Comparison of clinical and pharmacokinetic profiles of etanercept 25 mg twice weekly and 50 mg once weekly in patients with psoriasis

The Role of Sex and Gender in Dermatology - From Pathogenesis to Clinical Implications

BACKGROUND

Sex and gender have increasingly been recognized as significant risk factors for many diseases, including dermatological conditions. Historically, sex and gender have often been grouped together as a single risk factor in the scientific literature. However, both may have a distinct impact on disease incidence, prevalence, clinical presentation, severity, therapeutic response, and associated psychological distress.

OBJECTIVES AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The mechanisms that underlie differences in skin diseases between males, females, men, and women remain largely unknown. The specific objectives of this review paper are:To highlight the biological differences between males and females (sex), as well as the sociocultural differences between men and women (gender) and how they impact the integumentary system.To perform a literature review to identify important sex- and gender-related epidemiological and clinical differences for various skin conditions belonging to a range of disease categories and to discuss possible biological and sociocultural factors that could explain the observed differences.To discuss dermatological skin conditions and gender-affirming treatments within the transgender community, a population of individuals who have a gender identity which is different than the gender identity they were assigned at birth.

FUTURE IMPACT

With the rising number of individuals that identify as non-binary or transgender within our increasingly diverse communities, it is imperative to recognize gender identity, gender, and sex as distinct entities. By doing so, clinicians will be able to better risk-stratify their patients and select treatments that are most aligned with their values. To our knowledge, very few studies have separated sex and gender as two distinct risk factors within the dermatology literature. Our article also has the potential to help guide future prevention strategies that are patient-tailored rather than using a universal approach.

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.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

For this living systematic review we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to September 2020: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers to the same date. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to eligible RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse events). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons, according to CINeMA, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer on treatment hierarchy: 0% (treatment is the worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (treatment is the best for effectiveness or safety).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 158 studies (18 new studies for the update) in our review (57,831 randomised participants, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (58%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 20 treatments. In all, 133 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (53/158) as being at high risk of bias; 25 were at an unclear risk, and 80 at low risk. Most studies (123/158) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report their source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in reaching PASI 90. At class level, in reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the non-biological systemic agents. At drug level, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, risankizumab and guselkumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab, and etanercept. Ustekinumab and adalimumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than etanercept; ustekinumab was more effective than certolizumab, and the clinical effectiveness of ustekinumab and adalimumab was similar. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and three non-biological drugs: fumaric acid esters (FAEs), ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab, and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar, except for ixekizumab which had a better chance of reaching PASI 90 compared with secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab. The clinical effectiveness of these seven drugs was: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 50.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 20.96 to 120.67, SUCRA = 93.6; high-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 32.48, 95% CI 27.13 to 38.87; SUCRA = 90.5; high-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.76, 95% CI 23.96 to 34.54; SUCRA = 84.6; high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86; SUCRA = 81.4; high-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 25.79, 95% CI 21.61 to 30.78; SUCRA = 76.2; high-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.52, 95% CI 21.25 to 30.64; SUCRA = 75; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 23.55, 95% CI 19.48 to 28.48; SUCRA = 68.4; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as mirikizumab, tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to moderate certainty for all the comparisons. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the evidence for all the interventions was of low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials directly comparing active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between non-biological systemic agents and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. This is the baseline update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2017, in preparation for this Cochrane Review becoming a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our research using the following databases to January 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and the conference proceedings of a number of dermatology meetings. We also searched five trials registers and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) reports (until June 2019). We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse effects (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse effects). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes, according to GRADE, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 140 studies (31 new studies for the update) in our review (51,749 randomised participants, 68% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (59%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 19 treatments. In all, 117 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (57/140) as being at high risk of bias; 42 were at an unclear risk, and 41 at low risk. Most studies (107/140) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report the source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90. At class level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents. At drug level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, infliximab, all of the anti-IL17 drugs (ixekizumab, secukinumab, bimekizumab and brodalumab) and the anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab, but not tildrakizumab) were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and 3 anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept. Adalimumab and ustekinumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than certolizumab and etanercept. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and between two conventional drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness for these seven drugs was similar: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 29.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 19.94 to 43.70, Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) = 88.5; moderate-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.12, 95% CI 23.17 to 34.12, SUCRA = 88.3, moderate-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 27.67, 95% CI 22.86 to 33.49, SUCRA = 87.5, high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86, SUCRA = 83.5, low-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.84, 95% CI 20.90 to 31.95; SUCRA = 81; moderate-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 23.97, 95% CI 20.03 to 28.70, SUCRA = 75.4; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 21.96, 95% CI 18.17 to 26.53, SUCRA = 68.7; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to very low certainty for just under half of the treatment estimates in total, and moderate for the others. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were very similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab were the best choices for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence (low-certainty evidence for bimekizumab). This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. Indeed, we found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, but the evidence for all the interventions was of very low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials comparing directly active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between conventional systemic and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Joint AAD-NPF guidelines of care for the management and treatment of psoriasis with biologics

Psoriasis is a chronic, inflammatory multisystem disease that affects up to 3.2% of the US population. This guideline addresses important clinical questions that arise in psoriasis management and care, providing recommendations based on the available evidence. The treatment of psoriasis with biologic agents will be reviewed, emphasizing treatment recommendations and the role of the dermatologist in monitoring and educating patients regarding benefits as well as associated risks.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head to head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional systemic agents (acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, methotrexate), small molecules (apremilast, tofacitinib, ponesimod), anti-TNF alpha (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab), anti-IL12/23 (ustekinumab), anti-IL17 (secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab), anti-IL23 (guselkumab, tildrakizumab), and other biologics (alefacept, itolizumab) for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to December 2016: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) reports. We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant RCTs. We searched the trial results databases of a number of pharmaceutical companies and handsearched the conference proceedings of a number of dermatology meetings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic and biological treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate to severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI) 90) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse effects). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes, according to GRADE; we evaluated evidence as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 109 studies in our review (39,882 randomised participants, 68% men, all recruited from a hospital). The overall average age was 44 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo controlled (67%), 23% were head-to-head studies, and 10% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and placebo. We have assessed all treatments listed in the objectives (19 in total). In all, 86 trials were multicentric trials (two to 231 centres). All of the trials included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment at less than 24 weeks after randomisation); in fact, all trials included in the network meta-analysis were measured between 12 and 16 weeks after randomisation. We assessed the majority of studies (48/109) as being at high risk of bias; 38 were assessed as at an unclear risk, and 23, low risk.Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90.In terms of reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents. Small molecules were associated with a higher chance of reaching PASI 90 compared to conventional systemic agents.At drug level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, all of the anti-IL17 agents and guselkumab (an anti-IL23 drug) were significantly more effective than the anti-TNF alpha agents infliximab, adalimumab, and etanercept, but not certolizumab. Ustekinumab was superior to etanercept. No clear difference was shown between infliximab, adalimumab, and etanercept. Only one trial assessed the efficacy of infliximab in this network; thus, these results have to be interpreted with caution. Tofacitinib was significantly superior to methotrexate, and no clear difference was shown between any of the other small molecules versus conventional treatments.Network meta-analysis also showed that ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, certolizumab, and ustekinumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90: the most effective drug was ixekizumab (risk ratio (RR) 32.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 23.61 to 44.60; Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) = 94.3; high-certainty evidence), followed by secukinumab (RR 26.55, 95% CI 20.32 to 34.69; SUCRA = 86.5; high-certainty evidence), brodalumab (RR 25.45, 95% CI 18.74 to 34.57; SUCRA = 84.3; moderate-certainty evidence), guselkumab (RR 21.03, 95% CI 14.56 to 30.38; SUCRA = 77; moderate-certainty evidence), certolizumab (RR 24.58, 95% CI 3.46 to 174.73; SUCRA = 75.7; moderate-certainty evidence), and ustekinumab (RR 19.91, 95% CI 15.11 to 26.23; SUCRA = 72.6; high-certainty evidence).We found no significant difference between all of the interventions and the placebo regarding the risk of serious adverse effects (SAEs): the relative ranking strongly suggested that methotrexate was associated with the best safety profile regarding all of the SAEs (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.99; SUCRA = 90.7; moderate-certainty evidence), followed by ciclosporin (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.01 to 5.10; SUCRA = 78.2; very low-certainty evidence), certolizumab (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.36; SUCRA = 70.9; moderate-certainty evidence), infliximab (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.00; SUCRA = 64.4; very low-certainty evidence), alefacept (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.55; SUCRA = 62.6; low-certainty evidence), and fumaric acid esters (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.99; SUCRA = 57.7; very low-certainty evidence). Major adverse cardiac events, serious infections, or malignancies were reported in both the placebo and intervention groups. Nevertheless, the SAEs analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to very low certainty for just over half of the treatment estimates in total, moderate for the others. Thus, the results have to be considered with caution.Considering both efficacy (PASI 90 outcome) and acceptability (SAEs outcome), highly effective treatments also had more SAEs compared to the other treatments, and ustekinumab, infliximab, and certolizumab appeared to have the better trade-off between efficacy and acceptability.Regarding the other efficacy outcomes, PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1, the results were very similar to the results for PASI 90.Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for a third of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, certolizumab, and ustekinumab are the best choices for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate to severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. At class level, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents, too. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured between 12 to 16 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficiently relevant for a chronic disease. Moreover, low numbers of studies were found for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 44 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice.Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. Indeed, we found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs. Methotrexate appeared to have the best safety profile, but as the evidence was of very low to moderate quality, we cannot be sure of the ranking. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies as well.In terms of future research, randomised trials comparing directly active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between conventional systemic and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve patients, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents.

A randomized phase l pharmacokinetic study comparing SB4 and etanercept reference product (Enbrel®) in healthy subjects

Aims

SB4 has been developed as a biosimilar of etanercept. The primary objective of the present study was to demonstrate the pharmacokinetic (PK) equivalence between SB4 and European Union ‐sourced etanercept (EU‐ETN), SB4 and United States‐sourced etanercept (US‐ETN), and EU‐ETN and US‐ETN. The safety and immunogenicity were also compared between the treatments.

Methods

This was a single‐blind, three‐part, crossover study in 138 healthy male subjects. In each part, 46 subjects were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive a single 50 mg subcutaneous dose of the treatments (part A: SB4 or EU‐ETN; part B: SB4 or US‐ETN; and part C: EU‐ETN or US‐ETN) in period 1, followed by the crossover treatment in period 2 according to their assigned sequences. PK equivalence between the treatments was determined using the standard equivalence margin of 80–125%.

Results

The geometric least squares means ratios of AUC_inf, AUC_last and C_max were 99.04%, 98.62% and 103.71% (part A: SB4 vs. EU‐ETN); 101.09%, 100.96% and 104.36% (part B: SB4 vs. US‐ETN); and 100.51%, 101.27% and 103.29% (part C: EU‐ETN vs. US‐ETN), respectively, and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals were completely contained within the limits of 80–125 %. The incidence of treatment‐emergent adverse events was comparable, and the incidence of the antidrug antibodies was lower in SB4 compared with the reference products.

Conclusions

The present study demonstrated PK equivalence between SB4 and EU‐ETN, SB4 and US‐ETN, and EU‐ETN and US‐ETN in healthy male subjects. SB4 was well tolerated, with a lower immunogenicity profile and similar safety profile compared with those of the reference products.

Development of a sensitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the measurement of biologically active etanercept in patients with ankylosing spondylitis

Etanercept is the first tumor necrosis factor inhibitor to be approved for rheumatic disease treatment. Its in vivo concentration is usually detected with commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits; specifically, previous researchers have mostly used double-antibody sandwich ELISA technology. Double-antibody sandwich ELISA is employed to detect the total etanercept rather than biologically active etanercept, which is more relevant in terms of therapeutic drug monitoring. In this work, a sensitive ELISA that employed its antigen TNF-α to capture biologically active etanercept for concentration detection was established and validated for etanercept pharmacokinetic (PK) study in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). The proposed assay was demonstrated to be precise and accurate over the linear range of 12.5-400pg/mL. The intra- and inter-assay relative standard deviation ranged from 3.9 to 12.2% and 6.2 to 11.1%, respectively, and recovery varied between 90.1 and 99.7%, confirming the assay's reliability. The effectiveness and accuracy of the assay was also validated according to quality samples containing etanercept with different TNF-α concentrations, and with plasma samples from patients with AS. To complete the study, both the proposed assay and double-antibody sandwich ELISA were applied to the PK study of etanercept in patients and compared. The multiple-dose results of both analytical methods were consistent, while the drug exposure of the first dose as-detected by the proposed assay was lower than that detected by double-antibody sandwich ELISA. In conclusion, the proposed ELISA was shown to provide more accurate concentration data for therapeutic drug monitoring in comparison to commercial ELISA kits.

Etanercept: a review of its use in autoimmune inflammatory diseases

With its approval more than 15 years ago, subcutaneous etanercept (Enbrel(®)) was the first biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) and the first tumour necrosis factor inhibitor to be approved for use in rheumatic diseases. Etanercept remains an important cost-effective treatment option in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis or plaque psoriasis, and in paediatric patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis or plaque psoriasis. In all of these populations, etanercept (with or without methotrexate) effectively reduced signs and symptoms, disease activity and disability, and improved health-related quality of life, with these benefits sustained during long-term treatment. The safety profile of etanercept during short- and long-term treatment was consistent with the approved product labelling, with adverse events being of a predictable and manageable nature. The introduction of etanercept and other bDMARDs as therapeutic options for patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases and spondyloarthropathies revolutionized disease management and these agents continue to have a central role in treatment strategies. This article reviews the extensive clinical experience with etanercept in these patient populations.

Long term efficacy and safety of etanercept in the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis

Psoriasis is a chronic, immune-mediated inflammatory disease affecting both the skin and joints. Approximately 20% of patients suffer a moderate to severe form of skin disease and up to 30% have joint involvement. Standard therapies for psoriasis include topical medications, phototherapy, and both oral systemic and biological therapies whereas therapies for psoriatic arthritis include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs followed by disease modifying antirheumatic drugs and/or tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors and interleukin-12/23p40 inhibitors. Treatment of both diseases is typically driven by disease severity. In the past decade, major advances in the understanding of the immunopathogenesis of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis have led to the development of numerous biological therapies, which have revolutionized the treatment for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Anti-TNF-α agents are currently considered as first line biological therapies for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Currently approved anti-TNF-α agents include etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis as well as golimumab and certolizumab for psoriatic arthritis. In this article, we aim to evaluate the long term safety and efficacy of etanercept in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

Cost effectiveness of moderate to severe psoriasis therapy with etanercept and ustekinumab in the United States

BACKGROUND

Limited information is available on the cost effectiveness of ustekinumab and alternative biologic treatments in a United States (US) setting. Given the recent head-to-head clinical trial study of ustekinumab and etanercept, an economic model comparing the two treatments can be constructed. Etanercept and ustekinumab are indicated for the treatment of chronic moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adult patients who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy.

OBJECTIVE

Clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy of ustekinumab, an anti-cytokine biologic, for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of ustekinumab compared with etanercept from a US societal perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to simulate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained every 12 weeks over a base-case 3-year time horizon. A hypothetical patient cohort was based on the characteristics of the phase III Active Comparator Psoriasis Trial (ACCEPT). The main outcome measures were costs and QALYs, which were estimated from the US societal perspective. Costs, utilities, treatment strategy, and resource use estimates were obtained from relevant literature. All costs were adjusted to 2011 US dollars. A 3 % annual discount rate was applied to costs and QALYs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were in US dollars per QALY gained.

RESULTS

For the base-case 3-year time horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing ustekinumab 90 mg with etanercept 50 mg was US$384,401 per QALY gained. Ustekinumab 45 mg dominates etanercept 50 mg for the same time horizon. These results were robust to sensitivity analyses involving treatment strategy, transition probabilities, valuing outcomes, and resource use and costs. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests ustekinumab 90 mg has a minimal (4 %) chance of being cost effective compared with etanercept 50 mg at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$150,000 per QALY improvement. For the same threshold, ustekinumab 45 mg has a high (88 %) chance of being cost effective compared with etanercept 50 mg.

CONCLUSION

Under typical US willingness-to-pay cutoffs, ustekinumab 90 mg is not cost effective compared with etanercept 50 mg therapy in moderate to severe psoriasis patients for the base-case 3-year time horizon. Ustekinumab 45 mg dominates etanercept 50 mg therapy for an equivalent patient psoriasis severity and time horizon.

One-Year, Multicenter, Open-Label, Single-Arm Study Evaluating the Safety and Effectiveness of Etanercept for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis in a Canadian Population

Background:

Although etanercept is well tolerated and effective in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, data are limited in Canadian practice settings.

Objective:

To assess the effectiveness and safety of etanercept in Canadian patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (Physician Global Assessment [PGA] ≥ 3) in routine practice.

Methods:

A 1-year, multicenter, open-label trial of 246 patients enrolled from March 2006 to July 2009 was conducted. Patients received etanercept 50 mg subcutaneously twice weekly for 3 months and then 50 mg once weekly for 9 months. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving a PGA score ≤ 2 at month 12. Secondary end points included the proportion of patients achieving PGA score ≤ 2 at months 3, 6, and 9 and change from baseline at month 12 for Patient Global Assessment (PtGA), body surface area, and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). Adverse events were reported.

Results:

At month 12, 73.5% (95% CI 67.2–79.1) achieved a PGA score ≤ 2. The response was similar regardless of the previous response to systemic or phototherapy. The proportion of patients achieving this score improved from 2.2% (95% CI 0.3–4.2) at baseline to 73.5% (95% CI 67.2–79.1) at 12 months. At 12 months, patients with a DLQI score of 0 or ≥ 5-point improvement was 28.8% (95% CI 22.9–34.7) and 47.3% (95% CI 40.8–53.9), respectively. No new safety signals were reported.

Conclusion:

The majority of this Canadian population demonstrated a meaningful improvement in PGA and DLQI scores over 1 year.

Etanercept provides an effective, safe and flexible short- and long-term treatment regimen for moderate-to-severe psoriasis: a systematic review of current evidence

The treatment of psoriasis requires long-lasting intervention. Conventional treatments for psoriasis comprise topical, phototherapeutic and systemic modalities, such as methotrexate or cyclosporine. Biological therapies are advocated by treatment guidelines for the use in moderate-to-severe psoriasis, when conventional treatments have failed, are contraindicated or are associated with severe adverse events. Etanercept is an anti-TNF recombinant fusion protein that has emerged as a standard biologic treatment option for moderate-to-severe psoriasis. The present review summarizes data from pivotal and post-marketing randomized controlled etanercept trials to treat moderate-to-severe psoriasis for 24 weeks and longer. During the first 12 weeks, etanercept can be administered in different dosing regimens: 50 mg twice weekly (BIW) and 50 mg once weekly. Although both regimens are effective, it has been shown that the 50 mg BIW dosage leads to higher response rates at week 24. In addition, after 24 weeks' treatment etanercept provides the unique possibility of continuous or intermittent long-term treatment programmes. The medium- to long-term efficacy of etanercept was consistent, regardless of whether etanercept therapy was interrupted or continuous. Taking the chronic nature of psoriasis into account, this flexibility in dosing regimen bestows a key advantage in facilitating individualisation of long-term treatment according to patient needs.

Biologic Therapy in Psoriasis: Perspectives on Associated Risks and Patient Management

Background:

Previous publications have described practical considerations for initiating biologic therapy in psoriasis patients. However, most publications have focused on anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy.

Objective:

To create an evidence-based, practical tool that provides guidance on patient management for all biologics currently approved in Canada and the United States.

Methods:

Psoriasis publications regarding safety issues in the initiation or monitoring of adalimumab, alefacept, etanercept, infliximab, or ustekinumab therapy were identified through a PubMed search. Phase III trials and open-label extensions (regardless of indication) and relevant guidelines from Health Canada were used to compile this review.

Results:

Although these biologic agents have demonstrated efficacy in patients with psoriasis and are generally considered safe and well tolerated, rare but serious safety issues (ie, demyelination, infection, tuberculosis, malignancy, lymphoma, cardiovascular outcomes, hepatitis, pregnancy, surgery, and vaccination) have been observed. Attention to specific aspects of patient management (ie, prescreening requirements, symptoms to watch for, appropriate treatment, and referrals) is required to mitigate risk.

Conclusion:

Much of the evidence regarding the long-term safety of these agents has been based on experience in other patient populations. However, it does serve to guide us in understanding the risks that may impact the management of psoriasis patients.

Heterogeneity of inflammatory and cytokine networks in chronic plaque psoriasis

The clinical features of psoriasis, characterized by sharply demarcated scaly erythematous plaques, are typically so distinctive that a diagnosis can easily be made on these grounds alone. However, there is great variability in treatment response between individual patients, and this may reflect heterogeneity of inflammatory networks driving the disease. In this study, whole-genome transcriptional profiling was used to characterize inflammatory and cytokine networks in 62 lesional skin samples obtained from patients with stable chronic plaque psoriasis. We were able to stratify lesions according to their inflammatory gene expression signatures, identifying those associated with strong (37% of patients), moderate (39%) and weak inflammatory infiltrates (24%). Additionally, we identified differences in cytokine signatures with heightened cytokine-response patterns in one sub-group of lesions (IL-13-strong; 50%) and attenuation of these patterns in a second sub-group (IL-13-weak; 50%). These sub-groups correlated with the composition of the inflammatory infiltrate, but were only weakly associated with increased risk allele frequency at some psoriasis susceptibility loci (e.g., REL, TRAF3IP2 and NOS2). Our findings highlight variable points in the inflammatory and cytokine networks known to drive chronic plaque psoriasis. Such heterogeneous aspects may shape clinical course and treatment responses, and can provide avenues for development of personalized treatments.

Safety and efficacy of the tumor necrosis factor antagonists

Psoriasis is one of the most common systemic inflammatory diseases and affects the quality of life of the affected persons profoundly. Further knowledge of the pathogenesis and new biotechnological techniques have made it possible to develop new targeted therapies, such as antibodies against tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha. Today, 3 TNF inhibitors, infliximab, adalimumab, and Etanercept, have been approved for the treatment of psoriasis arthritis, psoriasis, and other indications like Crohn's disease, depending on the distinct substance by the European Medicines Agency. Golimumab was approved in September 2009 for the use in psoriasis arthritis, respectively. These substances have added new effective treatment options to the therapeutic armamentarium of psoriasis. To use these new treatments for the best of our patients, it is important to know the correct application, the advantages, as well as contraindications or possible adverse effects of the substances. This article provides an update on the TNF-alpha inhibitors with emphasis on practical daily use. Most data are on the basis of high-quality studies and official guidelines, but if necessary, data from recent publications or clinical expertise have been added. In summary, with TNF inhibitors we have gained effective new treatment options showing a favorable safety profile when paying attention to safety aspects before and during therapy (screening, monitoring).

Etanercept, improved dosage schedules and combinations in the treatment of psoriasis: an update

Etanercept, a subcutaneously administered fully human soluble tumor necrosis factor (TNF) receptor, was initially approved for the treatment of psoriasis at a dose of 25 mg twice weekly in repeated 24-week cycles with the possibility to double the dose in the first 12 weeks of the first cycle. During intermittent treatment, patients retain their ability to respond to etanercept. Recently, a new dosing schedule of etanercept 50 mg once weekly was approved, based on a study in which PASI-75 (75% improvement of Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) was achieved by 37% and 71% of patients at week 12 and 24. Another study demonstrated a PASI-75 of 57% and 69% in pediatric psoriasis patients receiving etanercept 0.8 mg/kg (up to 50 mg) once weekly for 12 and 24 weeks respectively, resulting in European approval from age 8. Based on recent clinical trials, the antipsoriatic effect of etanercept can be markedly increased in combination with acitretin, methotrexate or UVB. The combination with acitretin appears attractive because of its non-immunosuppressive and chemopreventive properties. Etanercept-methotrexate combination therapy is well established in rheumatologic patients. From a long-term perspective, the combination of TNF-inhibitors with phototherapy (photocarcinogenesis) or cyclosporine (carcinogenesis, infections) warrants great caution however. Finally, combination with topical calcipotriol-betamethasone ointment may increase the speed of response to TNF-inhibitors in the first 4 weeks of treatment.

Biologics in the management of psoriasis

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory systemic disease for which there exist topical, ultraviolet, systemic, and biologic treatments. Biologic agents selectively interfere with the immune mechanisms responsible for psoriasis. Etanercept, infliximab, and adalimumab target tumor necrosis factor-alpha and have demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Alefacept and efalizumab target T lymphocytes, are effective in the treatment of psoriasis, but are not approved for psoriatic arthritis. Finally, ustekinumab and ABT-874 target interleukin-12 and interleukin-23, and they have demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of psoriasis. The objective of this review is to present efficacy and safety data from randomized controlled trials of the biologic agents in the treatment of psoriasis.

[Efficacy of TNF-alpha antagonists for plaque-type psoriasis: a systematic review and graphical presentation]

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies investigating the efficacy of TNF-alpha antagonists in moderate-to-severe plaque-type psoriasis have been published. We present a graphic synthesis of efficacy data based on a systematic review of the published studies.

METHODS

The Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library bibliographic databases were searched for studies based on the following selection criteria: 1. Original studies, 2. Using infliximab, etanercept or adalimumab as the sole systemic treatment for plaque-type cutaneous psoriasis, 3. Minimum follow-up of 10 weeks, 4. Use of the PASI75 index (improvement of at least 75% from baseline PASI score) as an endpoint. Twenty-one articles were selected and PASI75 scores and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated at three, six and 12 months.

RESULTS

At M3, success rates were about 80% with infliximab and adalimumab once-weekly, around 50% with etanercept 50mg twice-weekly and adalimumab fortnightly; and 30% with etanercept 25mg twice-weekly. Maintenance regimens after three months ensured success rates above 50% with all three treatments, although the long-term results were based on fewer studies.

CONCLUSION

Our graphic synthesis and tolerance data for the three drugs should guide clinicians in their therapeutic choices in moderate-to-severe plaque-type psoriasis. Additional studies with better reporting of loss to follow-up are needed to better assess the long-term efficacy of these drugs.

The Dermatology Life Quality Index 1994-2007: a comprehensive review of validation data and clinical results

BACKGROUND

The Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) is one of the most widely used dermatology-specific quality of life instruments. Over the last 5 years there has been great interest in its use.

OBJECTIVES

To collect and present all information regarding the technical properties and the clinical use of the DLQI from the date it was published to the end of 2007 for use as a single source of reference.

METHODS

A detailed literature search was conducted using electronic reference databases and the DLQI library in the Department of Dermatology, Cardiff University. All publications mentioning any aspect of the DLQI, from the time of its development to the end of 2007, were identified and the data concerning the DLQI in terms of its psychometric analysis, and use in clinical trials, epidemiological studies and health services research, were extracted and tabulated with all the relevant references.

RESULTS

In total, 272 full articles which have included the DLQI were reviewed. Studies described in these articles were divided into five main categories: psychometric studies, descriptive/epidemiological studies, drug (topical and systemic) trials, clinical practice research, and therapeutic interventions. The DLQI has been used in 33 different skin conditions in 32 countries and is available in 55 languages. Psychometric aspects of the DLQI such as validity, reliability, responsiveness to change, factor structure, and minimal important difference were described in 115 studies. The DLQI has been used in 33 studies assessing the effectiveness of 14 different types of therapeutic interventions and in 37 studies evaluating nine types of clinical practice research. Sixty studies have used it alone or in parallel with other instruments as an outcome measure in clinical trials of 18 systemic drugs while 22 studies have used it in 14 different topical drug trials. The DLQI has also been used in 27 multinational studies.

CONCLUSIONS

During the last 14 years there has been a gradual increase in the international use of the DLQI. The brevity and simplicity of use of the DLQI has resulted in its popularity both in clinical practice and in research. However, there are various issues in particular regarding its unidimensionality, differential item functioning, and minimal clinically important difference, which require further research. This article should facilitate the work of potential users of the DLQI by providing a readily available source of references for different aspects of the DLQI.