• 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: 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.
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.
BACKGROUND: Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs are used in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), but few studies directly compare their clinical efficacy. In such situations, network meta-analysis (NMA) can inform evidence-based decision-making.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of approved bDMARDs in patients with PsA.
METHODS: Bayesian NMA was conducted to compare the clinical efficacy of bDMARDs at weeks 12‒16 in bDMARD-naïve patients with PsA in terms of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI). Safety end points were evaluated in the overall mixed population of bDMARD-naive and bDMARD-experienced patients.
RESULTS: For ACR, all treatments except abatacept were statistically superior to placebo. Infliximab was most effective, followed by golimumab and etanercept, which were statistically superior to most other treatments. Ixekizumab 80 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) was statistically superior to abatacept subcutaneous, apremilast and both regimens of ustekinumab; similar findings were observed for ixekizumab 80 mg Q4W. For PsARC response, ixekizumab did not significantly differ from other therapies, except for golimumab, infliximab and etanercept, which were superior to most other agents including ixekizumab. For PASI response, infliximab was numerically most effective, but was not statistically superior to ixekizumab, which was the next best performing agent. Analysis of safety end points identified few differences between treatments.
CONCLUSION: Our NMA confirms the efficacy and acceptable safety profile of bDMARDs in patients with active PsA. There were generally few statistically significant differences between most treatments.
• 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.
