Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.
Emilie Sbidian,Anna Chaimani,Ignacio Garcia-Doval,Liz Doney,Corinna Dressler,Camille Hua,Carolyn Hughes,Luigi Naldi,Sivem Afach,Laurence Le Cleach
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub4
IF: 8.4
2021-04-21
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Abstract: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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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 b -Abstract Truncated-
medicine, general & internal