Asunto(s)
Neoplasias del Ano , Enfermedad de Bowen , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas , Neoplasias Cutáneas , Lesiones Intraepiteliales Escamosas , Humanos , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/diagnóstico , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/terapia , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/patología , Enfermedad de Bowen/diagnóstico , Enfermedad de Bowen/terapia , Enfermedad de Bowen/patología , Neoplasias Cutáneas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Cutáneas/terapia , Neoplasias Cutáneas/patología , DermatólogosRESUMEN
Multiple biologic treatments are licensed for psoriasis. The lack of head-to-head randomized controlled trials makes choosing between them difficult for patients, clinicians, and guideline developers. To establish their relative efficacy and tolerability, we searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for randomized controlled trials of licensed biologic treatments for skin psoriasis. We performed a network meta-analysis to identify direct and indirect evidence comparing biologics with one another, methotrexate, or placebo. We combined this with hierarchical cluster analysis to consider multiple outcomes related to efficacy and tolerability in combination for each treatment. Study quality, heterogeneity, and inconsistency were evaluated. Direct comparisons from 41 randomized controlled trials (20,561 participants) were included. All included biologics were efficacious compared with placebo or methotrexate at 3-4 months. Overall, cluster analysis showed adalimumab, secukinumab, and ustekinumab were comparable in terms of high efficacy and tolerability. Ixekizumab and infliximab were differentiated by very high efficacy but poorer tolerability. The lack of longer term controlled data limited our analysis to short-term outcomes. Trial performance may not equate to real-world performance, and so results need to be considered alongside real-world, long-term safety and effectiveness data. These data suggest that it is possible to discriminate between biologics to inform clinical practice and decision making (PROSPERO 2015:CRD42015017538).
Asunto(s)
Factores Biológicos/uso terapéutico , Terapia Biológica/métodos , Psoriasis/tratamiento farmacológico , Humanos , Metaanálisis en RedRESUMEN
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.