Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32094304›Full record

SynthesisRMD open2020

Efficacy and safety of biologics in psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

Adeline Ruyssen-Witrand, Richard Perry, Clare Watkins, George Braileanu, Gayathri Kumar, Sandeep Kiri, Debby Nott, Soyi Liu-Leage, Susanne Hartz, Christophe Sapin

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudySystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in RMD open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
8.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Brazilian Society of Rheumatology 2020 guidelines for psoriatic arthritis.Advances in rheumatology (London, England) · 2021
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Adeline Ruyssen-WitrandRheumatology Center, Purpan Teaching Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Richard PerryValue Demonstration and Communication, Adelphi Values, Bollington, Cheshire, UK richard.perry@adelphivalues.com.
Clare WatkinsStatistical Consultancy, Clarostat Consulting Ltd, Alderley Edge, Cheshire, UK.
George BraileanuValue Demonstration and Communication, Adelphi Values, Bollington, Cheshire, UK.
Gayathri KumarHealth Economics & Pricing, Reimbursement and Access, Eli Lilly and Company Ltd, Basingstoke, UK.
Sandeep KiriHealth Outcomes and Health Technology Assessment, Eli Lilly and Company Ltd, Basingstoke, UK.
Debby NottHealth Outcomes and Health Technology Assessment, Eli Lilly and Company Ltd, Basingstoke, UK.
Soyi Liu-LeageInternational Business Unit-Rheumatology, Lilly France, Neuilly-sur-Seine, France.
Susanne HartzGlobal Patient Outcomes and Real World Evidence International, Eli Lilly and Company, Windlesham, UK.
Christophe SapinEuropean Statistics, Lilly France, Neuilly-sur-Seine, France.
Eli Lilly (United Kingdom) · GBAdelphi Group (United Kingdom) · GBHôpital Purpan · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs are used in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), but few studies directly compare their clinical efficacy. In such situations, network meta-analysis (NMA) can inform evidence-based decision-making.

objectiveTo evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of approved bDMARDs in patients with PsA.

methodsBayesian NMA was conducted to compare the clinical efficacy of bDMARDs at weeks 12‒16 in bDMARD-naïve patients with PsA in terms of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI). Safety end points were evaluated in the overall mixed population of bDMARD-naive and bDMARD-experienced patients.

resultsFor ACR, all treatments except abatacept were statistically superior to placebo. Infliximab was most effective, followed by golimumab and etanercept, which were statistically superior to most other treatments. Ixekizumab 80 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) was statistically superior to abatacept subcutaneous, apremilast and both regimens of ustekinumab; similar findings were observed for ixekizumab 80 mg Q4W. For PsARC response, ixekizumab did not significantly differ from other therapies, except for golimumab, infliximab and etanercept, which were superior to most other agents including ixekizumab. For PASI response, infliximab was numerically most effective, but was not statistically superior to ixekizumab, which was the next best performing agent. Analysis of safety end points identified few differences between treatments.

conclusionOur NMA confirms the efficacy and acceptable safety profile of bDMARDs in patients with active PsA. There were generally few statistically significant differences between most treatments.

Indexed as

AbataceptAdultAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntirheumatic AgentsArthritis, PsoriaticBiological ProductsClinical Decision-MakingHumansImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsInterleukin-17PlacebosSafetySeverity of Illness IndexTreatment OutcomeAbataceptAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntirheumatic AgentsBiological ProductsImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsInterleukin-17ixekizumabPlacebosDMARDs (biologic)DMARDs (synthetic)psoriatic arthritis

Identifiers

PMID32094304
PMCPMC7046955
OpenAlexW3006780412

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.