Jabbar-Lopez Zarif K, Yiu Zenas Z N, Ward Victoria, Exton Lesley S, Mohd Mustapa M Firouz, Samarasekera Eleanor, Burden A David, Murphy Ruth, Owen Caroline M, Parslew Richard, Venning Vanessa, Warren Richard B, Smith Catherine H
Unit for Population-Based Dermatology Research, St John's Institute of Dermatology, King's College London and Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Dermatology Centre, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
J Invest Dermatol. 2017 Aug;137(8):1646-1654. doi: 10.1016/j.jid.2017.04.009. Epub 2017 Apr 27.
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).
多种生物制剂已获许可用于治疗银屑病。由于缺乏头对头的随机对照试验,患者、临床医生和指南制定者在这些药物之间做出选择变得困难。为了确定它们的相对疗效和耐受性,我们在MEDLINE、PubMed、Embase和Cochrane数据库中检索了已获许可用于治疗皮肤银屑病的生物制剂的随机对照试验。我们进行了一项网状Meta分析,以确定生物制剂之间、与甲氨蝶呤或安慰剂相比的直接和间接证据。我们将此与层次聚类分析相结合,以综合考虑每种治疗方法在疗效和耐受性方面的多个结果。评估了研究质量、异质性和不一致性。纳入了41项随机对照试验(20561名参与者)的直接比较。在3至4个月时,所有纳入的生物制剂与安慰剂或甲氨蝶呤相比均有效。总体而言,聚类分析表明,阿达木单抗、司库奇尤单抗和乌司奴单抗在高疗效和耐受性方面相当。依奇珠单抗和英夫利昔单抗的区别在于疗效非常高,但耐受性较差。缺乏长期对照数据限制了我们的分析仅关注短期结果。试验表现可能与实际表现不相等,因此结果需要与实际的长期安全性和有效性数据一起考虑。这些数据表明,区分生物制剂以指导临床实践和决策是可能的(国际前瞻性系统评价注册库2015:CRD42015017538)。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-12-22
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-4-19
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-5-23
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-9-14
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-5-8
Health Technol Assess. 2006-11
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-10-19
Health Technol Assess. 2024-10
Arch Dermatol Res. 2024-11-13
Indian J Dermatol. 2023
Skin Health Dis. 2022-4-23
Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2022-8
Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2016-9
Evid Based Ment Health. 2014-11