Comparison of Ustekinumab With Other Biological Agents for the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis

Lin, Vincent; Ringold, Sarah; Devine, Emily Beth

doi:10.1001/2013.jamadermatol.238

Cited by 67 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(26 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Six NMAs (Bansback et al., 2009, Gomez-Garcia et al., 2017, Lin et al., 2012, Reich et al., 2012, Signorovitch et al., 2015, Woolacott et al., 2006) have been published examining the relative efficacy of biologics for psoriasis. Treatment tolerability is an important consideration for patients, with such concerns directly influencing whether patients adhere to treatment after initiation (Thorneloe et al., 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Jabbar‐Lopez

Yiu

Ward

et al. 2017

Journal of Investigative Dermatology

114

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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).

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Jabbar‐Lopez

Yiu

Ward

et al. 2017

Journal of Investigative Dermatology

114

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1) [72, 73]. Alefacept was FDA-approved for psoriasis, and showed significant reduction of circulating CD4 + memory T cells, as well as downregulation of immune markers (e.g., IFN-γ, IL-8, and IL-23) in these patients, yet low efficacy resulted in drug withdrawal from the market in 2011 [72, 74]. A trial of alefacept for AD patients also failed to demonstrate significant clinical effectiveness [73, 75].…”

Section: A Few Broad T Cell Antagonists That Are Ineffective For Aamentioning

confidence: 99%

The Changing Landscape of Alopecia Areata: The Therapeutic Paradigm

Renert‐Yuval

Guttman‐Yassky

2017

Adv Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alopecia areata (AA), a prevalent inflammatory cause of hair loss, lacks FDA-approved therapeutics for extensive cases, which are associated with very poor rates of spontaneous hair regrowth and major psychological distress. Current treatments for severe cases include broad immune-suppressants, which are associated with significant adverse effects, precluding long-term use, with rapid hair loss following treatment termination. As a result of the extent of the disease in severe cases, topical contact sensitizers and intralesional treatments are of limited use. The pathogenesis of AA is not yet fully understood, but recent investigations of the immune activation in AA skin reveal Th1/IFN-γ, as well as Th2, PDE4, IL-23, and IL-9 upregulations. Tissue analyses of both animal models and human lesions following broad-acting and cytokine-specific therapeutics (such as JAK inhibitors and ustekinumab, respectively) provide another opportunity for important insights into the pathogenesis of AA. As reviewed in this paper, numerous novel therapeutics are undergoing clinical trials for AA, emphasizing the potential transformation of the clinical practice of AA, which is currently lacking. Dermatologists are already familiar with the revolution in disease management of psoriasis, stemming from better understanding of immune dysregulations, and atopic dermatitis will soon follow a similar path. In light of these recent developments, the therapeutic arena of AA treatments is finally getting more exciting. AA will join the lengthening list of dermatologic diseases with mechanism-targeted drugs, thus changing the face of AA.

show abstract

“…Согласно полученным дан-ным оказалось, что УСТ более эффективно влияет на Пс, чем адалимумаб, ЭТЦ и алефацепт, а при сравнении с ин-фликсимабом такого преимущества не было выявлено. Кроме того, при сравнении ГИБП и ПЛ эффективность ингибитора ИЛ12/23 оказалась выше, чем ингибиторов ФНОα [69].…”

Section: исследование C0743t10 при псориатическом артритеunclassified