Quantitative Evaluation of Biologic Therapy Options for Psoriasis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jabbar-Lopez ZK
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5519491 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Drug survival studies have been utilized to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of biologics used in psoriasis. However, the increasing volume of drug survival data suffers from large variability due to regional differences in drug availability, patient selection and biologic reimbursement. The objective of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of biologic drug survival to determine comparative effectiveness of the biologics in a real-world setting. Studies reporting drug survival for biologic therapy in psoriasis were identified by a systematic literature search. Hazard ratio data for drug discontinuation were estimated directly from published Kaplan-Meier estimator curves at year 1, 2, and 5 of treatment and compared pairwise for the following biologics: ustekinumab, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab. This pooled hazard ratios were used to estimate 2- and 5-year overall drug survival rates. Ustekinumab had the longest persistence at 2 and 5 years among all biologics included in this meta-analysis. Adalimumab was superior to etanercept and infliximab at 5 years. Pooled 5-year drug survival rates for adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab were 46.3, 35.9, and 34.7%, respectively. Two- and five-year data were not available for anti-IL-17 drugs, but at 1-year ustekinumab outperformed secukinumab, the latter being equal to anti-TNFs. In conclusion, ustekinumab is characterized by longer drug survival than TNF inhibitors and IL-17 inhibitors. Estimated pooled 2- and 5-year drug survival rates may serve as a useful tool for patient communication and clinical decision-making.
| S-EPMC8012481 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe treatment landscape for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has recently changed and become relatively confusing. Head-to-head comparisons between most of the available agents have not been performed and are less likely to be examined in a prospective fashion in the future. Therefore, a network meta-analysis (NMA) is helpful to compare different agents from across different trials.ObjectiveTo evaluate comparative effectiveness of different systemic treatments in advanced patients with HCC across lines of therapy.Data sourcesWe searched various databases for abstracts and full-text articles published from database inception through March 2020.Study selectionWe included phase 3 trials evaluating different vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGFis), checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), or their combinations in advanced HCC, in the first-line or refractory setting.Data extraction and synthesisThe reporting of this systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. The overall effect was pooled using the random effects model.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes of interest included overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).FindingsFourteen trials (8 in the first-line setting and 6 in the second-line setting) at low risk of bias were included. The 8 trials in the first-line setting encompassed a total of 6290 patients, with an age range of 18 to 89 years. The 5 trials included in the second-line analysis encompassed a total of 2653 patients, with an age range of 18 to 91 years. Network meta-analysis showed the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab was superior in patients with HCC treated in the first-line setting compared with lenvatinib (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.89), sorafenib (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.80), and nivolumab (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.98). In the refractory setting, NMA showed that all studied drugs had PFS benefit compared with placebo. However, this only translated into OS benefit with regorafenib (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51-0.75) and cabozantinib (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92) compared with placebo. In the NMA of patients with α-fetoprotein (AFP) levels of 400 ng/mL or greater, regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab showed PFS and OS benefit compared with placebo with no superiority of an active drug compared with any others.Conclusions and relevanceThis systematic review and NMA of 14 trials found that atezolizumab and bevacizumab in combination is now considered the standard of care in the first-line setting in patients with advanced HCC. Regorafenib and cabozantinib are preferred options in refractory patients, with ramucirumab as an additional option in those with levels of AFP of 400 ng/mL or higher. Future trials should focus on other potential combinations and best treatment strategy in patients with prior VEGFi/CPI exposure.
| S-EPMC7582230 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To establish the comparative effectiveness of all available biologic therapy regimens for ankylosing spondylitis, we performed a systematic review and a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from the inception of each database to June 2015. Systematic review and network meta-analysis was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses. The primary outcome was 20% improvement of Assessments in SpondyloArthritis International Society Response Criteria (ASAS20) at Week 12 or 14; secondary outcomes were ASAS40, ASAS5/6, ASAS partial remission and 50% improvement in baseline Bath ankylosing spondylitis (AS) disease activity index. We reported relative risks and 95% confidence intervals from direct meta-analysis and 95% credible intervals from Bayesian network meta-analysis, and ranked the treatment for outcomes. We also used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria to appraise quality of evidence. Fourteen RCTs comprising 2672 active AS patients were included in the network meta-analysis. Most biologic therapy regimens were more effective than placebo regarding all the outcomes assessed, except for secukinumab and tocilizumab. No differences between biologic therapies in the treatment of AS could be found, except for the finding that infliximab 5 mg was superior to tocilizumab. Infliximab 5 mg/kg had the highest probability of being ranked the best for achieving ASAS20, whereas notably, secukinumab had the highest probability of being ranked the second best. Our study suggests that no differences between biologic therapies in the treatment of AS could be found except that infliximab 5 mg was superior to tocilizumab. Infliximab 5 mg/kg seems to be the better biologic therapy regimen for AS. Secukinumab appears promising, though additional data is warranted. Nevertheless, these interpretations should be accepted very cautiously.
| S-EPMC4839911 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesWhile off-label dosing of biologic treatments may be necessary in selected psoriasis patients, no systematic review exists to date that synthesizes the efficacy and safety of these off-label dosing regimens. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate efficacy and safety of off-label dosing regimens (dose escalation, dose reduction, and interrupted treatment) with etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab, and alefacept for psoriasis treatment.Data sources and study selectionWe searched OVID Medline from January 1, 1990 through August 1, 2011 for prospective clinical trials that studied biologic therapy for psoriasis treatment in adults. Individual articles were screened for studies that examined escalated, reduced, or interrupted therapy with etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab, or alefacept.Data synthesisA total of 23 articles with 12,617 patients matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the systematic review. Data were examined for primary and secondary efficacy outcomes and adverse events including infections, malignancies, cardiovascular events, and anti-drug antibodies. The preponderance of data suggests that continuous treatment with anti-TNF agents and anti-IL12/23 agent was necessary for maintenance of disease control. Among non-responders, dose escalation with etanercept, adalimumab, ustekinumab, and alefacept typically resulted in greater efficacy than standard dosing. Dose reduction with etanercept and alefacept resulted in reduced efficacy. Withdrawal of the examined biologics led to an increase in disease activity; efficacy from retreatment did not result in equivalent initial response rates for most biologics. Safety data on off-label dosing regimens are limited.ConclusionDose escalation in non-responders generally resulted in increased efficacy in the examined biologics used to treat moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Continuous treatment with anti-TNF agents and anti-IL12/23 agent results in superior efficacy over interrupted therapy. The decision to use off-label dosing needs to account for both benefits and risks and be individualized to patients' disease severity, quality of life, and existence of comorbidities.
| S-EPMC3324468 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionMany targeted, systemic therapies have been developed for treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis (PsO). A network meta-analysis (NMA) allows for comparison between treatments not directly compared in randomized controlled trials (RCT). This study's objective was to compare the short-term (10-16 weeks) clinical efficacy according to the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) among approved biologic treatments for moderate-to-severe PsO using a novel (enhanced) NMA model.MethodsA systematic literature review (SLR) of RCTs for patients with moderate-to-severe PsO was conducted. English publications in MEDLINE, Embase, and The Cochrane Library up to March 2019 were searched. An enhanced multinomial Bayesian NMA was performed to simultaneously adjust for baseline risk and utilize the conditional nature of the PASI (50, 75, 90, and 100) levels. The model relaxes typical constraints that all treatments must have the same ranks across PASI levels.ResultsThe SLR resulted in 319 relevant publications, of which 72 publications from 73 RCTs reporting 10- to 16-week data for at least one PASI response level (30,314 total patients) were included. Interleukin (IL) inhibitors (risankizumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, secukinumab, and guselkumab) were the best performing treatments for achieving all PASI levels. Etanercept was outperformed by the other subcutaneous tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors. Application of an enhanced NMA model that allowed treatment rankings to differ by PASI level tested the robustness of results of previous NMAs in PsO.ConclusionThe results of this model confirmed that IL inhibitors are likely the best short-term treatment choices for improving all PASI levels.
| S-EPMC8611163 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Therapies treating psoriasis can be categorized into five classes according to their mechanism: anti-metabolites (AM), anti-interleukin-12/23 agents (anti-IL12/23), anti-interleukin-17 agents (anti-IL17), anti-T-cell agent (ANT), and anti-tumor necrosis factor-α agent (anti-TNF-α). This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to give a quantitative and systemic evaluation of safety and efficacy for the five kinds of therapies mentioned above. Odds ratios and mean differences were calculated to evaluate binary and continuous outcomes, respectively. Forest plots were conducted to show the performance of pair-wise comparison of above therapies in each outcome, and surface under the cumulative ranking curves was given to evaluate the relative ranking of above therapies in each outcome. Node splitting was conducted to evaluate the consistency between direct and indirect evidence. Direct comparisons from 65 studies (32,352 patients) were included in this NMA. Our results showed an excellent efficacy of anti-IL12/23 and anti-IL17. However, these two therapies and anti-TNF-α were revealed to have a high possibility to cause adverse effects (AEs) such as infections. Additionally, node splitting showed that no inconsistency appeared between the direct and indirect comparisons. Anti-IL12/23 was the most recommended therapy according to this NMA. Anti-IL17 had similar efficacy to anti-IL12/23 but should be applied with caution since it has poor performance in safety outcomes.
| S-EPMC5993069 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A comprehensive evaluation of the risk of serious infections in biologic therapies for psoriasis is lacking. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies reporting serious infections in people taking any licensed biologic therapy for psoriasis compared with those taking placebo, nonbiologic therapy, or other biologic therapies. The quality of the studies was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. No significant heterogeneity was detected in data from 32 RCTs (n = 13,359 participants) and one cohort study (n = 4,993 participants). In adults, low- to very-low-quality RCT data showed no significant difference between any biologic therapy and placebo at weeks 12-16 (overall pooled Peto odds ratio = 0.71, 95% confidence interval = 0.36-1.41) and weeks 20-30 (odds ratio = 2.27, 95% confidence interval = 0.45-11.49). No significant differences were found in any of the other comparisons in underpowered RCT data. Prospective cohort study data of low quality suggests that only adalimumab (adjusted hazard ratio [adjHR] = 2.52, 95% confidence interval = 1.47-4.32) was associated with a significantly higher risk of serious infection compared with retinoid and/or phototherapy in adults. No association between biologic therapies and serious infections in patients with psoriasis who were eligible for RCTs was detected. Further observational studies are needed to inform the uncertainty around this risk in the real world.
| S-EPMC4946794 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Palmoplantar psoriasis (PP) and palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) are diseases affecting the hands and/or feet that can cause marked physical discomfort and functional disability. The tumor necrosis factor-alpha antagonists adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab, the interleukin (IL)-17A inhibitors ixekizumab and secukinumab, and the IL-23 or IL-12/IL-23 inhibitors guselkumab and ustekinumab have been well studied for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Less is known about the efficacy and safety of these agents for the treatment of PP (hyperkeratotic and pustular forms) and PPP. The aim of this review was to investigate the efficacy of biologic therapy for the treatment of hyperkeratotic PP, pustular PP, and PPP. METHODS:A systematic search of the medical electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library) was conducted to identify studies or case reports which both used biologic therapy for the treatment of hyperkeratotic PP, pustular PP, and PPP and reported treatment outcomes. RESULTS:The systematic search identified 579 published articles, of which 44 were included in the analysis. Seven of the articles involved randomized placebo-controlled trials, two were open label trials, and the remaining were cohort studies, case series, or case reports. In the randomized controlled trials on the treatment of hyperkeratotic PP, adalimumab, guselkumab, infliximab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab each demonstrated superiority to placebo at 16, 16, 14, 12, and 12 or 16 weeks, respectively (p < 0.05). For the treatment of pustular PP, ustekinumab 45 mg was not superior to placebo at 12 and 16 weeks, respectively (p > 0.05), although an open label study demonstrated that four of five patients on a therapeutic regimen of ustekinumab 90 mg achieved clinical clearance at 16 weeks. For the treatment of PPP, etanercept and ustekinumab 45 mg were not superior to placebo at 12 and 16 weeks, respectively (p > 0.05). A combined analysis of studies for hyperkeratotic PP demonstrated that 94.7%, 90.0%, 82.5%, 89.1%, and 86.7% of patients experienced an improvement of at least 50% upon treatment with adalimumab, guselkumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and ustekinumab, respectively. In a combined analysis of case reports examining PPP, infliximab showed the greatest efficacy at 100.0% clinical improvement of patients from case reports, followed by ustekinumab at 58.8% clinical improvement. Few serious adverse events were reported, but several were reported in patients treated with infliximab or secukinumab. CONCLUSION:Biologic therapy is effective and well-tolerated for the treatment of hyperkeratotic PP, but less data are available on the treatment of pustular PP or PPP. Adalimumab, guselkumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and ustekinumab all showed > 80% efficacy for the treatment of hyperkeratotic PP, while infliximab and ustekinumab showed moderate efficacy for the treatment of pustular PP, and infliximab was the most efficacious treatment for PPP.
| S-EPMC5698206 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectives: Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated skin disease caused by several complex factors, both environmental and genetic, many of which are still not fully understood. Nowadays, several groups of biological drugs are being used for psoriasis treatment. Although these therapies are very effective, they show significant variability in efficacy among individuals. Therefore, there is a need for biomarkers to predict treatment outcomes in order to guide personalized therapeutic decisions. Pharmacogenetics is the study of variations in DNA sequences related to drug response. Materials and Methods: In this article, we review pharmacogenetics studies on the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis focusing on anti-interleukin (IL) 12/23 (ustekinumab) and anti-IL17 drugs (secukinumab and ixekizumab), as well as recent studies concerning anti-TNF drugs. Results: Several polymorphisms have been studied over the years in reference to anti-TNF drugs; some of the most recent studies included the performance of a genome-wide association study (GWAS) and pharmacogenetics studies focused on the optimization of a treatment regimen. Various polymorphisms in different genes have been related to ustekinumab response; among them, the most commonly studied is the HLA-C*06:02 allele. Conclusions: Although not confirmed in some studies, most studies have shown that patients carrying this allele present a significantly higher response rate to ustekinumab. Some polymorphisms have been studied in patients treated with anti-IL17 drugs, mostly related to secukinumab; however, up to now, no association has been found between any of these polymorphisms and response. Nevertheless, further studies involving larger cohorts are needed in order to confirm these results before the implementation of this biomarker in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC7766592 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The concept of network meta-analyses (NMA) has been introduced to the field of physical therapy. However, the reporting standard guidelines of these studies have not been evaluated. In this systematic review, we included all published NMA physical therapy studies that compared the clinical efficacy of three or more interventions to evaluate whether NMAs in physical therapy exhibit adequate reporting recommendations. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to 30 June 2022. Among the 252 identified articles, 19 NMAs including 805 randomized controlled trials were included. We applied both preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) and PRISMA-NMA checklists, which are 27- and 32-item reporting standard guidelines assessment tools, respectively. Protocol registrations (68.4%), risk of bias across studies (63.2%), additional analysis (57.9%), and funding (31.6%) were problematic items considering the PRISMA guidelines. Four studies reported all five new NMA-reporting items, and 15 (78.9%) did not address items S1–5 from the PRISMA-NMA guidelines. The median score (interquartile range) of the reporting standard guidelines was 27.0 (25.8–28.0). The identified shortcomings of published NMAs should be addressed while training researchers, and they should be encouraged to apply PRISMA-NMA, as a recognized tool for assessing NMA reporting guidelines is required.
| S-EPMC9778181 | biostudies-literature