Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29285605›Full record

SynthesisRheumatology international2018

Comparative effectiveness of abatacept, apremilast, secukinumab and ustekinumab treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

P Kawalec, P Holko, P Moćko, A Pilc

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Rheumatology international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. La Tunisie medicale · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Therapeutic Antibodies in Medicine.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Secondary causes of inflammatory bowel diseases.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

P KawalecDrug Management Department, Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Jagiellonian University Collegium Medicum, Grzegorzecka 20, 31-531, Kraków, Poland. pawel.kawalec@uj.edu.pl.
P HolkoDrug Management Department, Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Jagiellonian University Collegium Medicum, Grzegorzecka 20, 31-531, Kraków, Poland.
P MoćkoDrug Management Department, Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Jagiellonian University Collegium Medicum, Grzegorzecka 20, 31-531, Kraków, Poland.
A PilcDrug Management Department, Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Jagiellonian University Collegium Medicum, Grzegorzecka 20, 31-531, Kraków, Poland.
Jagiellonian University · PLMaj Institute of Pharmacology · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of novel biologic therapies in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and to establish the position of the non-anti-tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) biologic drugs in the treatment regimen of the disease. A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) requirements. Two investigators identified the studies, abstracted data, and assessed the risk of bias independently. The NMA was conducted for efficacy [American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, ACR20 and ACR50; psoriasis area and severity index (PASI), PASI75] and safety outcomes [any adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs)]; treatments were ranked using the P score for each outcome. The PROSPERO registration number was 42017072200. MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from the inception of each database to July 10, 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for abatacept, apremilast, secukinumab or ustekinumab in adults with moderate and severe PsA were included. The overall PsA population and anti-TNF-α-naive, anti-TNF-α-failure, or anti-TNF-α-experienced subpopulations were considered. We identified eight eligible RCTs and included them in the systematic review and NMA. Significant differences in ACR20 response rate were revealed between secukinumab 150 mg and apremilast 20 mg [relative risk; RR = 2.55 (CI-confidence interval; 1.24, 5.23)] and between secukinumab 300 mg and apremilast 20 or 30 mg [RR = 3.57 CI (1.48, 8.64) and RR = 2.84 CI (1.18, 6.86), respectively]. Any AEs occurred more often in apremilast 20 and 30 mg compared with placebo [RR = 0.58 CI (0.45, 0.74) and RR = 0.58 CI (0.45, 0.75), respectively] but also compared with secukinumab 150 mg [RR = 0.54 CI (0.35, 0.81) and RR = 0.45 CI (0.35, 0.82), respectively]. No significant differences were revealed for SAEs among biologics and between biologics and placebo. In the overall population, as well as in the anti-TNF-α-naive subpopulation, secukinumab at a dose of 300 and 150 mg was ranked the highest for the ACR20 endpoint, while in the anti-TNF-α-experienced subpopulation, secukinumab 300 mg and apremilast 30 mg revealed the highest rank. Secukinumab 75 mg was the safest drug in terms of any AEs, but for SEAs the safest was ustekinumab 90 mg. Our study revealed no significant differences among non-anti-TNF-α biologics in the treatment of PsA in the comparisons performed with regards to the highest efficacy and safety. Both in the overall population and in the analyzed subpopulations, secukinumab 300 mg was ranked the highest for the ACR20 response rate. Secukinumab 300 mg was the safest drug in terms of any AEs, and ustekinumab 90 mg presented the lowest overall risk of SAEs. Head-to-head trials and evaluation of comparative efficacy and safety between non-TNF-α biologics are warranted to inform clinical decision making with a relevant treatment paradigm.

Indexed as

AbataceptAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntirheumatic AgentsArthritis, PsoriaticBiological ProductsComparative Effectiveness ResearchHumansRemission InductionThalidomideTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeUstekinumabAbataceptAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntirheumatic AgentsapremilastBiological ProductssecukinumabThalidomideUstekinumabBiologic drugsBiologicsNetwork meta-analysisPharmacotherapySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID29285605
PMCPMC5773655
OpenAlexW2776051606

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.