SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of IL-23 p19 monoclonal antibodies for plaque psoriasis: a bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of IL-23 p19 monoclonal antibodies for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 21 February 2026. We included randomized controlled trials of guselkumab, risankizumab, tildrakizumab, or mirikizumab. Efficacy outcomes were PASI75, PASI90, PASI100, and IGA/PGA/sPGA 0/1; safety outcomes were overall adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2. A Bayesian network meta-analysis generated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs), with SUCRA, transitivity, heterogeneity, leave-one-out, and publication-bias assessments. Results: Thirteen articles comprising 15 RCTs or independent study units were included. Networks were largely placebo-centred, with limited direct active-agent comparisons. Versus placebo, all four agents significantly improved PASI75, PASI100, and IGA/PGA/sPGA 0/1. For PASI90, risankizumab, guselkumab, and mirikizumab were superior to placebo, whereas the tildrakizumab CrI crossed the null. PASI75 ORs versus placebo were 124.04 for risankizumab, 105.41 for guselkumab, 72.36 for mirikizumab, and 24.05 for tildrakizumab. Corresponding ORs for IGA/PGA/sPGA 0/1 were 89.73, 68.84, 52.82, and 21.46. Most comparisons among risankizumab, guselkumab, and mirikizumab were not statistically significant; tildrakizumab showed lower PASI75 and IGA/PGA/sPGA 0/1 responses. SUCRA generally ranked risankizumab highest or near highest, followed by guselkumab and mirikizumab, with tildrakizumab lower. No agent differed significantly from placebo in AE or SAE risk. Sensitivity analyses supported stable efficacy findings, and Egger's tests found no clear publication bias. Conclusion: IL-23 p19 antibodies improve skin-clearance outcomes without a clear increase in overall AE or SAE risk. Risankizumab had the most favourable ranking probability, but limited direct evidence and overlapping CrIs preclude definitive superiority claims. Biologic selection should also consider prior treatment, comorbidities, dosing, access, and patient preference. Head-to-head trials and long-term real-world studies are needed. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD420261382915.
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.