SynthesisRheumatology international2018
Comparative effectiveness of abatacept, apremilast, secukinumab and ustekinumab treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline
- Comparative efficacy and safety of bimekizumab in psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Comparative effectiveness of guselkumab in psoriatic arthritis: results from systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2021Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of biologics in psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.RMD open · 2020Pooled it
- A Systematic Review With Network Meta-Analysis of the Available Biologic Therapies for Psoriatic Disease Domains.Frontiers in medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Cutaneous and systemic improvements in psoriasis patients after different biologic treatments in a real-world longitudinal prospective study.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Oral Peptide Therapeutics as an Emerging Treatment Modality in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Narrative Review.Advances in therapy · 2025Review
- Review
- Therapeutic Antibodies in Medicine.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Immunomodulatory role of T helper cells in rheumatoid arthritis : a comprehensive research review.Bone & joint research · 2022Article
- NETosis in Psoriatic Arthritis: Serum MPO-DNA Complex Level Correlates With Its Disease Activity.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Article
- Comparative effectiveness of biologics and targeted therapies for psoriatic arthritis.RMD open · 2021Article
- Efficacy of Biologics Targeting Tumour Necrosis Factor-alpha, Interleukin-17 -12/23, -23 and Small Molecules Targeting JAK and PDE4 in the Treatment of Nail Psoriasis: A Network Meta-analysis.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2020Article
- Secondary causes of inflammatory bowel diseases.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Biologics for Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis and Their Impact on Comorbidities: A Literature Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- An Update for the Clinician on Biologics for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis.Biologics : targets & therapy · 2020Review
- Unmet needs in psoriatic arthritis patients receiving immunomodulatory therapy: results from a large multinational real-world study.Clinical rheumatology · 2019Article
- Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Tofacitinib and Apremilast in Patients with Active Psoriatic Arthritis: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Clinical drug investigation · 2019Article
- TNF Inhibitor-Induced Psoriasis: Proposed Algorithm for Treatment and Management.Journal of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis · 2019Article
- Mini Review: New Treatments in Psoriatic Arthritis. Focus on the IL-23/17 Axis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.