Criteria used to define tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors failure in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis: a systematic literature review.

backgroundDetermining tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (anti-TNF-α) failure is still a challenge in the management of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Thus, our comprehensive systematic literature review aimed to gather information on the criteria used to define anti-TNF-α failure. We also aimed to discover the main reasons for anti-TNF-α failure and define subsequently administered treatments. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe conducted a systematic review following review and reporting guidelines (Cochrane and PRISMA). International (Medline/PubMed and Cochrane Library) and Spanish databases (MEDES, IBECS), and gray literature were consulted to identify publications issued until April 2021 in English or Spanish.

resultsOur search yielded 58 publications. Of these, 37 (63.8%) described the criteria used to define anti-TNF-α primary or secondary failure. Criteria varied across studies, although around 60% considered Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI)-50 criteria. Nineteen (32.8%) reported the reasons for treatment failure, including the lack or loss of efficacy and safety-related problems, mainly infections. Finally, 29 (50%) publications outlined the treatments administered after anti-TNF-α: 62.5% reported a switch to another anti-TNF-α and 37.5% to interleukin (IL)-inhibitors. Our findings suggest a need to standardize the management of anti-TNF-α failure and reflect the incorporation of new targets, such as IL-inhibitors, in the treatment sequence.KEY MESSAGESIn the treatment of psoriasis, the primary and secondary anti-TNF-α failure criteria differ widely in the scientific literature.The strictest efficacy criteria for defining anti-TNF-α failure, or those recommended by guidelines such as PASI75, were underused both in clinical trials and observational studies.Most studies failed to consider patient-reported outcomes in assessing psoriasis treatment efficacy, which contrasts with recent recommendations on the inclusion of patient-reported HRQoL as a supporting criterion when considering clinical outcomes.