pop-up on the smartphone screen with a short alert sound. The app synchronizes through Bluetooth® to an electronic monitor (EM) attached to the medication canister. The EM contains a chip registering the amount of foam, day and time the patient use the foam dispenser. The information is displayed in a diary that shows the amount of Cal/BD cutaneous foam used and the number of applied treatment sessions. The app has an optional diary with the patient’s rating of symptoms. Non-intervention: Use of Cal/BD cutaneous foam and EM without the app. All participants are prescribed Cal/BD cutaneous foam prn for the entire study period.

Primary outcome obtained in week 4: rates of adherence measured by patient report, weight of medication canisters, and number of treatment sessions measured by the EM. Secondary outcomes obtained at baseline, weeks 4, 8, and 26: Lattice System Physician’s Global Assessment (LS-PGA) and Dermatology Quality of Life Index (DLQI).

Discussion

This trial tests of whether an app can improve rates of adherence to a topical antipsoriatic drug. If the app improves rates of adherence and reduces the burden of psoriasis in a clinically significant way, the app could easily be implemented as a standard routine of care in the clinic.

Trial registration

NCT02858713, registered on August 3, 2016. EudraCT number 2016–002143-42.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12895-018-0071-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.