1
|
Vyas J, Johns JR, Ali FM, Singh RK, Ingram JR, Salek S, Finlay AY. A systematic review of 454 randomized controlled trials using the Dermatology Life Quality Index: experience in 69 diseases and 43 countries. Br J Dermatol 2024; 190:315-339. [PMID: 36971254 DOI: 10.1093/bjd/ljad079] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/25/2022] [Revised: 01/31/2023] [Accepted: 03/14/2023] [Indexed: 02/18/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Over 29 years of clinical application, the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) has remained the most used patient-reported outcome (PRO) in dermatology due to its robustness, simplicity and ease of use. OBJECTIVES To generate further evidence of the DLQI's utility in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to cover all diseases and interventions. METHODS The methodology followed PRISMA guidelines and included seven bibliographical databases, searching articles published from 1 January 1994 until 16 November 2021. Articles were reviewed independently by two assessors, and an adjudicator resolved any opinion differences. RESULTS Of 3220 screened publications, 454 articles meeting the eligibility criteria for inclusion, describing research on 198 190 patients, were analysed. DLQI scores were primary endpoints in 24 (5.3%) of studies. Most studies were of psoriasis (54.1%), although 69 different diseases were studied. Most study drugs were systemic (85.1%), with biologics comprising 55.9% of all pharmacological interventions. Topical treatments comprised 17.0% of total pharmacological interventions. Nonpharmacological interventions, mainly laser therapy and ultraviolet radiation treatment, comprised 12.2% of the total number of interventions. The majority of studies (63.7%) were multicentric, with trials conducted in at least 42 different countries; 40.2% were conducted in multiple countries. The minimal clinically importance difference (MCID) was reported in the analysis of 15.0% of studies, but only 1.3% considered full score meaning banding of the DLQI. Forty-seven (10.4%) of the studies investigated statistical correlation of the DLQI with clinical severity assessment or other PRO/quality of life tools; and 61-86% of studies had within-group scores differences greater than the MCID in 'active treatment arms'. The Jadad risk-of-bias scale showed that bias was generally low, as 91.8% of the studies had Jadad scores of ≥ 3; only 0.4% of studies showed a high risk of bias from randomization. Thirteen per cent had a high risk of bias from blinding and 10.1% had a high risk of bias from unknown outcomes of all participants in the studies. In 18.5% of the studies the authors declared that they followed an intention-to-treat protocol; imputation for missing DLQI data was used in 34.4% of studies. CONCLUSIONS This systematic review provides a wealth of evidence of the use of the DLQI in clinical trials to inform researchers' and -clinicians' decisions for its further use. Recommendations are also made for improving the reporting of data from future RCTs using the DLQI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jeffrey R Johns
- Division of Infection and Immunity, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Faraz M Ali
- Division of Infection and Immunity, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Ravinder K Singh
- Division of Infection and Immunity, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - John R Ingram
- Division of Infection and Immunity, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Sam Salek
- School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK
| | - Andrew Y Finlay
- Division of Infection and Immunity, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Polesie S, Alinaghi F, Egeberg A. A systematic review investigating at what proportion clinical images are shared in prospective randomized controlled trials involving patients with psoriasis and biological agents. J DERMATOL TREAT 2023; 34:2281261. [PMID: 37965743 DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2023.2281261] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2023] [Accepted: 11/02/2023] [Indexed: 11/16/2023]
Abstract
For many patients including those with psoriasis, scientific manuscripts comprising clinical outcomes including psoriasis area severity index (PASI) and/or physician global assessment (PGA) may be difficult to understand. However, most patients can relate to images at baseline and follow-up, particularly for dermatological diseases. This study aimed to assess the proportion of shared clinical images in psoriasis trials. A systematic review adhering to the PRISMA guidelines was performed. The review was limited to randomized controlled trials, and among these, only investigations involving biological agents for treatment of psoriasis were included. The Embase, MEDLINE and Scopus databases were searched for eligible studies published from inception to October 26, 2021. In total, 152 studies were included. When combining these, 62,871 patients were randomized. Overall, 203 images were shared depicting 60 patients in the manuscripts yielding an overall sharing rate of 0.1%. Patient images are seldom incorporated in clinical trial manuscripts which impairs interpretation for patients. Inclusion of image material would strengthen the patients' perspective and understanding on what treatment effects that can be expected. As such, this systematic review should be an invitation to the pharmaceutical industry, other sponsors, and editorial offices to improve easy transfer of information to patients using image data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sam Polesie
- Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Farzad Alinaghi
- National Allergy Research Centre, Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Hellerup, Denmark
| | - Alexander Egeberg
- Department of Dermatology, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Sbidian E, Chaimani A, Guelimi R, Garcia-Doval I, Hua C, Hughes C, Naldi L, Kinberger M, Afach S, Le Cleach L. Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 7:CD011535. [PMID: 37436070 PMCID: PMC10337265 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011535.pub6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/13/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES To compare the benefits and harms of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their benefits and harms. SEARCH METHODS For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2022: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety). MAIN RESULTS This update includes an additional 12 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 179, and randomised participants to 62,339, 67.1% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.6 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (56%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (152) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (65/179) had high risk of bias, 24 unclear risk, and most (90) low risk. Most studies (138/179) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 49.16, 95% CI 20.49 to 117.95), bimekizumab (RR 27.86, 95% CI 23.56 to 32.94), ixekizumab (RR 27.35, 95% CI 23.15 to 32.29), risankizumab (RR 26.16, 95% CI 22.03 to 31.07). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab and ixekizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than secukinumab. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than brodalumab and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab), and anti-IL23 drugs except tildrakizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than ustekinumab, three anti-TNF alpha agents, and deucravacitinib. Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab. Adalimumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with very low- to moderate-certainty evidence for all the comparisons. The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.6 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was very low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emilie Sbidian
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Clinical Investigation Centre, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Anna Chaimani
- Université de Paris, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), INSERM, F-75004, Paris, France
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
| | - Robin Guelimi
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Ignacio Garcia-Doval
- Department of Dermatology, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo, Vigo, Spain
| | - Camille Hua
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Carolyn Hughes
- c/o Cochrane Skin Group, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Luigi Naldi
- Centro Studi GISED (Italian Group for Epidemiologic Research in Dermatology) - FROM (Research Foundation of Ospedale Maggiore Bergamo), Padiglione Mazzoleni - Presidio Ospedaliero Matteo Rota, Bergamo, Italy
| | - Maria Kinberger
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Sivem Afach
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Laurence Le Cleach
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Sbidian E, Chaimani A, Garcia-Doval I, Doney L, Dressler C, Hua C, Hughes C, Naldi L, Afach S, Le Cleach L. Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 5:CD011535. [PMID: 35603936 PMCID: PMC9125768 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011535.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES To compare the efficacy and safety of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety. SEARCH METHODS For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2021: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety). MAIN RESULTS This update includes an additional 19 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 167, and randomised participants to 58,912, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.5 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (57%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (140) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (57/167) had high risk of bias; 23 unclear risk, and most (87) low risk. Most studies (127/167) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions, except anti-IL23. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23 and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 50.19, 95% CI 20.92 to 120.45), bimekizumab (RR 30.27, 95% CI 25.45 to 36.01), ixekizumab (RR 30.19, 95% CI 25.38 to 35.93), risankizumab (RR 28.75, 95% CI 24.03 to 34.39). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab and risankizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than other anti-IL17 drugs (secukinumab and brodalumab) and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab and brodalumab) and anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab) except tildrakizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents (adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept). Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab; adalimumab and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low- to moderate-certainty for all the comparisons (except methotrexate versus placebo, which was high-certainty). The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.5 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports from regulatory agencies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emilie Sbidian
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Clinical Investigation Centre, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Anna Chaimani
- Université de Paris, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), INSERM, F-75004, Paris, France
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
| | - Ignacio Garcia-Doval
- Department of Dermatology, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo, Vigo, Spain
| | - Liz Doney
- Cochrane Skin, Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Corinna Dressler
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Camille Hua
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Carolyn Hughes
- c/o Cochrane Skin Group, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Luigi Naldi
- Centro Studi GISED (Italian Group for Epidemiologic Research in Dermatology) - FROM (Research Foundation of Ospedale Maggiore Bergamo), Padiglione Mazzoleni - Presidio Ospedaliero Matteo Rota, Bergamo, Italy
| | - Sivem Afach
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Laurence Le Cleach
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Arora S, Das P, Arora G. Systematic Review and Recommendations to Combine Newer Therapies With Conventional Therapy in Psoriatic Disease. Front Med (Lausanne) 2021; 8:696597. [PMID: 34490293 PMCID: PMC8416676 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.696597] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2021] [Accepted: 07/28/2021] [Indexed: 01/16/2023] Open
Abstract
Background: Psoriasis continues to have unmet needs in its management despite introduction of newer molecules. Monotherapy with these newer agents may not achieve therapeutic goals in all cases, hence necessitating their combinations with other molecules. Improved understanding of newer as well as conventional treatment modalities and experiences in their combinations hence necessitates therapeutic guidelines for their use in psoriasis. Objective: To review the combinations of treatments reported in literature and recommendations for their use based on best current evidence in literature. Methods: A literature review of MEDLINE database for studies evaluating combinations of newer therapies with conventional therapies in psoriasis was done. Newer therapies were identified as biologic disease modifying anti rheumatic drugs and other molecules such as apremilast while conventional therapies included methotrexate, cyclosporine, or retinoids, phototherapy and others. The therapeutic guidelines are proposed with the aim to provide evidenced based approach to combine newer and conventional agents in day-to-day psoriasis management. Findings: Combination of acitretin and narrow band ultraviolet B (NB-UVB)/Psoralen with ultraviolet A (PUVA) achieves faster clearance and allows reduction of dose of the latter. A variable outcome is reported of methotrexate with TNF-α inhibitors vs. TNF-α inhibitors alone, although addition of methotrexate appears to reduce immunogenicity of TNF-α inhibitors thereby preventing formation of anti-drug antibodies especially in case of infliximab. While combination of acitretin and PUVA is beneficial, combining TNF-α inhibitors and phototherapy too produces better and faster results but long term risks of Non Melanoma Skin Cancers (NMSCs) may preclude their use together. Combination of cyclosporine and phototherapy is not recommended due to greater chances of NMSCs. Adding phototherapy to Fumaric Acid Esters (FAEs) improves efficacy. Apremilast can be safely combined with available biologic agents in patients with plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis not responding adequately to biologics alone. Hydroxyurea and acitretin may be used together increasing their efficacy and reducing doses of both and hence their adverse effects. Conclusion: Selected clinical scenarios shall benefit from combinations therapies, improving efficacy of both conventional and newer agents and at the same time helping reduce toxicity of higher dosages when used individually.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sandeep Arora
- Department of Dermatology, Army College of Medical Sciences & Base Hospital Delhi Cantt, New Delhi, India
| | - Pankaj Das
- Department of Dermatology, Army College of Medical Sciences & Base Hospital Delhi Cantt, New Delhi, India
| | - Gulhima Arora
- Consultant Dermatologist, Mehektagul Dermaclinic, New Delhi, India
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Sbidian E, Chaimani A, Garcia-Doval I, Doney L, Dressler C, Hua C, Hughes C, Naldi L, Afach S, Le Cleach L. Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 4:CD011535. [PMID: 33871055 PMCID: PMC8408312 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011535.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES To compare the efficacy and safety of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety. SEARCH METHODS For this living systematic review we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to September 2020: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers to the same date. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to eligible RCTs. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse events). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons, according to CINeMA, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer on treatment hierarchy: 0% (treatment is the worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (treatment is the best for effectiveness or safety). MAIN RESULTS We included 158 studies (18 new studies for the update) in our review (57,831 randomised participants, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (58%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 20 treatments. In all, 133 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (53/158) as being at high risk of bias; 25 were at an unclear risk, and 80 at low risk. Most studies (123/158) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report their source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in reaching PASI 90. At class level, in reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the non-biological systemic agents. At drug level, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, risankizumab and guselkumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab, and etanercept. Ustekinumab and adalimumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than etanercept; ustekinumab was more effective than certolizumab, and the clinical effectiveness of ustekinumab and adalimumab was similar. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and three non-biological drugs: fumaric acid esters (FAEs), ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab, and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar, except for ixekizumab which had a better chance of reaching PASI 90 compared with secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab. The clinical effectiveness of these seven drugs was: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 50.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 20.96 to 120.67, SUCRA = 93.6; high-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 32.48, 95% CI 27.13 to 38.87; SUCRA = 90.5; high-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.76, 95% CI 23.96 to 34.54; SUCRA = 84.6; high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86; SUCRA = 81.4; high-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 25.79, 95% CI 21.61 to 30.78; SUCRA = 76.2; high-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.52, 95% CI 21.25 to 30.64; SUCRA = 75; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 23.55, 95% CI 19.48 to 28.48; SUCRA = 68.4; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as mirikizumab, tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to moderate certainty for all the comparisons. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the evidence for all the interventions was of low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials directly comparing active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between non-biological systemic agents and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emilie Sbidian
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Clinical Investigation Centre, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Anna Chaimani
- Université de Paris, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), INSERM, F-75004, Paris, France
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
| | - Ignacio Garcia-Doval
- Department of Dermatology, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo, Vigo, Spain
| | - Liz Doney
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, Cochrane Skin Group, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Corinna Dressler
- Division of Evidence Based Medicine, Department of Dermatology, Venerology and Allergology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Camille Hua
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Carolyn Hughes
- c/o Cochrane Skin Group, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Luigi Naldi
- Centro Studi GISED (Italian Group for Epidemiologic Research in Dermatology) - FROM (Research Foundation of Ospedale Maggiore Bergamo), Padiglione Mazzoleni - Presidio Ospedaliero Matteo Rota, Bergamo, Italy
| | - Sivem Afach
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Laurence Le Cleach
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Schaap MJ, van Winden ME, Seyger MM, de Jong EM, Lubeek SF. Representation of older adults in randomized controlled trials on systemic treatment in plaque psoriasis: A systematic review. J Am Acad Dermatol 2020; 83:412-424. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.07.079] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2019] [Revised: 07/15/2019] [Accepted: 07/19/2019] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
|
8
|
Sbidian E, Chaimani A, Afach S, Doney L, Dressler C, Hua C, Mazaud C, Phan C, Hughes C, Riddle D, Naldi L, Garcia-Doval I, Le Cleach L. Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 1:CD011535. [PMID: 31917873 PMCID: PMC6956468 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011535.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 62] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. This is the baseline update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2017, in preparation for this Cochrane Review becoming a living systematic review. OBJECTIVES To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety. SEARCH METHODS We updated our research using the following databases to January 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and the conference proceedings of a number of dermatology meetings. We also searched five trials registers and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) reports (until June 2019). We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant RCTs. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse effects (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse effects). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes, according to GRADE, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. MAIN RESULTS We included 140 studies (31 new studies for the update) in our review (51,749 randomised participants, 68% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (59%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 19 treatments. In all, 117 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (57/140) as being at high risk of bias; 42 were at an unclear risk, and 41 at low risk. Most studies (107/140) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report the source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90. At class level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents. At drug level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, infliximab, all of the anti-IL17 drugs (ixekizumab, secukinumab, bimekizumab and brodalumab) and the anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab, but not tildrakizumab) were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and 3 anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept. Adalimumab and ustekinumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than certolizumab and etanercept. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and between two conventional drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness for these seven drugs was similar: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 29.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 19.94 to 43.70, Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) = 88.5; moderate-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.12, 95% CI 23.17 to 34.12, SUCRA = 88.3, moderate-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 27.67, 95% CI 22.86 to 33.49, SUCRA = 87.5, high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86, SUCRA = 83.5, low-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.84, 95% CI 20.90 to 31.95; SUCRA = 81; moderate-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 23.97, 95% CI 20.03 to 28.70, SUCRA = 75.4; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 21.96, 95% CI 18.17 to 26.53, SUCRA = 68.7; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to very low certainty for just under half of the treatment estimates in total, and moderate for the others. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were very similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab were the best choices for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence (low-certainty evidence for bimekizumab). This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. Indeed, we found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, but the evidence for all the interventions was of very low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials comparing directly active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between conventional systemic and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emilie Sbidian
- Hôpital Henri Mondor, Department of Dermatology, 51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, Créteil, France, 94000
- Hôpital Henri Mondor, Clinical Investigation Centre, Créteil, France, 94010
- Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Créteil, France
| | - Anna Chaimani
- Université de Paris, Research Center in Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS-UMR1153), Inserm, Inra, F-75004, Paris, France
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
| | - Sivem Afach
- Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Epidemiology in dermatology and evaluation of therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Créteil, France
| | - Liz Doney
- Cochrane Skin Group, The University of Nottingham, Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, A103, King's Meadow Campus, Lenton Lane, Nottingham, UK, NG7 2NR
| | - Corinna Dressler
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Division of Evidence Based Medicine, Department of Dermatology, Venerology and Allergology, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin, Germany, 10117
| | - Camille Hua
- Hôpital Henri Mondor, Department of Dermatology, 51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, Créteil, France, 94000
| | - Canelle Mazaud
- Hôpital Henri Mondor, Department of Dermatology, 51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, Créteil, France, 94000
| | - Céline Phan
- Centre Hospitalier Victor Dupouy, Department of Dermatology, Argenteuil, France
| | - Carolyn Hughes
- The University of Nottingham, c/o Cochrane Skin Group, A103, King's Meadow Campus, Lenton Lane, Nottingham, UK, NG7 2NR
| | - Dru Riddle
- Texas Christian University (TCU), School of Nurse Anesthesia, Fort Worth, Texas, USA
| | - Luigi Naldi
- Padiglione Mazzoleni - Presidio Ospedaliero Matteo Rota, Centro Studi GISED (Italian Group for Epidemiologic Research in Dermatology) - FROM (Research Foundation of Ospedale Maggiore Bergamo), Via Garibaldi 13/15, Bergamo, Italy, 24122
| | - Ignacio Garcia-Doval
- Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo, Department of Dermatology, Meixoeiro sn, Vigo, Spain, 36214
| | - Laurence Le Cleach
- Hôpital Henri Mondor, Department of Dermatology, 51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, Créteil, France, 94000
- Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Créteil, France
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Mrowietz U, Barker J, Boehncke WH, Iversen L, Kirby B, Naldi L, Reich K, Tanew A, van de Kerkhof P, Warren R. Clinical use of dimethyl fumarate in moderate-to-severe plaque-type psoriasis: a European expert consensus. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2018; 32 Suppl 3:3-14. [DOI: 10.1111/jdv.15218] [Citation(s) in RCA: 51] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2018] [Accepted: 08/24/2018] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- U. Mrowietz
- Psoriasis-Centre at the Department of Dermatology; University Medical Centre Schleswig-Holstein; Kiel Germany
| | - J. Barker
- St John's Institute of Dermatology; King's College London; London UK
| | - W.-H. Boehncke
- Division of Dermatology and Venereology; Geneva University Hospitals; Geneva Switzerland
- Department of Pathology and Immunology; Faculty of Medicine; University of Geneva; Geneva Switzerland
| | - L. Iversen
- Department of Dermatology; Aarhus University Hospital; Aarhus Denmark
| | - B. Kirby
- Department of Dermatology; St. Vincent's University Hospital; Dublin Ireland
| | - L. Naldi
- Centro Studi GISED; Bergamo Italy
- Department of Dermatology; Ospedale san Bortolo di Vicenza; Vicenza Italy
| | - K. Reich
- Dermatologikum Berlin and SCIderm Research Institute; Hamburg Germany
| | - A. Tanew
- Department of Dermatology; Medical University of Vienna; Vienna Austria
| | - P.C.M. van de Kerkhof
- Department of Dermatology; Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre; Nijmegen The Netherlands
| | - R.B. Warren
- Dermatology Centre; Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust; Salford UK
- Manchester Academic Health Science Centre; Manchester NIHR Biomedical Research Centre; The University of Manchester; Manchester UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Abstract
AIM Etanercept has shown to mediate a favorable effect on immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID), including plaque psoriasis. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of etanercept could improve clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness. A high intrapatient variability (IPV) of etanercept trough concentrations at standard dosing would reduce the feasibility of therapeutic drug monitoring. Studies have focused on the interpatient differences associated with the exposure to biologics. The aim of this study was to determine IPV of etanercept and correlate etanercept trough concentrations and IPV with treatment response. METHODS Repetitive serum samples of 29 psoriasis patients on standard etanercept maintenance treatment were collected. In these samples, etanercept trough concentrations were determined and IPV was assessed in relation to response to treatment. RESULTS The median IPV of etanercept trough concentrations was 33.7% (Q1 = 21.3% and Q3 = 51.7%) ranging from 8% to 155%. All 6 nonresponders showed an IPV at or above the median value of 33.7%. The 6 nonresponders showed a higher IPV as compared to the 23 responders (53.9% versus 24.2%; P = 0.031). The mean etanercept trough concentration for each patient ranged from 0.7 to 6.8 mcg/mL, with a median trough concentration of 2.7 mcg/mL. Patients with an IPV above the median had lower mean etanercept trough concentrations compared to patients with an IPV below the median (1.96 mcg/mL, 95% CI, 1.7-2.4 versus 3.2 mcg/mL, 95% CI, 2.7-4.0; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The median IPV of etanercept trough concentrations in this study population was 33.7%. A higher IPV was correlated with lower etanercept trough concentrations and with nonresponsiveness. Prospective trials are required to demonstrate the value of adjusting the etanercept dose based on drug trough concentrations. The relatively high IPV observed in this study may complicate therapeutic drug monitoring.
Collapse
|
11
|
Sbidian E, Chaimani A, Garcia‐Doval I, Do G, Hua C, Mazaud C, Droitcourt C, Hughes C, Ingram JR, Naldi L, Chosidow O, Le Cleach L. Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 12:CD011535. [PMID: 29271481 PMCID: PMC6486272 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011535.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 99] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head to head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional systemic agents (acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, methotrexate), small molecules (apremilast, tofacitinib, ponesimod), anti-TNF alpha (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab), anti-IL12/23 (ustekinumab), anti-IL17 (secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab), anti-IL23 (guselkumab, tildrakizumab), and other biologics (alefacept, itolizumab) for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety. SEARCH METHODS We searched the following databases to December 2016: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) reports. We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant RCTs. We searched the trial results databases of a number of pharmaceutical companies and handsearched the conference proceedings of a number of dermatology meetings. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic and biological treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate to severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Three groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI) 90) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse effects). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes, according to GRADE; we evaluated evidence as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. MAIN RESULTS We included 109 studies in our review (39,882 randomised participants, 68% men, all recruited from a hospital). The overall average age was 44 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo controlled (67%), 23% were head-to-head studies, and 10% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and placebo. We have assessed all treatments listed in the objectives (19 in total). In all, 86 trials were multicentric trials (two to 231 centres). All of the trials included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment at less than 24 weeks after randomisation); in fact, all trials included in the network meta-analysis were measured between 12 and 16 weeks after randomisation. We assessed the majority of studies (48/109) as being at high risk of bias; 38 were assessed as at an unclear risk, and 23, low risk.Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90.In terms of reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents. Small molecules were associated with a higher chance of reaching PASI 90 compared to conventional systemic agents.At drug level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, all of the anti-IL17 agents and guselkumab (an anti-IL23 drug) were significantly more effective than the anti-TNF alpha agents infliximab, adalimumab, and etanercept, but not certolizumab. Ustekinumab was superior to etanercept. No clear difference was shown between infliximab, adalimumab, and etanercept. Only one trial assessed the efficacy of infliximab in this network; thus, these results have to be interpreted with caution. Tofacitinib was significantly superior to methotrexate, and no clear difference was shown between any of the other small molecules versus conventional treatments.Network meta-analysis also showed that ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, certolizumab, and ustekinumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90: the most effective drug was ixekizumab (risk ratio (RR) 32.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 23.61 to 44.60; Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) = 94.3; high-certainty evidence), followed by secukinumab (RR 26.55, 95% CI 20.32 to 34.69; SUCRA = 86.5; high-certainty evidence), brodalumab (RR 25.45, 95% CI 18.74 to 34.57; SUCRA = 84.3; moderate-certainty evidence), guselkumab (RR 21.03, 95% CI 14.56 to 30.38; SUCRA = 77; moderate-certainty evidence), certolizumab (RR 24.58, 95% CI 3.46 to 174.73; SUCRA = 75.7; moderate-certainty evidence), and ustekinumab (RR 19.91, 95% CI 15.11 to 26.23; SUCRA = 72.6; high-certainty evidence).We found no significant difference between all of the interventions and the placebo regarding the risk of serious adverse effects (SAEs): the relative ranking strongly suggested that methotrexate was associated with the best safety profile regarding all of the SAEs (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.99; SUCRA = 90.7; moderate-certainty evidence), followed by ciclosporin (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.01 to 5.10; SUCRA = 78.2; very low-certainty evidence), certolizumab (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.36; SUCRA = 70.9; moderate-certainty evidence), infliximab (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.00; SUCRA = 64.4; very low-certainty evidence), alefacept (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.55; SUCRA = 62.6; low-certainty evidence), and fumaric acid esters (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.99; SUCRA = 57.7; very low-certainty evidence). Major adverse cardiac events, serious infections, or malignancies were reported in both the placebo and intervention groups. Nevertheless, the SAEs analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to very low certainty for just over half of the treatment estimates in total, moderate for the others. Thus, the results have to be considered with caution.Considering both efficacy (PASI 90 outcome) and acceptability (SAEs outcome), highly effective treatments also had more SAEs compared to the other treatments, and ustekinumab, infliximab, and certolizumab appeared to have the better trade-off between efficacy and acceptability.Regarding the other efficacy outcomes, PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1, the results were very similar to the results for PASI 90.Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for a third of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, certolizumab, and ustekinumab are the best choices for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate to severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. At class level, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents, too. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured between 12 to 16 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficiently relevant for a chronic disease. Moreover, low numbers of studies were found for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 44 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice.Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. Indeed, we found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs. Methotrexate appeared to have the best safety profile, but as the evidence was of very low to moderate quality, we cannot be sure of the ranking. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies as well.In terms of future research, randomised trials comparing directly active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between conventional systemic and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve patients, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Ignacio Garcia‐Doval
- Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de VigoDepartment of DermatologyTorrecedeira 10, 2º AVigoSpain36202
| | - Giao Do
- Hôpital Henri MondorDepartment of Dermatology51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de TassignyCréteilFrance94000
| | - Camille Hua
- Hôpital Henri MondorDepartment of Dermatology51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de TassignyCréteilFrance94000
| | - Canelle Mazaud
- Hôpital Henri MondorDepartment of Dermatology51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de TassignyCréteilFrance94000
| | - Catherine Droitcourt
- Université de Rennes 1Department of Dermatology2 rue Henri le GuillouxRennesFrance35000
| | - Carolyn Hughes
- The University of Nottinghamc/o Cochrane Skin GroupA103, King's Meadow CampusLenton LaneNottinghamUKNG7 2NR
| | - John R Ingram
- Cardiff UniversityDepartment of Dermatology & Wound Healing, Cardiff Institute of Infection & Immunity3rd Floor Glamorgan HouseHeath ParkCardiffUKCF14 4XN
| | - Luigi Naldi
- Padiglione Mazzoleni ‐ Presidio Ospedaliero Matteo RotaCentro Studi GISED (Italian Group for Epidemiologic Research in Dermatology) ‐ FROM (Research Foundation of Ospedale Maggiore Bergamo)Via Garibaldi 13/15BergamoItaly24122
| | | | | |
Collapse
|