The clinical benefits of novel treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis are well established, but wide variations exist in patient response across different therapies. In the absence of head-to-head randomized trials, meta-analyses synthesizing data from multiple studies are needed to assess comparative efficacy among psoriasis treatments.OBJECTIVE To estimate the relative short-term and long-term efficacy of biologics and oral agents for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis.DATA SOURCES A systematic literature review was conducted on December 4, 2017, and updated on September 17, 2018. The Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register databases were included.STUDY SELECTION Phase 2, 3, or 4 randomized clinical trials of treatments licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for adults with moderate to severe psoriasis with data on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index assessment of 75%, 90%, and 100% reductions (PASI 75, 90, and 100) at 10 to 16 weeks (short-term efficacy) or 44 to 60 weeks (long-term efficacy) from baseline.DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Data were extracted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis guidelines. A bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to estimate short-term PASI response rates; to account for variation across trials, an ordinal model that adjusted for reference arm response was implemented. The long-term PASI rates were estimated via a traditional meta-analysis. PASI 75,90, and 100 response rates at 10 to 16 weeks and 44 to 60 weeks from baseline. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES RESULTSSixty trials meeting all inclusion criteria were included. At weeks 10 to 16, the highest PASI 90 rates were seen with risankizumab-rzaa (71.6%; 95% credible interval [CrI], 67.5%-75.4%), brodalumab (70.8%; 95% CrI, 66.8%-74.6%), ixekizumab (70.6%; 95% CrI, 66.8%-74.6%), and guselkumab (67.3%; 62.5%-71.9%). At weeks 44 to 60, the treatments with the highest PASI 90 rates were risankizumab-rzaa (79.4%, 95% CI, 75.5%-82.9%), guselkumab (76.5%; 95% CI, 72.1%-80.5%), brodalumab (74.0%; 95% CI, 69.3%-78.1%), and ixekizumab (73.9%; 95% CI, 69.9%-77.5%). Findings were consistent for short-term and long-term PASI 75 and 100 responses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThis study provides an assessment of the comparative efficacy among treatments for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. The meta-analysis suggests that brodalumab, guselkumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab-rzaa were associated with the highest PASI response rates in both short-term and long-term therapy.

Noninfectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis, or panuveitis, particularly persistent disease, is associated with a substantial risk of ocular complications. Optimal treatment initiatives remain imperative to reduce the ocular complication-related burden of NIIPPU.

This study aimed to identify providers involved in diagnosing ankylosing spondylitis (AS) following back pain diagnosis in the USA and to identify factors leading to the delay in rheumatology referrals. The Truven Health MarketScan® US Commercial Database was searched for patients aged 18–64 years with back pain diagnosis in a non-rheumatology setting followed by AS diagnosis in any setting during January 2000–December 2012. Patients with a rheumatologist visit on or before AS diagnosis were considered referred. Cox regression was used to determine factors associated with referral time after adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, physician specialty, drug therapy, and imaging procedures. Of 3336 patients included, 1244 (37 %) were referred to and diagnosed by rheumatologists; the others were diagnosed in primary care (25.7 %), chiropractic/physical therapy (7 %), orthopedic surgery (3.8 %), pain clinic (3.6 %), acute care (3.4 %), and other (19.2 %) settings. Median time from back pain diagnosis to rheumatology referral was 307 days and from first rheumatologist visit to AS diagnosis was 28 days. Referred patients were more likely to be younger (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.986; p < 0.0001), male (HR = 1.15; p = 0.0163), diagnosed with uveitis (HR = 1.49; p = 0.0050), referred by primary care physicians (HR = 1.96; p < 0.0001), prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (HR = 1.55; p < 0.0001), disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (HR = 1.33; p < 0.0001), and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (HR = 1.40; p = 0.0036), and to have had spinal/pelvic X-ray prior to referral (HR = 1.28; p = 0.0003). During 2000–2012, most patients with AS were diagnosed outside of rheumatology practices. The delay before referral to rheumatology was 10 months; AS diagnosis generally followed within a month. Earlier referral of patients with AS signs and symptoms may lead to more timely diagnosis and appropriate treatment.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10067-016-3231-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background:The comparative safety and benefit-risk profiles of moderate-to-severe psoriasis treatment have not been well studied.Objective: To compare the short-term (12-16 weeks) and long-term (48-56 weeks) safety and benefit-risk profiles of moderate-to-severe psoriasis treatments.Methods: A systematic literature review of phase II-IV randomized controlled trials of moderate-to-severe psoriasis treatments was conducted (cutoff: July 1, 2020). Any adverse events (AEs), any serious AEs, and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were compared using Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMAs).Results: Fifty-two and 7, respectively, randomized controlled trials were included in the short-and longterm NMAs, respectively. In the short-term NMA, the rates of any AEs were the lowest for tildrakizumab (posterior median: 46.0%), certolizumab (46.2%), and etanercept (49.1%). The rates of any serious AE were the lowest for certolizumab (0.8%), risankizumab (1.2%), and etanercept (1.6%). The rates of AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were the lowest for risankizumab (0.5%), tildrakizumab (1.0%), and guselkumab (1.5%). In the long-term NMA, risankizumab had the lowest rates of all 3 outcomes (67.5%, 4.4%, and 1.0%, respectively) and the most favorable benefit-risk profile. Limitations:The results may not be generalizable to real-world populations.Conclusions: Antieinterleukin 23 agents were associated with low rates of safety events. Risankizumab had the most favorable benefit-risk profile in the long term.

INTERVENTIONS In VISUAL-1 and VISUAL-2, patients were randomized to receive adalimumab, 80-mg, subcutaneous loading dose followed by 40 mg every other week or placebo for 80 weeks. All patients underwent prednisone tapering, with patients in VISUAL-1 receiving an initial prednisone burst. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The 25-item National Eye Institute Vision Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) composite score questionnaire assessed the impact of visual impairment from the patient's perspective; scores on the questionnaire range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better vision-related quality of life. The change in NEI VFQ-25 from best state achieved prior to week 6 (VISUAL-1) and from baseline state (VISUAL-2) to the final or early termination visit was determined in each group and statistically compared using analysis of variance. The temporal effects of adalimumab and placebo on NEI VFQ-25 were investigated using a longitudinal model. RESULTS Of the 217 patients in VISUAL-1, 124 (57.1%) were women; the mean (SD) age was 42.7 (14.9) years. Of the 226 patients in VISUAL-2, 138 (61.1%) were women; the mean (SD) age was 42.5 (13.4). In VISUAL-1, the change from final score to best score in NEI VFQ-25 was −1.30 for adalimumab and −5.50 for placebo-a difference of 4.20 (95% CI, 1.04 to 7.36; P = .01) associated with adalimumab compared with placebo. In VISUAL-2, the change from baseline NEI VFQ-25 was 3.36 for adalimumab and 1.24 for placebo-a difference of 2.12 (95% CI, −0.81 to 5.04; P = .16). In both trials, the longitudinal models showed a significant difference in NEI VFQ-25 between adalimumab and placebo of 3.07 (95% CI, 2.09 to 4.06; P < .001) and 4.66 (95% CI, 0.05 to 9.26; P = .048) in the VISUAL-1 (74.15 vs 71.08) and VISUAL-2 (82.39 vs 77.73) trials, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This post hoc analysis suggests that adalimumab is associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported visual functioning for patients with noninfectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis, and panuveitis.

The results indicated that initial adalimumab therapy is associated with a significantly lower risk of developing uveitis compared to initial etanercept therapy in patients diagnosed with AS and no prior history of uveitis; however, the risk was not different between adalimumab and infliximab. Limitations to consider when interpreting this conclusion include that disease-level clinical data, such as disease duration, were not available for inclusion in the model and that risk of uveitis beyond 1 year was not evaluated.

PurposeTo ascertain resource use, costs and risk of workforce absence in non‐infectious uveitis cases versus matched controls.MethodsIn a retrospective claims analysis of employees in the United States, prevalent (N = 705) and incident (N = 776) cases 18–64 years old with ≥2 diagnoses of non‐infectious intermediate, posterior or panuveitis were matched 1:1 to controls without uveitis. Persistent prevalent cases (treated for ≥90 days, N = 112) also were analysed. Outcomes were annual direct resource use and costs associated with inpatient stays; emergency department, outpatient and ophthalmologist/optometrist visits; and prescription drugs. Indirect resource use and costs associated with work loss from disability and medically related absenteeism also were compared. Multivariate regression assessed cost differences between cases and controls.ResultsCases had significantly (p < 0.05) more medical resource use versus controls including 0.4 versus 0.2 emergency visits and 16.5 versus 7.6 outpatient/other visits. Cases used more prescription drugs (7.8 versus 4.1) and had more disability days (10.3 versus 4.6), medically related absenteeism days (8.5 versus 3.8), and work loss days (18.7 versus 8.4) than controls (all p < 0.05). Total direct ($12 940 versus $3730) and indirect ($3144 versus $1378) costs were higher in cases than controls (all p < 0.05). Results for persistent cases suggested greater utilization and associated cost and work loss burden. Compared with controls, cases had significantly greater risks of workforce absence, leave of absence and long‐term disability (all p < 0.05).ConclusionNon‐infectious intermediate, posterior or panuveitis, particularly persistent disease, is associated with substantial medical and work loss costs suggesting an unmet need for more effective treatments.

Objective. To assess the impact of achieving Assessment in SpondyloArthritis international Society 40% (ASAS40) response or an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score inactive disease (ASDAS-ID) state on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among patients with non-radiographic axial SpA (nr-axSpA).Methods. Data are from ABILITY-1, a phase 3 trial of adalimumab vs placebo in nr-axSpA patients. PROs included the HAQ for Spondyloarthropathies (HAQ-S), 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS) score and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire. Patients were grouped by clinical response using ASAS40 response and ASDAS disease states at week 12. Changes in PROs from baseline to week 12 were compared between groups using analysis of covariance with adjustment for baseline scores.Results. At week 12, 47 of 179 patients were ASAS40 responders and 26 of 176 patients achieved ASDAS-ID (ASDAS <1.3). Compared with non-responders (n = 132), ASAS40 responders (n = 47) had a significantly greater improvement in mean HAQ-S (–0.65 vs -0.05, P < 0.0001), SF-36 PCS (12.4 vs 0.7, P < 0.0001), presenteeism (–24.7 vs -2.2, P < 0.0001), overall work impairment (–23.9 vs -2.5, P < 0.0001) and activity impairment (–33.5 vs -0.9, P < 0.0001) at week 12. Similarly, ASDAS-ID, ASDAS clinically important improvement (ASDAS-CII; improvement >1.1) and major improvement (ASDAS-MI; improvement >2.0) were associated with significantly greater improvements from baseline in the majority of the PROs.Conclusion. Among nr-axSpA patients, ASAS40, ASDAS-CII and ASDAS-MI response and achievement of ASDAS-ID were associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in physical function, health-related quality of life and work productivity in a higher percentage of patients.