Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

Efficacy of several biological therapies for treating moderate to severe psoriasis: A network meta-analysis

Read this article at

Bookmark
      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

      Abstract

      The aim of the present meta-analysis was to systematically assess the efficacy of the various treatments available for moderate to severe psoriasis. PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched to select relevant studies up to February 2015. Odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used as effect estimates. In addition, the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 50, PASI 75 and PASI 90 responses for the therapies were systematically assessed. A total of 33 randomized controlled trials were included in the present study. For the PASI 75 response rate, infliximab (5 mg) may be the most effective option for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. Furthermore, the pooled results of the PASI 50 response rate demonstrated that infliximab (5 mg) and ustekinumab (90 mg) may be superior to other drugs for treating moderate to severe psoriasis. For the PASI 90 response rate, infliximab (5 mg), ustekinumab (90 mg) and briakinumab (weeks 0 and 4, 200 mg; week 8, 100 mg) exhibited improved results compared with other treatments. In conclusion, infliximab (5 mg) may be a superior option to treat moderate to severe psoriasis due to the relatively high PASI scores. However, despite the high PASI 90 responses, further studies are required to identify the efficacy of ustekinumab (90 mg) and briakinumab.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 46

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

      Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
        Bookmark
        • Record: found
        • Abstract: found
        • Article: not found

        Global epidemiology of psoriasis: a systematic review of incidence and prevalence.

         D Ashcroft,  ,  Rosa Parisi (2013)
        The worldwide incidence and prevalence of psoriasis is poorly understood. To better understand this, we performed a systematic review of published population-based studies on the incidence and prevalence of psoriasis. Three electronic databases were searched from their inception dates to July 2011. A total of 385 papers were critically appraised; 53 studies reported on the prevalence and incidence of psoriasis in the general population. The prevalence in children ranged from 0% (Taiwan) to 2.1% (Italy), and in adults it varied from 0.91% (United States) to 8.5% (Norway). In children, the incidence estimate reported (United States) was 40.8/100,000 person-years. In adults, it varied from 78.9/100,000 person-years (United States) to 230/100,000 person-years (Italy). The data indicated that the occurrence of psoriasis varied according to age and geographic region, being more frequent in countries more distant from the equator. Prevalence estimates also varied in relation to demographic characteristics in that studies confined to adults reported higher estimates of psoriasis compared with those involving all age groups. Studies on the prevalence and incidence of psoriasis have contributed to a better understanding of the burden of the disease. However, further research is required to fill existing gaps in understanding the epidemiology of psoriasis and trends in incidence over time.
          Bookmark
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.

          Pooling of direct and indirect evidence from randomized trials, known as mixed treatment comparisons (MTC), is becoming increasingly common in the clinical literature. MTC allows coherent judgements on which of the several treatments is the most effective and produces estimates of the relative effects of each treatment compared with every other treatment in a network.We introduce two methods for checking consistency of direct and indirect evidence. The first method (back-calculation) infers the contribution of indirect evidence from the direct evidence and the output of an MTC analysis and is useful when the only available data consist of pooled summaries of the pairwise contrasts. The second more general, but computationally intensive, method is based on 'node-splitting' which separates evidence on a particular comparison (node) into 'direct' and 'indirect' and can be applied to networks where trial-level data are available. Methods are illustrated with examples from the literature. We take a hierarchical Bayesian approach to MTC implemented using WinBUGS and R.We show that both methods are useful in identifying potential inconsistencies in different types of network and that they illustrate how the direct and indirect evidence combine to produce the posterior MTC estimates of relative treatment effects. This allows users to understand how MTC synthesis is pooling the data, and what is 'driving' the final estimates.We end with some considerations on the modelling assumptions being made, the problems with the extension of the back-calculation method to trial-level data and discuss our methods in the context of the existing literature.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Affiliations
            Department of Dermatology, The Second Hospital of Liaocheng, Linqing, Shandong 252601, P.R. China
            Author notes
            Correspondence to: Dr Wenjun Geng, Department of Dermatology, The Second Hospital of Liaocheng, 306 Jiankang Street, Linqing, Shandong 252601, P.R. China, E-mail: wenjungeng@ 123456126.com
            Journal
            Exp Ther Med
            Exp Ther Med
            ETM
            Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine
            D.A. Spandidos
            1792-0981
            1792-1015
            December 2018
            15 October 2018
            15 October 2018
            : 16
            : 6
            : 5085-5095
            6257037
            10.3892/etm.2018.6859
            ETM-0-0-6859
            Copyright: © Geng et al.

            This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

            Categories
            Articles

            Comments

            Comment on this article