SynthesisJournal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV2026
Short-term efficacy of biologics in moderate-to-severe hidradenitis suppurativa: A systematic review and NMA.
Synthesis in Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV, 2026. 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.
- Short-term efficacy of biologics in moderate-to-severe hidradenitis suppurativa: A systematic review and NMA.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026Pooled it
- A tale of two meta-analyses: Similarity, consistency and avoiding overinterpretation in network meta-analysis.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026Article
- Effect of adalimumab treatment on lesions and inflammatory factors in patients with moderate-severe hidradenitis suppurativa.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Efficacy of Secukinumab in Chinese Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Hidradenitis Suppurativa: A 16-Week, Single-Center, Prospective, Real-World Study.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGiven the lack of head-to-head studies of approved biologic therapies in hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a chronic, recurrent inflammatory skin disease, a systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to provide insight into their comparative short-term efficacy.
objectivesTo assess the relative efficacy of approved biologic therapies (bimekizumab 320 mg every 2 weeks [Q2W], secukinumab 300 mg Q2W and every 4 weeks [Q4W] and adalimumab 40 mg every week [QW]) at Week 12-16 in moderate-to-severe HS.
methodsA clinical SLR identified randomised controlled trials until 3
resultsThe NMA included nine trials. Bimekizumab ranked as the most efficacious treatment across all predefined efficacy outcomes in both predominantly biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced networks, showing consistent response levels. In the predominantly biologic-naïve network, bimekizumab Q2W compared with secukinumab (Q4W) demonstrated significantly higher odds of response for all HiSCR outcomes (odds ratio [OR]: HiSCR50 = 1.69; HiSCR75 = 1.85; HiSCR90 = 1.62; HiSCR100 = 1.88) and IHS4-55 (OR = 1.91), and for HiSCR75 (OR = 1.60) and HiSCR90 (OR = 1.56) compared with adalimumab QW. Similar results were observed for secukinumab Q2W and both secukinumab dosing regimens in the biologic-experienced network. Note, adalimumab studies did not report the proportion of biologic-experienced patients. Systematic review of safety data is required for full benefit-risk assessment and decision-making.
conclusionsThis NMA, the first to adjust for intercurrent events in moderate-to-severe HS across multiple efficacy outcomes, assessed up-to-date data, with estimates demonstrating bimekizumab's favourable efficacy among approved biologics.
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.