Cumulative Clinical Benefits of Biologics in the Treatment of Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis over 1 Year: a Network Meta-Analysis.
Area under the curve
Biologics
Cumulative benefit
Ixekizumab
NMA
Psoriasis
Journal
Dermatology and therapy
ISSN: 2193-8210
Titre abrégé: Dermatol Ther (Heidelb)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101590450
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2022
Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
23
12
2021
accepted:
03
02
2022
pubmed:
24
2
2022
medline:
24
2
2022
entrez:
23
2
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Both early clinical improvement and long-term maintenance of clinical efficacy of treatments matter to patients with psoriasis. We compared cumulative clinical benefits of treatment with biologics over 1 year based on the area under the curve (AUC) for Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 100 and PASI 90 responses in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis (NMA). Published phase 3 randomized, placebo- or active-controlled clinical trial data for biologics approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis were obtained from a systematic literature review up to 30 September 2020. Eighteen clinical trials that included data from baseline to 48 or 52 weeks where AUC could be calculated were included. Data were compared using a fixed-effect model with a separate random-effect baseline model to account for effects of the placebo arm. Cumulative clinical benefit was estimated using the AUC for PASI 100 and PASI 90 responses (complete and almost-complete skin clearance, respectively). Normalized AUC was compared using Bayesian NMA. Cumulative days of response were calculated using normalized AUC and study duration. Interleukin (IL)-17 and IL-23 inhibitors demonstrated greater cumulative clinical benefits for both PASI 100 and PASI 90 versus IL-12/23 and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Over 52 weeks, cumulative days with PASI 100 were greatest with ixekizumab [158.7 (95% credible interval, 147.4, 170.0) days] followed by risankizumab [154.0 (144.9, 163.4) days]; PASI 90 days were greatest with risankizumab [249.3 (239.5, 259.2) days] followed by ixekizumab [238.8 (227.1, 250.8) days]. Both ixekizumab and risankizumab showed greater cumulative days with PASI 100 or PASI 90 responses versus secukinumab [117.9 (110.7, 125.2) and 215.5 (208.2, 223.1) days, respectively] and greater cumulative days with PASI 100 versus guselkumab [130.7 (120.5, 140.9) days]. For complete and almost-complete skin clearance, ixekizumab and risankizumab provided the greatest cumulative clinical benefits over 1 year.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35195887
doi: 10.1007/s13555-022-00690-5
pii: 10.1007/s13555-022-00690-5
pmc: PMC8941028
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
727-740Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Dermatology. 2008;216(3):260-70
pubmed: 18187944
Arch Dermatol Res. 2021 Feb 20;:
pubmed: 33609180
N Engl J Med. 2016 Jul 28;375(4):345-56
pubmed: 27299809
Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2021 Feb;11(1):235-252
pubmed: 33426634
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015 Jun;72(6):961-7.e5
pubmed: 25882886
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017 Nov;77(5):855-862
pubmed: 28917383
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2021 Jan;35(1):135-142
pubmed: 32365251
N Engl J Med. 2015 Oct;373(14):1318-28
pubmed: 26422722
J Dermatolog Treat. 2022 Mar;33(2):1074-1078
pubmed: 32705907
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Aug;79(2):302-314.e6
pubmed: 29660421
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017 Jan;76(1):60-69.e9
pubmed: 27663079
JAMA Cardiol. 2017 Sep 1;2(9):1013-1018
pubmed: 28564678
Curr Probl Dermatol. 2013;44:74-81
pubmed: 23796811
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021 Oct;85(4):1028-1030
pubmed: 33762130
Lancet. 2019 Sep 7;394(10201):831-839
pubmed: 31402114
Med Decis Making. 2013 Jul;33(5):641-56
pubmed: 23804508
J Dermatolog Treat. 2017 May;28(3):200-205
pubmed: 27541729
J Dermatolog Treat. 2020 Mar;31(2):141-146
pubmed: 30799638
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016 Jul;75(1):77-82.e7
pubmed: 27206759
Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2019 Dec;9(4):785-797
pubmed: 31630336
Br J Dermatol. 2015 Feb;172(2):484-93
pubmed: 25132411
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017 May;31(5):847-856
pubmed: 28111801
Br J Dermatol. 2021 Jun;184(6):1047-1058
pubmed: 32880909
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017 Mar;76(3):405-417
pubmed: 28057360
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Jan;80(1):70-79.e3
pubmed: 29969700
Arch Dermatol Res. 2016 Mar;308(2):69-78
pubmed: 26688112
Lancet. 2018 Aug 25;392(10148):650-661
pubmed: 30097359
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 May;82(5):1138-1149
pubmed: 31884091
Lancet. 2005 Oct 15-21;366(9494):1367-74
pubmed: 16226614
Br J Dermatol. 2020 May;182(5):1158-1166
pubmed: 31286471
Clin Exp Dermatol. 2022 Mar;47(3):561-567
pubmed: 34642965
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Jan;80(1):43-53
pubmed: 30017706
Dermatol Ther. 2022 Jan;35(1):e15214
pubmed: 34800070
Br J Dermatol. 2017 Oct;177(4):1014-1023
pubmed: 28542874
Lancet. 2017 Jul 15;390(10091):276-288
pubmed: 28596043
Dermatol Ther. 2020 Nov;33(6):e14144
pubmed: 32761740
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Jan;80(1):27-40
pubmed: 30017705
J Dermatolog Treat. 2015 Jun;26(3):235-9
pubmed: 25078334
J Dermatolog Treat. 2017 May;28(3):188-199
pubmed: 27569650
N Engl J Med. 2014 Jul 24;371(4):326-38
pubmed: 25007392
Br J Dermatol. 2021 Jan;184(1):50-59
pubmed: 32594522