BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Recent studies raise concern for increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) with Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) used to treat immune-mediated inflammatory disorders (IMIDs). We aimed to examine MACE risk with licensed biologics and small molecules used commonly between IMIDs: inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis.
METHODS: Data were obtained from systematic searches (from inception to May 31, 2022) in PubMed, Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Studies that assessed a pre-defined MACE (myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, unstable angina, cardiovascular death, or heart failure) risk in those ≥18 years with IMIDs treated with anti-interleukin (IL)-23 antibodies, anti-IL-12/23, anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha antibodies (anti-TNF-α) or JAKi were included in a network meta-analysis using a random-effects model with pooled odds ratios (ORs) reported with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) by drug class and disease state.
RESULTS: Among 3,528 studies identified, 40 (36 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 4 cohort studies) were included in the systematic review, comprising 126,961 patients with IMIDs. Based on network meta-analysis of RCTs, regardless of disease state, anti-TNF-α (OR, 2.49; CrI: 1.14-5.62), JAKi (OR, 2.64; CrI: 1.26-5.99), and anti-IL-12/23 (OR, 3.15; CrI: 1.01-13.35) were associated with increased MACE risk compared with placebo. There was no significant difference in the magnitude of the MACE risk between classes or based on IMID type.
CONCLUSIONS: Anti-IL-12/23, JAKi, and anti-TNF-α were associated with higher risk of MACE compared with placebo. The magnitude of the increased MACE risk was not different by IMID type. These results require confirmation in larger prospective studies.
This study aims to estimate the effect of synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) on radiographic progression and quality of life in adult patients with psoriatic arthritis. A comprehensive search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCRCT). Clinical trials comparing DMARDs with placebo for ≥ 12 weeks were included. The meta-analysis was conducted with a random-effects model using mean differences (MD). A total of 16 trials with overall moderate quality of evidence were included. Exposure to a biologic agent reduced radiographic progression at 24 weeks of treatment (MD: - 0.66; [95% CI - 0.97 to - 0.34]; P < .00001; I2 = 100%). The reduction of the baseline score was more than two times higher for TNF blockers compared with IL-17 and IL-12/IL-23 inhibitors (MD: - 0.94 vs - 0.41). Improvement in health-related quality of life scores was observed in biologic-treated populations (MD: - 0.21; [95% CI - 0.25 to - 0.18]; P < .00001; I2 = 97%). No sufficient data were available regarding conventional synthetic agents. Our data analyses suggest a better control of radiological damage with bDMARDs, as compared to placebo, after 24 weeks of treatment. However, the accuracy of these results in real life are jeopardized by the exceedingly high level of heterogeneity exhibited within and across included studies, and the true intervention effect cannot be determined with confidence. Further research is required to assess long-term outcomes and to control heterogeneity in the evaluation of treatments for psoriatic arthritis. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019122223. Key Points • Radiographic progression is not the primary outcome for most efficacy studies in psoriatic arthritis; hence, baseline data are substantially diverse in major clinical trials. • The best available evidence on this particular outcome is currently at a moderate risk of bias. • Existing reports of the effect of DMARDs on structural damage must be taken with caution. • Further research is required to assess long-term outcomes and to control heterogeneity between studies.
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of interleukin-17 inhibitors (ixekizumab, secukinumab, bimekizumab, netakimab and brodalumab) in chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases, including ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
METHODS: A comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating efficacy and safety of interleukin-17 inhibitors was performed through PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Data were pooled using the fixed or random-effects models.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Twenty RCTs were identified: of these 9 studies on patients with AS and 11 studies on patients with PsA. Concerning clinical efficacy, a pooled analysis showed interleukin-17 inhibitors had a higher response rate for the primary endpoint (p < 0.05) and secondary endpoint (p < 0.05) at the treatment endpoint for AS/PsA patients. Moreover, an increased risk of treatment-emergent adverse events and infection was found in AS patients (p < 0.05). In contrast, no increased risk of any adverse events was reported in PsA patients.
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, our findings found interleukin-17 inhibitors had a significant clinical benefit in the management of AS/PsA patients.
Importance: Nail involvement is a common condition in patients with psoriasis. The treatment of nail psoriasis is considered challenging and is often left untreated by physicians. Objective: To assess the efficacy of current systemic treatments on nail psoriasis. Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for relevant articles from inception to September 1, 2020. Included articles were restricted to English language and human studies. Study Selection: This was a systematic literature review with meta-analysis. Thirty-five random control trials that evaluated systemic therapies for nail psoriasis were selected in the systemic review. Among them, we retained 14 trials for meta-analysis. Data Extraction and Synthesis: This study was conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. All steps were performed by two independent investigators, and any disagreements were resolved by a third investigator. Meta-analysis of aggregated study data was conducted to assess therapeutic efficacy. The use of random-effects model was based on high heterogeneity as a variable endpoint in different studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: Therapeutic effects on nail psoriasis were expressed in terms of effect sizes with 95% CIs. Results: We included 35 random control trials (RCTs) in this systemic review. At baseline, a high prevalence (62.1%) of nail psoriasis was confirmed. The meta-analysis included 14 trials highlighting that biologic and small-molecule therapies were effective in treating nail psoriasis with variable effect size magnitudes [−0.89 (−1.10, −0.68), I2 = 84%]. In particular, tofacitinib and ixekizumab showed the most significant scale of effect size magnitudes in treating nail psoriasis (−1.08 points and −0.93 points, respectively). We also found that a higher dose of tofacitinib and ixekizumab had similar effectiveness, and anti-IL-17 agents seem to be superior in effectiveness compared to anti-TNF-α therapies in the treatment of nail psoriasis. However, these results must be displayed carefully as variable endpoints in different studies. Conclusions and Relevance: This study provides a comprehensive overview of systemic treatments for nail psoriasis. For patients with psoriatic nail damage who are candidates of systemic therapies, the priority should be given to administering biologic and small-molecule therapies, especially anti-IL-17 drugs.
• This is the first paper that systematically appraised the clinical trial discrimination properties for PF-PROMs in PsA. • Data for appraisal of clinical trial discrimination were available for only four PF-PROMs (HAQ-DI, HAQ-S, SF-36 PCS and SF-36 PF). • The HAQ-DI and SF-36 PCS demonstrated clinical trial discrimination with low risk of bias. • Clinical trial discrimination with SF-36 PF and HAQ-S are supported with caution. More studies are needed for SF-36 PF and HAQ-S. Physical function (PF) is a core domain to be measured in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), yet the discriminative performance of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for PF in RCTs has not been evaluated systematically. In this systematic review, we aimed to evaluate the clinical trial discrimination of PF-PROMs in PsA RCTs. We searched PubMed and Scopus databases in English to identify all original RCTs on biological and targeted synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) conducted in PsA. We assessed quality in each article using the OMERACT good method checklist. Effect sizes (ES) for the PF-PROMs were calculated and appraised using a priori hypotheses. Evidence supporting clinical trial discrimination for each PF-PROM was summarized to derive recommendations. 35 articles from 31 RCTs were included. Four PF-PROMs had data for evaluation: HAQ-Disability Index (DI), HAQ-Spondyloarthritis (S), and Short Form 36-item Health Survey Physical Component Summary (SF-36 PCS) and Physical Functioning domain (SF-36 PF). As anticipated, higher ES values were observed for intervention groups than the control groups. Across all studies, for HAQ-DI, the median ES were -0.73 and -0.24 for intervention and control groups, respectively. Whereas for SF-36 PCS, the median ES were 0.77 and 0.23. For intervention and control groups, respectively. Clinical trial discrimination was supported for HAQ-DI and SF-36 PCS in PsA with low risk of bias; and for SF-36 PF and HAQ-S with some caution. More studies are required for HAQ-S.
OBJECTIVE: Biologic agents with different mechanisms of actions (inhibitors of TNF-α, interleukin-12/23 and interleukin-17) showed efficacy in randomized controlled trials in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. We aimed to conduct a pooled meta-analysis of those agents for dactylitis and enthesitis and compare those with the American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response, and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed and a pooled meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with anti-TNF-α (infliximab, golimumab, adalimumab), antiinterleukin- 12/23 (ustekinumab) and anti-interleukin-17 (secukinumab, ixekizumab) was conducted using the random-effects model. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk Of Bias tool.
RESULTS: Eighteen randomized controlled trials were included in the pooled analysis (n=6981). Both TNF-α inhibitors and novel biologics (ustekinumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab) demonstrated significant resolution of dactylitis at week 24 with pooled risk ratios (RRs) versus placebo of 2.57 (95% CI: 1.36-4.84) and 1.88 (95% CI: 1.33-2.65), respectively. For the resolution of enthesitis at week 24, RR for TNF-α inhibitors was 1.93 (95% CI: 1.33-2.79) vs 1.95 (95% CI: 1.60-2.38) for novel biologics. Both biologic categories showed overlapping ranges of ACR20 responses (TNF-α inhibitors: RR=2.23, 95% CI: 1.60-3.11, pooled interleukin-12/23 and -17: RR=2.30, 95% CI 1.94-2.72) and similar quality of life improvement scores with mean HAQ-DI score changes of -0.29 (95% CI: -0.39, -0.19) and -0.26 (95% CI: -0.31, -0.22), respectively.
CONCLUSION: The pooled analysis demonstrates that anti-TNF-α agents have the same efficacy as novel agents (ustekinumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab) in dactylitis and enthesitis.
OBJECTIVE: To perform an update of a review of the efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
METHODS: This is a systematic literature research of 2015-2018 publications on all DMARDs in patients with PsA, searching Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Efficacy was assessed in randomised controlled trials. For safety, cohort studies, case-control studies and long-term extensions (LTEs) were analysed.
RESULTS: 56 publications (efficacy: n=33; safety n=23) were analysed. The articles were on tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (n=6; golimumab, etanercept and biosimilars), interleukin (IL)-17A inhibitors (n=10; ixekizumab, secukinumab), IL-23-p19 inhibitors (n=2; guselkumab, risankizumab), clazakizumab (IL-6 inhibitor), abatacept (CD80/86 inhibitor) and ABT-122 (anti-TNF/IL-17A), respectively. One study compared ustekinumab (IL-12/23i) with TNF inhibitor therapy in patients with entheseal disease. Three articles investigated DMARD tapering. Trials on targeted synthetic DMARDs investigated apremilast (phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor) and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi; tofacitinib, filgotinib). Biosimilar comparison with bio-originator showed non-inferiority. Safety was evaluated in 13 LTEs, 9 cohort studies and 1 case-control study investigating malignancies, infections, infusion reactions, multiple sclerosis and major cardiovascular events, as well as efficacy and safety of vaccination. No new safety signals were identified; however, warnings on the risk of venous thromboembolic events including pulmonary embolism when using JAKi were issued by regulators based on other studies.
CONCLUSION: Many drugs in PsA are available and have demonstrated efficacy against placebo. Efficacy varies across PsA manifestations. Safety must also be taken into account. This review informed the development of the European League Against Rheumatism 2019 updated PsA management recommendations.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of biologics in preventing radiographic progression in peripheral joints of PsA patients.
METHODS: Studies were searched in MEDLINE, Web of Science, and abstracts from the last three EULAR and ACR meetings up to 31 December 2019. Primary and secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients without radiographic progression and the mean change in total radiographic score at week 24.
RESULTS: Eleven studies, involving 5382 patients, 9 drugs and 18 treatments, were included. Patients receiving biologics were more likely to achieve radiographic non-progression compared with placebo [odds ratio: pooled: 2.40, 95% CI: 2.00, 2.87; TNF inhibitors (TNFi): 2.94, 95% CI: 2.38, 3.63; IL inhibitors (ILi): 2.15, 95% CI: 1.69, 2.74; abatacept: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.03, 2.28] and have significantly lower radiographic progression [standardized mean difference (SMD): pooled: -2.16, 95% CI: -2.91, -1.41; TNFi: -2.82, 95% CI: -4.31, -1.33; ILi: -1.60, 95% CI: -2.49, -0.72; abatacept: -0.40, 95% CI: -0.59, -0.21]. Concomitant MTX therapy was not superior to monotherapy (SMD: pooled: 0.01, 95% CI: -0.07, 0.08; biologics: 0.01, 95% CI: -0.09, 0.11; placebo: -0.01, 95% CI: -0.13, 0.12). The effect of ustekinumab and secukinumab on radiographic progression was not influenced by prior anti-TNF therapy (SMD: -0.08, 95% CI: -0.25, 0.10).
CONCLUSION: Biologic agents may retard radiographic progression in PsA patients in terms of bone erosion and joint space narrowing compared with placebo. MTX seems to have no added effect. Prior anti-TNF therapy seems to not influence the radiographic efficacy of IL blockers.
Background: Tofacitinib and other new treatments approved for use in psoriatic arthritis have only recently been included in psoriatic arthritis treatment guidelines, and studies evaluating the relative efficacy of available therapies are important to inform treatment decisions by healthcare professionals. Objective: To perform a network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of tofacitinib, biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), and apremilast in patients with psoriatic arthritis naïve to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy (TNFi-naïve) or with an inadequate response (TNFi-IR). Methods: A systematic literature review used searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and The Cochrane Library on October 9, 2017. Randomized controlled trials including adult patients with psoriatic arthritis receiving treatment administered as monotherapy or with conventional synthetic DMARDs were selected. Efficacy outcomes included American College of Rheumatology 20 response, change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, ≥75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, and change from baseline in Dactylitis Severity Score and Leeds Enthesitis Index. Treatment effects were evaluated during placebo-controlled phases, using a binomial logit model for binary outcomes and a normal identify link model for other outcomes. Discontinuations due to adverse events and serious infection events were assessed as safety outcomes. Results: The network meta-analysis included 24 published randomized controlled trials, of which 13 enrolled TNFi-naïve patients only, 3 enrolled TNFi-IR patients only, and 8 enrolled both TNFi-naïve and TNFi-IR patients. Placebo-controlled treatment durations ranged from 12 to 24 weeks. Indirect comparisons showed tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID to have similar efficacy compared with most bDMARDs and apremilast in improving joint symptoms (based on American College of Rheumatology 20 response), and with some bDMARDs in improving skin symptoms (based on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) (tofacitinib 10 mg BID only in TNFi-IR) in patients with psoriatic arthritis who were TNFi-naïve or TNFi-IR. Results also showed that, compared with placebo, the improvement in physical functioning (based on Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index) with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID was similar to that observed with most bDMARDs and apremilast in TNFi-naïve patients, and similar to that observed with all bDMARDs with available data in the TNFi-IR population. Improvements in Dactylitis Severity Score and Leeds Enthesitis Index scores were comparable between treatments. Tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID were median-ranked 8 and 15, respectively, for discontinuation due to any adverse events, and 5 and 16, respectively, for a serious infection event out of a total of 20 treatments in the network (lower numbers are more favorable). Conclusions: Tofacitinib provides an additional treatment option for patients with psoriatic arthritis, both in patients naïve to TNFi and in those with TNFi-IR. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2020; 81:XXX–XXX)
BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy and safety of small molecule and biological agents in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) remain unknown.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of 14 small molecule and biological agents by network meta-analysis (NMA).
METHODS: Relevant randomized controlled trials involving biological treatments for PsA were identified by searching PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Clinicaltrials.gov and by manual retrieval, up to June 2018. NMA was conducted with Stata 14.0 based on the frequentist method. Effect measures were odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Intervention efficacy and safety were ranked according to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).
RESULTS: A total of 30 studies involving 10,191 adult subjects were included. According to NMA, ≥ 20% improvement in modifed American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) response, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response, and serious adverse events rate (SAEs) were observed. In direct comparisons, most of the biologics performed better than placebo in terms of ACR20 response rate and PASI75 response rate. Additionally, all medicines were comparable to placebo in terms of SAEs except secukinumab. In terms of mixed comparisons, with regard to the ACR20 response, etanercept (ETN) and infliximab (IFX) were more effective than golimumab (GOL), with ORs of 3.33 (95% CI: 1.17-9.48) and 1.24 (95% CI: 0.61-2.52), respectively. For PASI75 response, IFX was superior to certolizumab pegol (OR = 10.08, 95% CI: 1.54-75.48). In addition, these medicines were comparable to each other in terms of SAEs. ETN and IFX were shown to have the most favorable SUCRA for achieving improved ACR20 and PASI75 responses, respectively, while ABT-122 exhibited the best safety according to the SUCRA for SAEs. Considering both the efficacy (ACR20, PASI75) and safety (SAEs), GOL, ETN, and IFX are the top 3 treatments.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Direct and indirect comparisons and integrated results suggested that the 3 anti- tumor necrosis factor -α biologics (GOL, ETN, and IFX) can be considered the best treatments for PsA after comprehensive consideration of efficacy and safety.
Recent studies raise concern for increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) with Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) used to treat immune-mediated inflammatory disorders (IMIDs). We aimed to examine MACE risk with licensed biologics and small molecules used commonly between IMIDs: inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis.
METHODS:
Data were obtained from systematic searches (from inception to May 31, 2022) in PubMed, Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Studies that assessed a pre-defined MACE (myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, unstable angina, cardiovascular death, or heart failure) risk in those ≥18 years with IMIDs treated with anti-interleukin (IL)-23 antibodies, anti-IL-12/23, anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha antibodies (anti-TNF-α) or JAKi were included in a network meta-analysis using a random-effects model with pooled odds ratios (ORs) reported with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) by drug class and disease state.
RESULTS:
Among 3,528 studies identified, 40 (36 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 4 cohort studies) were included in the systematic review, comprising 126,961 patients with IMIDs. Based on network meta-analysis of RCTs, regardless of disease state, anti-TNF-α (OR, 2.49; CrI: 1.14-5.62), JAKi (OR, 2.64; CrI: 1.26-5.99), and anti-IL-12/23 (OR, 3.15; CrI: 1.01-13.35) were associated with increased MACE risk compared with placebo. There was no significant difference in the magnitude of the MACE risk between classes or based on IMID type.
CONCLUSIONS:
Anti-IL-12/23, JAKi, and anti-TNF-α were associated with higher risk of MACE compared with placebo. The magnitude of the increased MACE risk was not different by IMID type. These results require confirmation in larger prospective studies.
Pregunta de la revisión sistemática»Revisión sistemática de intervenciones
