Eficácia e segurança de agentes biológicos no tratamento da psoríase moderada a grave: uma meta-análise de ensaios clínicos randomizados e controlados
Eficacia y seguridad de los agentes biológicos en el tratamiento de la psoriasis moderada a severa: un metaanálisis de ensayos aleatorios y controlados
Cassyano Januário Correr; Inajara Rotta; Thaís de Souza Teles; Rangel Ray Godoy; Bruno Salgado Riveros; Mariana Martins Garcia; Patrícia Rodrigues Gonçalves; Michel Fleith Otuki
Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Brasil
We conducted a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials in moderate-to-severe psoriasis treated with biological agents, with a follow-up of 10-14 weeks. Overall, 41 studies, with mean Jadad score of 4.4, and 15,586 patients were included. For the efficacy outcomes PASI 50, 75 and 90 our findings are not conclusive to point what biological agent has the greatest response in short term follow-up. There were no statistical differences between placebo and biologics for the occurrence of infections and serious adverse events. Ustekinumab 45mg showed lower withdrawal due to adverse events compared with the placebo. Based on data available up to now, it is not possible to determine which biological agent is the best for PASI 50, 75 or 90 after 10-14 weeks of treatment. At the same follow-up, overall safety seems to be the same for all biological agents and Ustekinumab 45mg the most well tolerated drug. To better understand efficacy and safety, indirect meta-analysis comparing drug-to-drug is required since randomized placebo-controlled trials may not be feasible.
Psoriasis; Biological Agents; Efficacy; Safety; Health Technology Evaluation
Conduziu-se uma revisão sistemática e metaanálise de ensaios clínicos randomizados em pacientes com psoríase moderada a grave, tratados com biológicos ou placebo por 10 a 14 semanas. Foram incluídos 41 estudos, com escore de Jadad médio de 4,4, totalizando 15.586 pacientes. Para os desfechos de eficácia PASI 50, 75 e 90 os resultados não são conclusivos para definir qual é o melhor agente biológico no curto prazo. Não houve diferença estatística entre placebo e biológicos para ocorrência de infecções e eventos ad-versos sérios. Ustequinumabe 45mg foi o biológico com menor ocorrência de descontinuação por conta de eventos adversos. Baseado na evidência até então disponível, não é possível determinar qual agente biológico é o melhor para se atingir resposta PASI 50, 75 e 90 após 10-14 semanas de tratamento. Para o mesmo intervalo, a segurança global parece ser a mesma para todos os biológicos e ustequinumabe 45mg o tratamento melhor tolerado. Para melhor compreender a eficácia e segurança, meta-análise indireta comparando droga-a-droga são necessárias já que ensaios clínicos randomizados podem não ser viáveis.
Psoríase; Agentes Biológicos; Eficácia; Segurança; Avaliação de Tecnologias de Saúde
Se realizó una revisión sistemática y metaanálisis de ensayos controlados aleatorios en pacientes con psoriasis moderada a severa tratados con biológicos o placebo por 10-14 semanas. Se incluyeron 41 estudios con una puntuación de Jadad de 4,4, un total de 15.586 pacientes. Para variables de eficacia PASI 50, 75 y 90, los resultados no son concluyentes para definir cuál es el mejor agente biológico en el corto plazo. No hubo diferencia estadística entre el placebo y la ocurrencia biológica de las infecciones y los eventos adversos graves. Ustequinumabe 45mg fue el biológico con una menor incidencia de la interrupción debido a eventos adversos. Basado en la evidencia disponible hasta el momento, no es posible determinar qué agente biológico es lograr la mejor respuesta PASI 50, 75 y 90 después de 10-14 semanas de tratamiento. Para el mismo período, la seguridad global parece ser el mismo para todos los tratamientos y ustequinumabe 45mg el mejor tolerado. Para comprender mejor la eficacia y seguridad, es necesario un metaanálisis indirecto comparando medicamento a medicamento.
Psoriasis; Agentes Biológicos; Eficacia; Seguridad; Evaluácion de Tecnologías de Salud
The assessment of safety and efficacy of biological agents for treating moderate to severe psoriasis have been demonstrated to be important in multiple placebo-controlled trials 1,2,3. Through a database search, we found meta-analyses that evaluated only one biological agent against placebo and others including more than one agent 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13. Of these, only Reich et al. 10 included the biologic ustekinumab in the metaanalysis. Moreover, few studies address safety outcomes 7,8,12. Drugs included in this study were: adalimumab, alefacept, anakinra, briakinumab, certolizumab, efalizumab, etanercept, infliximab, golimumab, rituximab, siplizumab, onercept and ustekinumab. As the use of biologic medications for psoriasis is a recent development, the objective of this article is to provide comprehensive and up-to-date evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of the use of all biologic therapies available for moderate to severe psoriasis.
Trial search strategy
A systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Collaboration guideline 14. We performed a comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using as descriptors the keywords: "adalimumab", "alefacept", "anakinra", "briakinumab", "certolizumab", "efalizumab", "etanercept", "infliximab", "golimumab", "rituximab", "siplizumab", "onercept" or "ustekinumab" along with the terms "random", "controlled trial" and "controlled clinical trial" and "psoriasis". These drugs were considered eligible for the study as a result of an earlier literature review. The search was performed in the following databases: Cochrane, EMBASE, IPA (International Pharmaceutical Abstracts), LILACS, PubMed, SciELO, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science. Manual search in relevant periodic, symposium and congress annals and reference lists of articles found in the search were performed. Only studies published up until May 2011 and written in English, Portuguese or Spanish were included.
Two reviewers independently selected the studies based initially on reviewing the title and abstract. Only RCTs that evaluated the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis with biological agents versus placebo were included. Crossover trials were considered only if data from the first treatment period was reported separately. Additionally, we excluded abstracts published in congress proceedings because the available information was not sufficient to perform an analysis and RCTs evaluating concomitant biological agent treatment.
The methodological quality of each RCT included was evaluated according to the method proposed by Jadad et al. 15 in duplicate, in which scores from 3 to 5 means high grade of quality and from 0 to 2 low grade. For assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we used the Cochrane Collaboration's tool, and considered the following biases: selection, performance, detection, attrition, reporting, and other biases.
Efficacy outcomes extracted were the improvement of 50%, 75%, and 90% in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 50, 75, and 90, respectively) at 10-14 weeks of treatment. Safety results were also extracted considering serious adverse events, adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment (withdrawals), and infection occurrence along the same ranges of time.
Data from published reports were extracted onto a standardized form by two reviewers working independently. The following items were extracted from each trial: number and characteristics (gender and mean age) of patients included; the duration of treatment; and results of efficacy and safety. Any discrepancies in data collection were resolved through consensus or by a third reviewer.
We used the random effects model and Mantel-Haenszel method to pool the relative risks (RRs) from individual studies. RR was chosen for providing more reliable results than odds ratio when frequent outcomes are analysed. When the outcome has positive aspects, values over 1.00 favour the drug being compared to placebo and when the outcome has negative aspects, values over 1.00 favour the placebo group. Confidence intervals that cross the line of invalidity (1.00) represent no statistical difference between the two compared groups at 5% significance level.
The heterogeneity of the results was evaluated by the index of inconsistency (I2). Values I2 < 25% were considered as low heterogeneity, while values I2 of 25-50% were considered moderate to high. If meta-analyses showed I2 > 50% (high heterogeneity), sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the characteristics of the study and whether statistical methods may have influenced the results. The sensitivity analysis was conducted by the hypothetical removal of each study in the meta-analysis and assessment of its impact on the overall result. All analyses were performed using Review Manager v. 5.1 statistical software (The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark).
The results were described according to the methodology proposed by the PRISMA Statement 16.
20,674 articles were found, of which 20,592 were excluded, resulting in 82 articles in which 41 clinical trials comparing biologics with placebo (six adalimumab 17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27, three alefacept 28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37, one briakinumab 38,39, one certolizumab 40, seven efalizumab 41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51, eight etanercept 52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64, one golimumab 65,66, eight infliximab 67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78, 79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89, and three ustekinumab 90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99) were published (Figure 1). The clinical trials included 15,586 patients of which 64.6% were male and the weighted average age was 44.1 (± 7.5) years. The average Jadad score was 4.4. For details about the characteristics of the studies, see Table 1. The risk of bias assessed by Cochrane's tool showed that 57%, 52%, 61%, 36%, 86% and 98% of the included trials have low risk of bias for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data and selective reporting respectively. 41%, 48%, 36%, 64%, 14% and 2% of the included trials have moderate risk of bias considering the same aspects, respectively. Any other source of bias was detected.
We did not find any double-blind RCTs with the biologics abatacept, anakinra, onercept, rituximab, or siplizumab used in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis.
Considering the endpoint PASI 50, the biologic with the highest RR was ustekinumab 90mg (RR: 8.77; 95%CI: 6.98-11.03), followed by ustekinumab 45mg (RR: 8.27; I95%CI: 6.57-10.40). There is a statistically significant difference, when compared with placebo, favoring ustekinumab 90mg and 45mg in relation to infliximab 3mg/kg/week (RR: 3.84; 95%CI: 2.26-6.53]), efalizumab (RR: 3.83; 95%CI: 3.27-4.49), and alefacept (RR: 1.83; 95%CI: 1.46-2.28), as shown in Figure 2a.
When the outcome evaluated was PASI 75, our findings were inconclusive. The greatest measure of effect observed were infliximab in both doses (3mg/kg/week RR: 21.77; 95%CI: 7.24-65.45 and 5mg/kg/week RR: 20.21; 95%CI: 10.42-39.19) and ustekinumab, also at both doses (45mg RR: 19.22; 95%CI: 12.82-28.82 and 90mg RR: 18.26; 95%CI: 12.04-34.82) (Figure 2b).
For the PASI 90 outcome, it appears that there is no statistically significant difference between placebo and etanercept 25mg OW. Furthermore, it is observed that infliximab, ustekinumab and adalimumab present the highest results of RR (Figure 2c).
Some results of the meta-analysis show high heterogeneity (I2 > 50%). For the PASI 50 outcome, etanercept 25mg TW (I2 = 75%), etanercept 50mg W (I2 = 70%) and infliximab 5mg/kg/ week (I2 = 64%) presented high heterogeneity. Also, for PASI 75, adalimumab (80mg > 40mg EOW) (I2 = 76%), infliximab 3mg/kg/week (I2 = 55%) and alefacept (I2 = 70%) and for PASI 90 ustekinumab 45mg (I2 = 58%) presented I2 higher than 50%. The results of sensitivity analysis were described in Table 2.
Monitoring of adverse events in the included RCTs was done by patient and physician reports and direct observation by the researchers, especially for those double-blind studies.
When considering withdrawal due to adverse events, the rate for ustekinumab 45mg was lower than that for the placebo group and the difference was statistically significant. For other biologics, at all dosages, there was no statistically significant difference between the drug´s result and placebo (Figure 3c).
Treatment for moderate to severe psoriasis is usually systemic and may involve biologic or non-biologic drugs 2,3,100. Our search includes all biological agents studied for the treatment of psoriasis, taking into account different dosage regimens, providing information on efficacy and safety that is useful both for clinicians and for managers in decision-making processes.
It was observed in previously published meta-analyses that the best results with biological agents are achieved with infliximab and adalimumab. Our study has been updated to contain new clinical trials and newer drugs, such as ustekinumab, which in our review showed to be as good as those already mentioned when compared to placebo group. Reich et al. 10 included ustekinumab in the analysis and obtained similar results, but did not assess safety for Ustekinumab in either dosage.
Through our systematic review and metaanalysis, we found that when compared to placebo, all biologics demonstrated superior efficacy. Our results show a trend of ustekinumab 45mg and 90mg and infliximab 3mg/kg and 5mg/kg be the best biologics options, considering strictly PASI response as the outcome for moderate to severe psoriasis, after 10 to 14 weeks of treatment. However, it is not possible to affirm which biologic is better than other considering only these results. To that, mixed treatment comparisons, an indirect meta-analysis, are required since new RCTs head-to-head may not be feasible. Besides, since psoriasis is a chronic disease, results of long term follow-up are demanded to better understand the efficacy of these drugs. Unfortunately, RCTs do not have wide follow-up. To evaluate that, we suggest the conduction of a systematic review of cohort studies evaluating the maintenance of PASI 75 or 90 through a wide follow-up.
Ustekinumab 45mg achieved a statistically significant difference when compared to placebo for the outcome "withdrawn due to adverse events", meaning that those patients treated with ustekinumab 45mg had discontinued their treatment due to adverse events less than those treated with placebo. It could be explained considering an expected worsening of disease in placebo arm and a low number of adverse events caused by the biological agent during the first weeks of treatment. The same finding was not seen in patients treated with ustekinumab 90mg probably because at this dosage adverse events are more common. For other safety outcomes, there was no statistically significant difference between biological agents and placebo, as confirmed by other studies 7,8,12. Nevertheless, these results must be considered cautiously by clinicians and managers. Serious adverse events and infections are complications dependent upon the drug exposure time, which means that the trials included in this study could not be able to detect some adverse events due to their short follow-up, ranging from 10 to 14 weeks. After this period of time, usually there were design changes in the trials, meaning that the meta-analysis of longer follow-up outcomes becomes unviable. Moreover, rare adverse events may not be detected in RCTs but only in phase IV studies.
The low number of studies comparing some biologics to placebo means it is not possible to perform a meta-analysis for some drugs. In addition, differences in duration of clinical trials, ranging from 10 to 14 weeks, may influence the clinical results. However, it did not affect the robustness of our results, as can be observed through the sensitivity analysis in those cases of meta-analyses with high heterogeneity.
Although meta-analysis of RCTs brings results of high level evidence, this limits the results to short term treatment only.
The selection of only RCTs has an influence on the results regarding short follow-up.
Given the absence of primary studies that compare biological agents to each other, we conducted a systematic review followed by meta-analysis from trials comparing biological agents versus placebo. We understand that there is no need to develop new randomized clinical trials of biological agents controlled by placebo but instead, they should be compared to each other or with the best treatment options currently available.
Although we cannot conclude which bioagent is the best to treat moderate to severe psoriasis, we can point to a trend from ustekinumab 45mg and 90mg and infliximab 3mg/kg and 5mg/kg to be the best ones on achieving PASI response of 50%, 75% and 90% after 10 to 14 weeks of treatment. Moreover, considering the current evidence about safety in RCTs, our findings show a similar safety profile among biologics in the short-term treatment and a result signalizing ustekinumab 45mg as the most well tolerated biological agent in the first three months of treatment. However, a study assessing subgroups, such as cardiovascular, dermatologic and malignant diseases as well as indirect meta-analysis among those drugs regarding efficacy and safety are required to better understand the advantages and disadvantages for each biological agent in the short-term treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis.
C. J. Correr and M. F. Otuki contributed to the elaboration of the study subject, delimitation of the study, interpretation of the results and manuscript review. I. Rotta, T. S. Teles, R. R. Godoy and P. R. Gonçalves contributed to the development of systematic review and meta-analysis, interpretation of results and manuscript review. B. S. Riveros and M. M. Garcia contributed to the development of systematic review and meta-analysis, interpretation of results, elaboration and manuscript review.
The authors wish to thank the Brazilian Ministry of Education's Program to Support Restructuring an Expansion Plans in the Federal Universities.
Conflict of interest
1. Manriquez JJ, Villouta MF, Williams HC. Evidence-based dermatology: number needed to treat and its relation to other risk measures. J Am Acad Dermatol 2007; 56:664-71.
2. Paul C, Gallini A, Maza A, Montaudie H, Sbidian E, Aractingi S, et al. Evidence-based recommendations on conventional systemic treatments in psoriasis: systematic review and expert opinion of a panel of dermatologists. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2011; 25 Suppl 2:2-11.
3. Sbidian E, Maza A, Montaudie H, Gallini A, Aractingi S, Aubin F, et al. Efficacy and safety of oral retinoids in different psoriasis subtypes: a systematic literature review. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2011; 25 Suppl 2:28-33.
4. Bansback N, Sizto S, Sun H, Feldman S, Willian MK, Anis A. Efficacy of systemic treatments for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Dermatology 2009; 219:209-18.
5. Blasco AJ, Lazaro P, Ferrandiz C, Garcia-Diez A, Liso J. Efficiency of biologic agents in the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. Actas Dermsifiliogr 2009; 100:792-803.
6. Boudreau R, Blackhouse G, Goeree R, Mierzwinski-Urban M. Adalimumab, alefacept, efalizumab, etanercept, and infliximab for severe psoriasis vulgaris in adults: budget impact analysis and review of comparative clinical- and cost-effectiveness. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2007.
7. Brimhall A, King L, Licciardone J, Jacobe H, Menter A. Safety and efficacy of alefacept, efalizumab, etanercept and infliximab in treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Br J Dermatol 2008; 159:274-85.
8. Langley R, Strober B, Gu Y, Rozzo S, Okun M. Ben-efit-risk assessment of tumour necrosis factor antagonists in the treatment of psoriasis. Br J Dermatol 2010; 162:1349-58.
9. Poulin Y, Langley R, Teixeira HD, Martel MJ, Cheung S. Biologics in the treatment of psoriasis: clinical and economic overview. J Cutan Med Surg 2009; 13 Suppl 2:S49-57.
10. Reich AK, Burden AD, Eaton JN, Hawkins NS. Efficacy of biologics in the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br J Dermatol 2011; 166:179-88.
11. Reich K, Burden AD, Eaton JN, Hawkins NS. Comparative effects of biological therapies on the severity of skin symptoms and health-related quality of life in patients with plaque-type psoriasis: a me-ta-analysis. Curr Med Res Opin 2008; 24:1237-54.
12. Schmitt J, Zhang Z, Wozel G, Meurer M, Kirch W. Efficacy and tolerability of biologic and nonbiologic systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe psoriasis: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Br J Dermatol 2008; 159:513-26.
13. Woolacott N, Hawkins N, Mason A, Kainth A, Khadjesari Z, Vergel YB, et al. Etanercept and efalizumab for the treatment of psoriasis: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2006; 10:iii-iv.
14. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
15. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996; 17:1-12.
16. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6(6):e1000097.
17. Asahina A, Nakagawa H, Etoh T, Ohtsuki M; Adalimumab M04-688 Study Group. Adalimumab in Japanese patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis: efficacy and safety results from a Phase II/III randomized controlled study. J Dermatol 2010; 37:299-310.
18. Genovese MC, Mease PJ, Thomson GTD, Kivitz AJ, Perdok RJ, Weinberg MA, et al. Safety and efficacy of adalimumab in treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis who had failed disease modifying antirheumatic drug therapy. J Rheumatol 2007; 34:1040-50.
19. Gordon KB, Langley RG, Leonardi C, Toth D, Menter MA, Kang S, et al. Clinical response to alimumab treatment in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis: double-blind, randomized controlled trial and open-label extension study. J Am Acad Dermatol 2006; 55:598-606.
20. Kimball AB, Yu AP, Mulani P, Gupta S. The effect of adalimumab on improving work productivity among moderate to severe psoriasis patients. J Am Acad Dermatol 2009; 60(3 Suppl 1):AB180.
21. Leonardi C, Langley RG, Papp K, Tyring SK, Wasel N, Vender R, et al. Adalimumab for treatment of moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis of the hands and feet: efficacy and safety results from REACH, a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. Arch Dermatol 2010; 147:429-36.
22. Menter A, Augustin M, Signorovitch J, Yu AP, Wu EQ, Gupta SR, et al. The effect of adalimumab on reducing depression symptoms in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Acad Dermatol 2010; 62:812-8.
23. Menter A, Tyring SK, Gordon K, Kimball AB, Leonardi CL, Langley RG, et al. Adalimumab therapy for moderate to severe psoriasis: a randomized, controlled phase III trial. J Am Acad Dermatol 2008; 58:106-15.
24. Reich K, Schenkel B, Han C, Szapary P, Li S, Lebwohl M, et al. Benefit-risk analysis of adalimumab versus methotrexate and placebo in the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis: comparison of adverse event-free response days in the CHAMPION trial. J Am Acad Dermatol 2010; 63:1011-8.
25. Revicki D, Willian MK, Saurat JH, Papp KA, Or-tonne JP, Sexton C, et al. Impact of adalimumab treatment on health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes: results from a 16-week randomized controlled trial in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Br J Dermatol 2007; 158:549-57.
26. Revicki DA, Willian MK, Menter A, Gordon KB, Kimball AB, Leonardi CL, et al. Impact of adalimumab treatment on patient-reported outcomes: results from a phase III clinical trial in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. J Dermatolog Treat 2007; 18:341-50.
27. Saurat JH, Stingl G, Dubertret L, Papp K, Langley RG, Ortonne JP, et al. Efficacy and safety results from the randomized controlled comparative study of adalimumab vs. methotrexate vs. placebo in patients with psoriasis (CHAMPION). Br J Dermatol 2008; 158:558-66.
28. Christophers E. Targeting T-cell subsets to achieve remission. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2003; 17 Suppl 2:6-11.
29. Ellis CN, Krueger GG; Alefacept Clinical Study Group. Treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis by selective targeting of memory effector T lymphocytes. N Engl J Med 2001; 345:248-55.
30. Feldman SR, Menter A, Koo JY. Improved health-related quality of life following a randomized controlled trial of alefacept treatment in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis. Br J Dermatol 2004; 150:317-26.
31. Gordon KB, Vaishnaw AK, O'Gorman J, Haney J, Menter A; Alefacept Clinical Study Group. Treatment of psoriasis with alefacept: correlation of clinical improvement with reductions of memory T-cell counts. Arch Dermatol 2003; 139:1563-70.
32. Krueger GG. Clinical response to alefacept: results of a phase 3 study of intravenous administration of alefacept in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2003; 17 Suppl 2:17-24.
33. Krueger GG, Papp KA, Stough DB, Loven KH, Gulliver WP, Ellis CN, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study evaluating efficacy and tolerability of 2 courses of alefacept in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2002; 47:821-33.
34. Lebwohl M, Christophers E, Langley R, Ortonne JP, Roberts J, Griffiths CEM, et al. An international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of intramuscular alefacept in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis. Arch Dermatol 2003; 139:719-27.
35. Mease PJ, Gladman DD, Keystone EC; Alefacept in Psoriatic Arthritis Study Group. Alefacept in combination with methotrexate for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Arthritis Rheum 2006; 54:1638-45.
36. Ortonne JP. Clinical response to alefacept: results of a phase 3 study of intramuscular administration of alefacept in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2003; 17:12-6.
37. Ortonne JP, Lebwohl M, Griffiths CE; Alefcept Clinical Study Group. Alefacept-induced decreases in circulating blood lymphocyte counts correlate with clinical response in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis. Eur J Dermatol 2003; 13:117-23.
38. Kimball AB, Gordon KB, Langley RG, Menter A, Chartash EK, Valdes J, et al. Safety and efficacy of ABT-874, a fully human interleukin 12/23 monoclonal antibody, in the treatment of moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Arch Dermatol 2008; 144:200-7.
39. Kimball AB, Gordon KB, Langley RG, Menter A, Chartash E, Valdes J. Efficacy and safety of ABT874, a monoclonal anti-interleukin 12/23 antibody, for the treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis: 36-week observation/retreatment and 60-week open-label extension phases of a randomized phase II trial. J Am Acad Dermatol 2011; 64:263-74.
40. Ortonne J, Sterry W, Tasset C, Reich K. Certolizumab pegol, the first pegylated anti-TNF alpha, is effective and well tolerated in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis: preliminary data from a phase II study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2007; 21 Suppl 1:26.
41. Dubertret L, Sterry W, Bos JD, Chimenti S, Shumack S, Larsen CG, et al. Clinical experience acquired with the efalizumab (Raptiva) (CLEAR) trial in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: results from a phase III international randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Br J Dermatol 2006; 155:170-81.
42. Gordon KB, Papp KA, Hamilton TK, Walicke PA, Dummer W, Li N, et al. Efalizumab for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2003; 290:3073-80.
43. Lebwohl M, Tyring SK, Hamilton TK, Toth D, Glazer S, Tawfik NH, et al. A novel targeted T-cell modulator, efalizumab, for plaque psoriasis. N Engl J Med 2003; 349:2004-13.
44. Leonardi CL, Papp KA, Gordon KB, Menter A, Feldman SR, Caro I, et al. Extended efalizumab therapy improves chronic plaque psoriasis: results from a randomized phase III trial. J Am Acad Dermatol 2005; 52:425-33.
45. Menter A, Gordon K, Carey W, Hamilton T, Glazer S, Caro I, et al. Efficacy and safety observed during 24 weeks of efalizumab therapy in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Arch Dermatol 2005; 141:31-8.
46. Menter A, Kosinski M, Bresnahan BW, Papp KA, Ware Jr. JE. Impact of efalizumab on psoriasis-specific patient-reported outcomes. Results from three randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. J Drugs Dermatol 2004; 3:27-38.
47. Ortonne JP, Shear N, Shumack S, Henninger E; Clear Multinational Study Group. Impact of efalizumab on patient-reported outcomes in high-need psoriasis patients: results of the international, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III Clinical Experience Acquired with Raptiva (CLEAR) trial [NCT00256139]. BMC Dermatol 2005; 5:13.
48. Papp K, Bissonnette R, Krueger J, Carey W, Gratton D, Gulliver W, et al. The treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis with a new anti-CD11a monoclonal antibody. J Am Acad Dermatol 2001; 45:665-74.
49. Papp KA, Bressinck R, Fretzin S, Goffe B, Kempers S, Gordon KB, et al. Safety of efalizumab in adults with chronic moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: a phase IIIb, randomized, controlled trial. Int J Dermatol 2006; 45:605-14.
50. Papp KA, Caro I, Leung HM, Garovoy M, Mease PJ. Efalizumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. J Cutan Med Surg 2007; 11:57-66.
51. Sterry W, Dubertret L, Papp K, Chimenti S, Larsen CG. Efalizumab for patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis: results of the international randomised, controlled phase III clinical experience acquired with raptiva (clear) trial. J Invest Dermatol 2004; 123:386.
52. Gottlieb AB, Matheson RT, Lowe N, Krueger GG, Kang S, Goffe BS, et al. A randomized trial of etanercept as monotherapy for psoriasis. Arch Dermatol 2003; 139:1627-32.
53. Krueger GG, Langley RG, Finlay AY, Griffiths CEM, Woolley JM, Lalla D, et al. Patient-reported outcomes of psoriasis improvement with etanercept therapy: results of a randomized phase III trial. Br J Dermatol 2005; 153:1192-9.
54. Leonardi CL, Powers JL, Matheson RT, Goffe BS, Zitnik R, Wang A, et al. Etanercept as monotherapy in patients with psoriasis. N Engl J Med 2003; 349:2014-22.
55. Mease PJ, Goffe BS, Metz J, VanderStoep A, Finck B, Burge DJ. Etanercept in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis: a randomised trial. Lancet 2000; 356:385-90.
56. Mease PJ, Kivitz AJ, Burch FX, Siegel EL, Cohen SB, Ory P, et al. Etanercept treatment of psoriatic arthritis: safety, efficacy, and effect on disease progression. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 50:2264-72.
57. Mease PJ, Woolley JM, Singh A, Tsuji W, Dunn M, Chiou CF. Patient-reported outcomes in a randomized trial of etanercept in psoriatic arthritis. J Rheumatol 2010; 37:1221-7.
58. Paller AS, Siegfried EC, Eichenfield LF, Pariser D, Langley RG, Creamer K, et al. Long-term etanercept in pediatric patients with plaque psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2010; 63:762-8.
59. Paller AS, Siegfried EC, Langley RG, Gottlieb AB, Pariser D, Landells I, et al. Etanercept treatment for children and adolescents with plaque psoriasis. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:241-51.
60. Papp KA, Tyring S, Lahfa M, Prinz J, Griffiths CEM, Nakanishi AM, et al. A global phase III randomized controlled trial of etanercept in psoriasis: safety, efficacy, and effect of dose reduction. Br J Dermatol 2005; 152:1304-12.
61. Reich K, Segaert S, van de Kerkhof P, Durian C, Boussuge MP, Paolozzi L, et al. Once-weekly administration of etanercept 50mg improves patient-reported outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Dermatology 2009; 219:239-49.
62. Siegfried EC, Eichenfield LF, Paller AS, Pariser D, Creamer K, Kricorian G, et al. Intermittent etanercept therapy in pediatric patients with psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2010; 63:769-74.
63. Tyring S, Gottlieb A, Papp K, Gordon K, Leonardi C, Wang A, et al. Etanercept and clinical outcomes, fatigue, and depression in psoriasis: double-blind placebo-controlled randomised phase III trial. Lancet 2006; 367:29-35.
64. van de Kerkhof PCM, Segaert S, Lahfa M, Luger TA, Karolyi Z, Kaszuba A, et al. Once weekly administration of etanercept 50 mg is efficacious and well tolerated in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: a randomized controlled trial with open-label extension. Br J Dermatol 2008; 159:1177-85.
65. Gladman D, Kavanaugh A, Mease P, Krueger GG, Zrubek J, Beutler A, et al. Golimumab, a new, human, TNF alpha antibody, administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks in psoriatic arthritis patients: 104-week efficacy and safety results of the randomized, placebo-controlled GO-REVEAL study. Intern Med J 2010; 40:35-6.
66. Kavanaugh A, McInnes I, Mease P, Krueger GG, Gladman D, Gomez-Reino J, et al. Golimumab, a new human tumor necrosis factor alpha antibody, administered every four weeks as a subcutaneous injection in psoriatic arthritis twenty-four-week efficacy and safety results of a randomized, placebo-controlled study. Arthritis Rheum 2009; 60: 976-86.
67. Antoni C, Krueger GG, de Vlam K, Birbara C, Beutler A, Guzzo C, et al. Infliximab improves signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis: results of the IMPACT 2 trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2005; 64:1150-7.
68. Antoni CE, Kavanaugh A, Kirkham B, Tutuncu Z, Burmester GR, Schneider U, et al. Sustained benefits of infliximab therapy for dermatologic and articular manifestations of psoriatic arthritis: results from the infliximab multinational psoriatic arthritis controlled trial (IMPACT). Arthritis Rheum 2005; 52:1227-36.
69. Antoni CE, Kavanaugh A, van der Heijde D, Beutler A, Keenan G, Zhou B, et al. Two-year efficacy and safety of infliximab treatment in patients with active psoriatic arthritis: findings of the Infliximab Multinational Psoriatic Arthritis Controlled Trial (IMPACT). J Rheumatol 2008; 35:869-76.
70. Bissonnette R, Poulin Y, Guenther L, Lynde C, Bolduc C, Nigen S. Treatment of palmoplantar psoriasis with infliximab: a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2011; 25:1402-8.
71. Chaudhari U, Romano P, Mulcahy LD, Dooley LT, Baker DG, Gottlieb AB. Efficacy and safety of infliximab monotherapy for plaque-type psoriasis: a randomised trial. Lancet 2001; 357:1842-7.
72. Feldman SR, Gottlieb AB, Bala M, Wu Y, Eisenberg D, Guzzo C, et al. Infliximab improves health-related quality of life in the presence of comorbidities among patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Br J Dermatol 2008; 159:704-10.
73. Gladman D, Antoni C, Yan S, Kavanaugh A. Infliximab therapy improves health-related quality of life in patients with psoriatic arthritis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2005; 52(3 Suppl 1):P189.
74. Gottlieb AB, Chaudhari U, Mulcahy LD, Li S, Dooley LT, Baker DG. Infliximab monotherapy provides rapid and sustained benefit for plaque-type psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2003; 48:829-35.
75. Gottlieb AB, Evans R, Li S, Dooley LT, Guzzo CA, Baker D, et al. Infliximab induction therapy for patients with severe plaque-type psoriasis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Am Acad Dermatol 2004; 51:534-42.
76. Kavanaugh A, Antoni C, Krueger GG, Yan S, Bala M, Dooley LT, et al. Infliximab improves health related quality of life and physical function in patients with psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2006; 65:471-7.
77. Kavanaugh A, Antoni C, Mease P, Gladman D, Yan S, Bala M, et al. Effect of infliximab therapy on employment, time lost from work, and productivity in patients with psoriatic arthritis. J Rheumatol 2006; 33:2254-9.
78. Kavanaugh A, Antoni CE, Gladman D, Wassenberg S, Zhou B, Beutler A, et al. The Infliximab Multinational Psoriatic Arthritis Controlled Trial (IMPACT): results of radiographic analyses after 1 year. Ann Rheum Dis 2006; 65:1038-43.
79. Kavanaugh A, Krueger GG, Beutler A, Guzzo C, Zhou B, Dooley LT, et al. Infliximab maintains a high degree of clinical response in patients with active psoriatic arthritis through 1 year of treatment: results from the IMPACT 2 trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2007; 66:498-505.
80. Menter A, Feldman SR, Weinstein GD, Papp K, Evans R, Guzzo C, et al. A randomized comparison of continuous vs. intermittent infliximab maintenance regimens over 1 year in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2007; 56:31.e1-15.
81. Menter A, Wu Y, Bala M, Feldman S. Infliximab therapy improves patient productivity among those with moderate to severe psoriasis: P2715. J Am Acad Dermatol 2007; 56(2 Suppl 2):AB178.
82. Reich K, Nestle FO, Papp K, Ortonne JP, Evans R, Guzzo C, et al. Infliximab induction and maintenance therapy for moderate-to-severe psoriasis: a phase III, multicentre, double-blind trial. Lancet 2005; 366:1367-74.
83. Reich K, Nestle FO, Papp K, Ortonne JP, Wu Y, Bala M, et al. Improvement in quality of life with infliximab induction and maintenance therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Dermatol 2006; 154:1161-8.
84. Reich K, Nestle FO, Wu Y, Bala M, Eisenberg D, Guzzo C, et al. Infliximab treatment improves productivity among patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Eur J Dermatol 2007; 17:381-6.
85. Rich P, Griffiths CE, Reich K, Nestle FO, Scher RK, Li S, et al. Baseline nail disease in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and response to treatment with infliximab during 1 year. J Am Acad Dermatol 2008; 58:224-31.
86. Rich P, Guzzo C, Li S, Reich K. Nail psoriasis improvement is maintained in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis treated with infliximab: P2716. J Am Acad Dermatol 2007; 25:137-46.
87. Ritchlin C. Efficacy and safety of infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol 2006; 2:300-1.
88. Torii H, Nakagawa H. Infliximab monotherapy in Japanese patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial. J Dermatol Sci 2010; 59:40-9.
89. van der Heijde D, Kavanaugh A, Gladman DD, Antoni C, Krueger GG, Guzzo C, et al. Infliximab inhibits progression of radiographic damage in patients with active psoriatic arthritis through one year of treatment: results from the induction and maintenance psoriatic arthritis clinical trial 2. Arthritis Rheum 2007; 56:2698-707.
90. Gottlieb A, Menter A, Mendelsohn A, Shen YK, Li S, Guzzo C, et al. Ustekinumab, a human interleukin 12/23 monoclonal antibody, for psoriatic arthritis: randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. Lancet 2009; 373:633-40.
91. Langley RG, Feldman SR, Han CL, Schenkel B, Szapary P, Hsu MC, et al. Ustekinumab significantly improves symptoms of anxiety, depression, and skin-related quality of life in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis: results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial. J Am Acad Dermatol 2010; 63:457-65.
92. Lebwohl M, Papp K, Han C, Schenkel B, Yeilding N, Wang Y, et al. Ustekinumab reduces itch, bodily pain, and fatigue in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis: PSY42. Value Health 2009; 12:A138.
93. Lebwohl M, Papp K, Han C, Schenkel B, Yeilding N, Wang Y, et al. Ustekinumab improves health-related quality of life in patients with moderate-tosevere psoriasis: results from the PHOENIX 1 trial. Br J Dermatol 2010; 162:137-46.
94. Lebwohl M, Schenkel B, Han C, Yeilding N, Wang Y, Papp K, et al. Ustekinumab significantly improves health-related quality of life in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis: PSS41. Value Health 2008; 11:A622.
95. Leonardi CL, Kimball AB, Papp KA, Yeilding N, Guzzo C, Wang Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of ustekinumab, a human interleukin-12/23 monoclonal antibody, in patients with psoriasis: 76week results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (PHOENIX 1). Lancet 2008; 371:1665-74.
96. Papp K, Yeilding N, Wang Y, Kimball AB. CNTO 1275 (anti-IL-12/23p40) treatment of psoriasis: phase III trial results. J Am Acad Dermatol 2008; 58:AB122.
97. Reich K, Lebwohl M, Schenkel B, Eisenberg D, Szapary P, Yeilding N, et al. Ustekinumab improves work productivity and decreases workdays missed due to psoriasis in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Value Health 2010; 11:A298.
98. Schenkel B, Langley R, Wang Y, Kimball A. Ustekinumab is associated with significant improvements in overall health-related quality of life in moderate-tosevere psoriasis patients. Value Health 2009; 12:A528.
99. Reich K, Schenkel B, Han C, Szapary P, Li S, Lebwohl M. Ustekinumab reduces work limitations, increases work productivity and decreases workdays missed due to psoriasis in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Value Health 2010; 11:A626.
100. Lebwohl M. Psoriasis. Lancet 2003; 361:1197-204.
C. J. Correr Universidade Federal do Paraná.
Av. Pref. Lothário Meissner 632, Campus III Jardim Botânico, Curitiba, PR
Submitted on 26/Oct/2012
Final version resubmitted on 25/Apr/2013
Approved on 04/Jul/2013