Introduction New generation biologics, including interleukin (IL)-17 and IL-23 inhibitors, have delivered higher rates of skin clearance than older treatments in head-to-head studies. However, studies comparing these new biologics directly to one another are limited. Objectives To compare the short-term efficacy of available (or imminently available) biologic and non-biologic systemic therapies for treating patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Methods A systematic review was undertaken to identify randomised controlled trials evaluating biologic treatments, apremilast and dimethyl fumarate. MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched from the 1st January 2000 to 22nd November 2018. A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) using a random-effects multinomial likelihood model with probit link and meta-regression to adjust for cross-trial variation in placebo responses compared the efficacy of interventions at inducing different levels of Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response during the induction period. A range of sensitivity analyses was undertaken. Results Seventy-seven trials (34,816 patients) were included in the NMA. The base-case analysis showed that all active treatments were superior to placebo. IL-17 inhibitors, guselkumab and risankizumab were found to be more efficacious than tildrakizumab, ustekinumab, all TNF inhibitors and non-biologic systemic treatments at inducing all levels of PASI response. In addition, brodalumab, ixekizumab and risankizumab were significantly more efficacious than secukinumab; no significant difference was found in the comparison with guselkumab. The greatest benefit of brodalumab, ixekizumab, guselkumab, and risankizumab was seen for PASI 90 and PASI 100 response. Results were consistent across all analyses. Conclusions In the NMA brodalumab, ixekizumab, risankizumab and guselkumab showed the highest levels of short-term efficacy. There were differences in efficacy between treatments within the same class. Longer-term analyses are needed to understand differences between these drugs beyond induction in what is a life-long condition.

Purpose: To compare PASI outcomes of approved biologics and apremilast after 1 year of treatment. Methods: A systematic review identified RCTs and long-term extensions reporting PASI 75, 90, and 100 responses in adults with moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Data for analysis were modeled using a Bayesian multinomial likelihood model with probit link. Results: Twenty-eight studies reporting PASI responses were included in the network meta-analysis. Differences in study design led to a stepwise approach to synthesis, consisting of two analyses. The primary analysis included nine RCTs investigating comparative efficacy at 1 year. Results indicated risankizumab, brodalumab, and guselkumab were the most effective therapies, followed by ixekizumab and secukinumab; all demonstrated superiority to ustekinumab and etanercept. The secondary analysis extended the primary analysis with 19 further studies comparing active interventions to placebo outcomes extrapolated from induction. The interventions generating the highest PASI response were the same as the primary analysis. These therapies were more effective than apremilast, ustekinumab, adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, and infliximab. Conclusions: This NMA demonstrated that evaluated IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors outperformed other biological therapies after 1 year. Risankizumab had a higher probability of achieving PASI outcomes than all other biologics, except brodalumab and guselkumab, where no significant difference could be concluded.

Our findings are consistent with pivotal trials which indicate that high levels of complete clearance can be achieved with brodalumab. Based on existing evidence, induction-phase efficacy of brodalumab is similar to ixekizumab and superior to other approved therapies, including anti-TNFs, apremilast, secukinumab, and ustekinumab.

Introduction A range of treatments are available for moderate-to-severe psoriasis; however, there remains a paucity of direct comparisons of these in head-to-head trials. Network meta-analyses (NMA) allow comparisons of these to support clinical decision making. This systematic literature review assesses the methodological quality of NMAs available for moderate-to-severe psoriasis and compares their methods and results. Their validity and applicability for current practice is also assessed. Methods A systematic review of published NMAs of at least two biologics for moderate-to-severe psoriasis was undertaken. Embase, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, and the Cochrane Library were last searched on 19 February 2020. The quality of NMAs was assessed using the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) criteria. NMA methodology, funding, and results were compared and differences in results explored. Results Twenty-five analyses evaluating up to 19 different treatments at 8–24 weeks, and two analyses at 1 year, were included. Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) response was assessed in 23, facilitating comparisons between NMAs. All NMAs met at least half of the ISPOR criteria. The major limitations were explaining the rationale for methodology, exploring effect modifiers, and consistency between direct and indirect estimates. The analyses differed in model type (Bayesian or frequentist), analysis of PASI response (binomial or multinomial), and analysis of different treatment doses (separate or pooled). PASI results were broadly similar, except for the Cochrane Collaboration NMA which provided lower estimates of treatment efficacy versus placebo. This analysis differed methodologically from others, including pooling data for different doses. Conclusions Based on PASI 90 at induction, the majority of recent NMAs came to similar conclusions: interleukin (IL) 17 inhibitors (brodalumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab), IL-23 inhibitors (guselkumab and risankizumab) and infliximab were most efficacious, supporting the validity of NMAs in this clinical area. Decisions should be made using high-quality, up-to-date NMAs with assumptions relevant to clinical practice. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s13555-020-00463-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

practice. All HTA bodies recommended the three biologic therapies for use in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who have failed to respond to standard systemic therapies with discontinuation rules if no response was observed after 12-16 (16-20: ixekizumab (SMC)) weeks. Conclusions: The evidence base, and HTA agency decisions, for guselkumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab submissions were principally aligned. As more biologics are being approved, understanding the requirements of HTA, and undertaking holistic evidence generation, will play a crucial role in enabling access to the novel biologics.

IntroductionThe importance of patient-centered outcome (PCO) evidence is increasingly recognized, but its inclusion in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) submissions remains inconsistent. We explored the impact of PCO evidence on HTA decision-making.MethodsA framework was developed to assess the impact of PCO evidence (excluding EQ-5D) on HTA appraisals. An impact rating was determined by reviewing company, committee and Evidence Review Group (ERG) opinion. This was applied to publicly available appraisal documents (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE]: 8; Scottish Medicines Consortium [SMC]: 2) in a pilot study. The framework was then refined and applied to a larger dataset.ResultsPCO evidence had ‘substantial impact’ in 3/8 NICE and 1/2 SMC appraisals, and ‘some impact’ in those remaining. PCO evidence informed the cost-effectiveness model in 2/8 NICE and 1/2 SMC submissions, and was considered superior to EQ-5D evidence in one NICE and one SMC submission. The ERG considered PCO evidence relevant to decision-making in 5/8 NICE appraisals. PCO evidence was mentioned in guidance for 7/10 appraisals (deemed relevant in 5/10). In one assessment, committee comments were notably more favorable than ERG comments. Larger dataset analysis results provided further insights to the pilot study.ConclusionsThe framework allows a systematic approach to evaluating the impact of PCO evidence on HTA appraisals.BL, AP, DGB and NY are employees of Symmetron Ltd, which received funding from Pfizer UK in connection with the development of this manuscript. KH, HT, SLC and JB are employees of Pfizer UK. This study was sponsored by Pfizer UK.