SynthesisThe Journal of dermatology2024
Indirect comparison of deucravacitinib and other systemic treatments for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in Asian populations: A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The Journal of dermatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Indirect comparison of deucravacitinib and other systemic treatments for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in Asian populations: A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.The Journal of dermatology · 2024Pooled it
- Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of Deucravacitinib for Plaque Psoriasis: A Multicenter Study in Korea.Annals of dermatology · 2026Article
- Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Risankizumab Versus Icotrokinra in Adult Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis.Dermatology and therapy · 2026Article
- Exploring the Efficacy, Safety, and Clinical Implications of Deucravacitinib in East Asians with Psoriasis: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Expanding the systemic treatment options for patients with psoriasis, deucravacitinib, an oral, selective, allosteric tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor is approved in the United States, European Union, China, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and other countries for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy. Evidence suggests the comparative efficacy of systemic therapies may be different in Asian versus White patients. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluated the clinical efficacy associated with deucravacitinib and other biologic or non-biologic systemic treatments for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in Asian populations. Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized trials of the interventions of interest. Multinomial random effects models adjusting for baseline placebo risk were used to estimate Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) responses at weeks 10-16. Of 8596 studies identified, 20 were included in the NMA. The estimated PASI 75 and 90 (95% credible interval) response rates for deucravacitinib were estimated to be 66% (49%-80%) and 40% (24%-58%) in Asian populations, notably higher than placebo (6% [4%-9%] and 1% [0.8-2%]) and apremilast (24% [12%-40%] and 9% [4%-20%]). No statistically significant difference was observed in PASI 75 and 90 responses between deucravacitinib and adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, infliximab, ustekinumab, and tildrakizumab. Deucravacitinib demonstrated robust efficacy in the Asian population, with PASI 75 and 90 responses comparable to some biologics. Deucravacitinib provides a convenient oral therapy with efficacy similar to several biologic therapies.
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.