Back to Search Start Over

Meta-analysis results do not reflect the real safety of biologics in psoriasis

Authors :
Emilie Sbidian
E. Brouste
L. Penso
S. Afach
Theodoros Evrenoglou
Anna Chaimani
L. Le Cleach
Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI)
Service de dermatologie [Mondor]
Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Hôpital Henri Mondor-Université Paris-Est Créteil Val-de-Marne - Paris 12 (UPEC UP12)
Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation in Therapeutics (EpiDermE)
Université Paris-Est Créteil Val-de-Marne - Paris 12 (UPEC UP12)
Source :
British Journal of Dermatology, British Journal of Dermatology, Wiley, 2021, 184 (3), pp.415-424. ⟨10.1111/bjd.19244⟩
Publication Year :
2020

Abstract

Background In reported systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing treatments for psoriasis, the proportion of serious adverse events (SAEs) did not differ between treatments and placebo. Including cases of psoriasis worsening as SAEs may explain the lack of difference. Objectives This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to explore this possibility. Methods Among the 140 RCTs included in the Living Network Cochrane Review (last search on 8 May 2019), we selected those comparing a biologic treatment against placebo. The primary outcome was the numbers of SAEs in the treatment and placebo arms after excluding cases of psoriasis worsening. Secondary outcomes were the number of adverse events (AEs) of special interest. The trial was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019124495). Results We analysed 51 RCTs. Of these, 21 included at least one anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α arm, 15 one anti-interleukin (IL)-17 arm, 11 one anti-IL-23 arm and nine one anti-IL-12/23 arm. With cases of psoriasis worsening included, the risk of occurrence of SAEs between biologic treatments and placebo did not differ: risk ratio (RR) 1·09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·88-1·36. After excluding cases of psoriasis worsening, the RR became significant (RR 1·30, 95% CI 1·02-1·65). By drug class, the RRs were for anti-TNF-α, 1·68 (95% CI 1·11-2·54; no missing data); anti-IL-17, 1·28 (95% CI 0·88-1·85; no missing data); anti-IL-23, 0·95 (95% CI 0·59-1·52; no missing data) and anti-IL-12/23, 1·18 (95% CI 0·72-1·94; no missing data). We were unable to examine potential differences in AEs of special interest between biologic treatments and placebo arms because of the small number of events. Conclusions On excluding cases of worsening psoriasis, the risk of occurrence of SAEs is higher in the biologic than in the placebo arm. Given the rare events, we could not highlight whether this higher risk of SAEs was related to AEs of special interest. Reporting of SAEs in clinical trials has to be changed to provide more transparency through the separate reporting of disease flares leading to hospital admission and other SAEs.

Details

ISSN :
13652133 and 00070963
Volume :
184
Issue :
3
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
The British journal of dermatologyReferences
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....20f2840130dab790e000fd0fece032f8