A Systematic Review With Network Meta-Analysis of the Available Biologic Therapies for Psoriatic Disease Domains

Use of Efficiency Frontiers to Align Prices and Clinical Benefits of Biologic Therapies for Plaque Psoriasis

Importance

The US lacks a systematic approach for aligning drug prices with clinical benefit, and traditional cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) faces political obstacles. The efficiency frontier (EF) method offers policymakers an alternative approach.

Objective

To assess how the EF approach could align prices and clinical benefits of biologic medications for plaque psoriasis and estimate price reductions in the US vs 4 peer countries: Australia, Canada, France, and Germany.

Design and Setting

This health economic evaluation used the EF approach to compare the prices and clinical benefits of 11 biologics and 2 biosimilars for plaque psoriasis in the US, Australia, Canada, France, and Germany. Data were collected from February to March 2023 and analyzed from March to June 2023.

Main Outcome Measures

EFs were constructed based on each biologic's efficacy, measured using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response rate, and annual treatment cost as of January 2023; US costs were net of estimated manufacturer rebates. Prices based on the EF were compared with traditional CEA-based prices calculated by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review at a threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

Results

Among 13 biologics, PASI 90 response rates ranged from 17.9% (etanercept) to 71.6% (risankizumab); US net annual treatment costs ranged from $1664 (infliximab-dyyb) to $79 277 (risankizumab). The median (IQR) net annual treatment cost was higher in the US ($34 965 [$20 493-$48 942]) than prerebate costs in Australia ($9179 [$6691-$12 688]), Canada ($15 556 [$13 017-$16 112]), France ($9478 [$6637-$11 678]), and Germany ($13 829 [$13 231-$15 837]). The US EF included infliximab-dyyb (PASI 90: 57.4%; annual cost: $1664), ixekizumab (PASI 90: 70.8%; annual cost: $33 004), and risankizumab (PASI 90: 71.6%; annual cost: $79 277). US prices for psoriasis biologics would need to be reduced by a median (IQR) of 71% (31%-95%) to align with those estimated using the EF; the same approach would yield smaller price reductions in Canada (41% [6%-57%]), Australia (36% [0%-65%]), France (19% [0%-67%]), and Germany (11% [8%-26%]). Except for risankizumab, the EF-based prices were lower than the prices based on traditional CEA.

Conclusions and Relevance

This economic evaluation showed that for plaque psoriasis biologics, using an EF approach to negotiate prices could lead to substantial price reductions and better align prices with clinical benefits. US policymakers might consider using EFs to achieve prices commensurate with comparative clinical benefits, particularly for drug classes with multiple therapeutic alternatives for which differences can be adequately summarized by a single outcome measurement.

A Systematic Review Evaluating the Effectiveness of Several Biological Therapies for the Treatment of Skin Psoriasis

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin illness that has the potential to manifest at any stage of life, it is most frequently observed in early adulthood. Biological drugs have significantly transformed the landscape of psoriasis treatment through the provision of focused therapy, which effectively mitigates inflammation and regulates the overproduction of skin cells. Notwithstanding the accessibility of these biological drugs, rigorous evaluations that juxtapose their safety and efficacy profiles are necessary. The objective of this study is to conduct a thorough investigation of the relative efficacy of these drugs in alleviating psoriasis symptoms and increasing the quality of life for patients by synthesizing the existing evidence. A comprehensive review was conducted to evaluate and compare the safety and effectiveness of different biochemical medicines utilized in the management of psoriasis. In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations, the review process was conducted among the available studies. A search was conducted across electronic databases, such as Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase, utilizing a combination of keywords and Mesh phrases pertaining to psoriasis, biological medications, and particular names of pharmaceuticals. In total, 475 studies were ascertained by the preliminary search of the database. After eliminating duplicate research, 358 distinct studies remained. After meticulous screening of titles and abstracts against the predefined inclusion criteria, 281 papers were deemed ineligible and thus excluded. For final inclusion, the whole texts of the remaining 77 studies were evaluated. Forty additional papers were removed during the full-text evaluation for a variety of reasons, including improper research design, or insufficient outcome data. Finally, 37 studies were included in this systematic review since they satisfied all inclusion criteria. The results of the current systematic review showed that all biological medications showed high efficacy in the treatment of skin psoriasis compared with placebo based on the clinical assessment outcomes using different tools such as PASI.

Comparing Meta-Analyses with ChatGPT in the Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Tolerance of Systemic Therapies in Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses (MAs) and network meta-analyses (NMAs) are high-quality studies for assessing drug efficacy, but they are time-consuming and may be affected by biases. The capacity of artificial intelligence to aggregate huge amounts of information is emerging as particularly interesting for processing the volume of information needed to generate MAs. In this study, we analyzed whether the chatbot ChatGPT is able to summarize information in a useful fashion for providers and patients in a way that matches up with the results of MAs/NMAs.

METHODS

We included 16 studies (13 NMAs and 3 MAs) that evaluate biologics (n = 6) and both biologic and systemic treatment (n = 10) for moderate-to-severe psoriasis, published between January 2021 and May 2023.

RESULTS

The conclusions of the MAs/NMAs were compared to ChatGPT's answers to queries about the molecules evaluated in the selected MAs/NMAs. The reproducibility between the results of ChatGPT and the MAs/NMAs was random regarding drug safety. Regarding efficacy, ChatGPT reached the same conclusion as 5 out of the 16 studies (four out of four studies when three molecules were compared), gave acceptable answers in 7 out of 16 studies, and was inconclusive in 4 out of 16 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

ChatGPT can generate conclusions that are similar to MAs when the efficacy of fewer drugs is compared but is still unable to summarize information in a way that matches up to the results of MAs/NMAs when more than three molecules are compared.

Uptake and effectiveness of newer biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in psoriatic arthritis: results from five Nordic biologics registries

BACKGROUND

We aimed to describe the uptake of newer biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in the Nordic countries and to compare their retention and effectiveness.

METHODS

Patients with PsA starting a b/tsDMARD in 2012-2020 in five Nordic rheumatology registers were included. Uptake and patient characteristics were described, with comorbidities identified from linkages to national patient registries. One-year retention and 6-month effectiveness (proportions achieving low disease activity (LDA) on the Disease Activity Index for PSoriatic Arthritis based on 28-joint evaluation) for the newer b/tsDMARDs (abatacept/apremilast/ixekizumab/secukinumab/tofacitinib/ustekinumab) were compared with adalimumab through adjusted regression models stratified by treatment course (first, second/third, and fourth or more).

RESULTS

In total, 5659 treatment courses with adalimumab (56% biologic-naïve) and 4767 courses with a newer b/tsDMARD (21% biologic-naïve) were included. The uptake of newer b/tsDMARDs increased from 2014 and plateaued in 2018. Patient characteristics appeared similar across treatments at treatment start. Adalimumab was more often used as the first course and newer b/tsDMARDs more often in biologic-experienced patients. Used as a second/third b/tsDMARD, the retention rate and the proportion achieving LDA were significantly better for adalimumab (rate 65%, proportion 59%) compared with abatacept (45%, 37%), apremilast (43%, 35%), ixekizumab (LDA only, 40%) and ustekinumab (LDA only, 40%), but not significantly different from other b/tsDMARDs.

CONCLUSION

Uptake of newer b/tsDMARDs occurred mainly in biologic-experienced patients. Regardless of mode of action, only a minority of patients starting a second or later b/tsDMARD course remained on drug and achieved LDA. Superior outcomes for adalimumab indicate that the positioning of newer b/tsDMARDs in the PsA treatment algorithm remains to be established.

Histone deacetylase inhibitors as a potential new treatment for psoriatic disease and other inflammatory conditions

Collectively known as psoriatic disease, psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are immune-mediated inflammatory diseases in which patients present with cutaneous and musculoskeletal inflammation. Affecting roughly 2-3% of the world's total population, there remains unmet therapeutic needs in both psoriasis and PsA despite the availability of current immunomodulatory treatments. As a result, patients with psoriatic disease often experience reduced quality of life. Recently, a class of small molecules, commonly investigated as anti-cancer agents, called histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors, have been proposed as a new promising anti-inflammatory treatment for immune- and inflammatory-related diseases. In inflammatory diseases, current evidence is derived from studies on diseases like rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systematic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and while there are some reports studying psoriasis, data on PsA patients are not yet available. In this review, we provide a brief overview of psoriatic disease, psoriasis, and PsA, as well as HDACs, and discuss the rationale behind the potential use of HDAC inhibitors in the management of persistent inflammation to suggest its possible use in psoriatic disease.

[Translated article] Practical Update of the Guidelines Published by the Psoriasis Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (GPs) on the Treatment of Psoriasis With Biologic Agents: Part 2-Management of Special Populations, Patients With Comorbid Conditions, and Risk

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Since its inception, the Psoriasis Group (GPs) of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (AEDV) has worked to continuously update recommendations for the treatment of psoriasis based on the best available evidence and incorporating proposals arising from and aimed at clinical practice. An updated GPs consensus document on the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis was needed because of changes in the treatment paradigm and the approval in recent years of a large number of new biologic agents.

METHODOLOGY

The consensus document was developed using the nominal group technique complemented by a scoping review. First, a designated coordinator selected a group of GPs members for the panel based on their experience and knowledge of psoriasis. 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. The coordinator then drew up a set of proposed recommendations, which were 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 updated recommendations on assessing the severity of psoriasis and criteria for the indication of systemic treatment. They also include general principles for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and define treatment goals for these patients as well as criteria for the indication and selection of initial and subsequent therapies Practical issues, such as treatment failure and maintenance of response, are also addressed.

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.

Overlapping network meta-analyses on psoriasis systemic treatments: an overview, quantity does not make quality

BACKGROUND

Network Meta-analyses (NMAs) have become successful in addressing gaps in the comparative effectiveness of systemic treatments in moderate-to-severe psoriasis. However, their increasing number carries both a risk of overlap and reproducibility issues that can hamper clinical decision-making. In this overview, we aimed to assess redundancy across these NMAs and to describe their characteristics.

METHODS

We considered all systematic reviews with NMAs of randomized controlled trials that included adult patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis and that evaluated the efficacy and/or safety of systemic treatments compared with placebo or with an active comparator. PubMed/MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO and the Evidence Update of the Centre of Evidence-Based Dermatology of the University of Nottingham were searched up to 25 February 2021. Our main outcome was the number per year of redundant NMAs and the extent of their overlap. We also described their features, especially, the confidence in the results of the reviews, the studies' funding and the presence of spin (a description that overstates efficacy and/or understates harm), reporting issues and methodological characteristics.

RESULTS

In total, 47 redundant NMAs were included. Only 2/47 (4%) included all available treatments. Both efficacy and safety were evaluated in 14/47 (30%) NMAs and both short and long-term evaluations were assessed in 5/47 (11 %). Confidence in the results was critically low for 39/47 (83%) NMAs and only 10/47 (23 %) registered a protocol. 26/47 NMAs (55%) received pharmaceutical funding. CROs were involved in 19/47 (40%) NMAs. Reporting was poor across most of the NMAs' abstracts and spin was present in all of the abstracts. Almost half of the NMA failed to consider important limitations such as heterogeneity (32%) or consistency (66%).

DISCUSSION

In addition to a duplication of efforts, our overview showed heterogeneous methods and poor confidence in the results in a majority of the included NMAs, further distorted by reporting issues and spin. Clinicians need to interpret NMAs with caution when looking for the most reliable and comprehensive evidence.

Efficacy and safety of risankizumab for active psoriatic arthritis: 24-week results from the randomised, double-blind, phase 3 KEEPsAKE 2 trial

OBJECTIVES

Risankizumab is an interleukin-23 inhibitor under study for the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The phase 3 KEEPsAKE 2 trial investigated the efficacy and safety of risankizumab versus placebo in patients with active PsA who had previous inadequate response or intolerance to ≤2 biological therapies (Bio-IR) and/or ≥1 conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD-IR). Results through week 24 are reported here.

METHODS

Adults with PsA who were Bio-IR and/or csDMARD-IR were randomised to receive subcutaneously administered risankizumab 150 mg or placebo at weeks 0, 4 and 16 during a 24-week, double-blind treatment period. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved ≥20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20) at week 24. Secondary endpoints assessed key domains of PsA and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 444 patients (median age 53 years, range 23-84 years) were randomised to risankizumab (n=224) or placebo (n=220); 206 patients (46.5%) were Bio-IR. At week 24, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving risankizumab achieved the primary endpoint of ACR20 (51.3% vs 26.5%, p<0.001) and all secondary endpoints (p<0.05) compared with placebo. Serious adverse events were reported for 4.0% and 5.5% of risankizumab-treated and placebo-treated patients, respectively; serious infections were reported for 0.9% and 2.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with risankizumab resulted in significant improvements versus placebo in key disease outcomes and was well tolerated in patients with PsA who were Bio-IR and/or csDMARD-IR.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03671148.