Risk of Serious Infections in Patients with Psoriasis on Biologic Therapies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

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

Quantitative Evaluation of Biologic Therapy Options for Psoriasis:A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

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)

Quantitative Evaluation of Biologic Therapy Options for Psoriasis:A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis-Correction

No abstract available

British Association of Dermatologists guidelines for biologic therapy for psoriasis 2017

The overall aim of the guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of biologic therapies (adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab and ustekinumab) in adults, children and young people for the treatment of psoriasis; consideration is given to the specific needs of people with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Biologic therapies have now been in use for over 10 years, and with accrued patient-years exposure and clinical experience, many areas that were covered in previous versions of the guideline are now part of the Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) and/or routine care so that specific recommendations are redundant (see Toolkit A: Summary of licensed indications and posology for biologic therapy, in Supporting information 2). Therefore, in this update we focus on areas where there has been a major change in the evidence base or clinical practice, where practice is very varied and/or where clear consensus or guidelines are lacking (see section 3.1 in Supporting information 1)