BACKGROUND: Anti-interleukin (IL)-17 biological agents (BAs) have significant efficacy in the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis; however, adverse events (AEs) are common, and their safety has not been systematically evaluated.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize the number and corresponding rates of AEs caused by anti-IL-17 BAs in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis to improve clinical decision-making regarding their use.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were independently searched by three authors for articles on the treatment of psoriasis with anti-IL-17 BAs that were published before March 1, 2022, and included at least one AE. Dichotomous variables and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were analyzed using R software (version 4.1.3) and the Meta and Metafor software packages. Funnel plots and meta-regression were used to test for the risk of bias, I2 was used to assess the magnitude of heterogeneity, and subgroup analysis was used to reduce heterogeneity.
RESULTS: A total of 57 studies involving 28,424 patients with psoriasis treated with anti-IL-17 BAs were included in the meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis showed that anti-IL-17A (73.48%) and anti-IL-17A/F (73.12%) BAs were more likely to cause AEs than anti-IL-17R BAs (65.66%). The incidence of AEs was as high as 72.70% with treatment durations longer than one year, and long-term use of medication had the potential to lead to mental disorders. Infection (33.16%), nasopharyngitis (13.74%), and injection site reactions (8.28%) were the most common AEs. Anti-IL-17 BAs were most likely to cause type α (33.52%) AEs. Type δ AEs (1.01%) were rarely observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Anti-IL-17 BAs used for the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis caused a series of AEs, but the symptoms were generally mild.
Apart from involving skin, psoriasis can compromise the nails and adjacent structures. Even though there are multiple therapeutic alternatives, there is great interest in biological therapy, but no consensus on its role exists. Searching in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening 30 databases, we identified two systematic reviews including three randomized trials. We combined the evidence using meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table following the GRADE approach. We concluded it is not clear whether biological therapy is superior to placebo in the treatment of nail psoriasis because the certainty of the evidence is very low.
OBJECTIVE: The latest recommendations on managing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were issued in 2007 by the French Society for Rheumatology (SFR) and in 2012 by the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR). A panel of spondyloarthritis experts developed new recommendations on the management of spondyloarthritides, including PsA, based on a literature review and expert opinion.
METHODS: The relevant literature published between December 1, 2009 and March 31, 2013 was reviewed by searching Medline; Embase; the Cochrane database; abstracts from meetings held by the SFR, EULAR, and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) between 2010 and 2012; and the therapeutic trials registered on http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.
RESULTS: No studies assessed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or glucocorticoids (given systemically or intraarticularly) in PsA. The efficacy of methotrexate was evaluated versus a placebo in the randomized MIPA trial. TNFα antagonists (the soluble receptor etanercept, chimeric monoclonal antibody [mAb] infliximab, humanized mAbs adalimumab and golimumab, and PEGylated mAb certolizumab) are the reference-standard biotherapies in PsA. The treat-to-target approach should be used, with the target being a remission or minimal disease activity. Registry data leave room for controversy about the potential benefits of combining methotrexate and a TNFα antagonist. Switching to an alternative TNFα antagonist when the first drug fails is effective, although the initial response and drug continuation rate may be decreased. New drugs such as apremilast and ustekinumab are being developed.
CONCLUSION: This systematic literature review allowed the development of new SFR recommendations on the treatment of PsA.
PURPOSE: We systematically compared the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety (adverse events) of abatacept, adalimumab, alefacept, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, natalizumab, rituximab, tocilizumab, and ustekinumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis.
DATA SOURCES: To identify published studies, we searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, The Cochrane Library, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from 2009 (January) to 2011 (October). We also searched the US Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research website for additional unpublished data, requested dossiers of information from pharmaceutical manufacturers, and retrieved relevant citations from reference lists of included studies.
REVIEW METHODS: Study selection, data abstraction, validity assessment, grading the strength of the evidence, and data synthesis were all carried out according to our standard review methods.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Overall, targeted immune modulators are highly effective medications for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis that substantially improve the burden of disease and are generally safe for short-term treatment. For rheumatoid arthritis, low-and moderate-strength evidence indicated that some targeted immune modulators are more efficacious than others. These results were based on three head-to-head trials, several large observational studies, and indirect comparisons of placebo-controlled trials. The evidence is currently insufficient to reliably determine the comparative effectiveness for other indications and in subgroups. Low-strength evidence indicated that serious infections are less common with abatacept than the other drugs and that the rate of adverse events is greater with infliximab than adalimumab or etanercept. Likewise, more patients receiving infliximab withdrew due to adverse events than abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab. Infusion or allergic reactions contributed to the difference in risk.
Targeted immune modulators, commonly referred to as biological response modifiers or simply biologics, are a relatively new category of medications used in the treatment of certain types of immunologic and inflammatory diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis. The US Food and Drug Administration approved the first of the biologics (infliximab) in 1998 and approved 9 additional agents since that time for treating various rheumatic conditions and plaque psoriasis: etanercept (1998), anakinra (2001), adalimumab (2002), alefacept (2003), efalizumab (2003), abatacept (2005), rituximab (2006), natalizumab (2008), and certolizumab pegol (2008). In this report, we review the comparative effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of targeted immune modulators.
Anti-interleukin (IL)-17 biological agents (BAs) have significant efficacy in the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis; however, adverse events (AEs) are common, and their safety has not been systematically evaluated.
OBJECTIVES:
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize the number and corresponding rates of AEs caused by anti-IL-17 BAs in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis to improve clinical decision-making regarding their use.
METHODS:
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were independently searched by three authors for articles on the treatment of psoriasis with anti-IL-17 BAs that were published before March 1, 2022, and included at least one AE. Dichotomous variables and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were analyzed using R software (version 4.1.3) and the Meta and Metafor software packages. Funnel plots and meta-regression were used to test for the risk of bias, I2 was used to assess the magnitude of heterogeneity, and subgroup analysis was used to reduce heterogeneity.
RESULTS:
A total of 57 studies involving 28,424 patients with psoriasis treated with anti-IL-17 BAs were included in the meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis showed that anti-IL-17A (73.48%) and anti-IL-17A/F (73.12%) BAs were more likely to cause AEs than anti-IL-17R BAs (65.66%). The incidence of AEs was as high as 72.70% with treatment durations longer than one year, and long-term use of medication had the potential to lead to mental disorders. Infection (33.16%), nasopharyngitis (13.74%), and injection site reactions (8.28%) were the most common AEs. Anti-IL-17 BAs were most likely to cause type α (33.52%) AEs. Type δ AEs (1.01%) were rarely observed.
CONCLUSIONS:
Anti-IL-17 BAs used for the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis caused a series of AEs, but the symptoms were generally mild.
