Comparative efficacy and therapeutic positioning of biologics in hidradenitis suppurativa: A systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

Background Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a challenging inflammatory skin condition. Recently, many different biologics have been tested for HS, but the paucity of head-to-head comparative trials makes it difficult to determine the real value of each biological intervention. We aimed to determine the relative efficacy among biologics in treating moderate-to-severe HS throughout a network meta-analysis (NMA) and, to identify which pathogenetic pathways may be the most appropriate to target. Methods We comprehensively identified studies in 3 databases and clinicaltrials.gov. The eligibility criteria included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting data on the efficacy of moderate-to-severe HS. Results The NMA comprised 13 studies comprising 14 interventions on 2,748 participants in the network. The NMA showed the odds of achieving the clinical response were significantly superior with adalimumab (RR: 0.37, 95% CI = 0.06-0.63), adalimumab QW (RR: 0.63, 95% CI = 0.43-0.87), MAB1p (RR: 1.33, 95% CI = 0.03-3.12), secukinumab (RR: 0.25, 95% CI = 0.11-0.47) and secukinumabQ2W (RR: 0.24, 95% CI = 0.1-0.46) compared to placebo. Conclusion Based on the NMA, inhibiting tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-a with adalimumab appears to be the best strategy, followed by the blockade of IL--17 with secukinumab. Data for bimekizumab and CJM112 are promising. Infliximab has inconsistent clinical response, and more data are necessary to confirm this molecule as a potential third-line therapy in HS. The blockade of IL-23 and CD5a pathways is not relevant, or at least the current evidence is insufficient to recommend further investigation of guselkumab, risankizumab, and vilobelimab in phase III trials.