NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

  • This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

Cover of Biologic and Nonbiologic Systemic Agents and Phototherapy for Treatment of Chronic Plaque Psoriasis

Biologic and Nonbiologic Systemic Agents and Phototherapy for Treatment of Chronic Plaque Psoriasis

Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, No. 85

Investigators: , PharmD, , PharmD, , PharmD, , PharmD, , PharmD, , MD, and , PharmD.

The University of Connecticut/Hartford Hospital Evidence-based Practice Center
Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); .
Report No.: 12(13)-EHC144-EF

Structured Abstract

Objectives:

To examine the comparative effectiveness of biologic systemic agents versus nonbiologic systemic agents or phototherapy, on an individual drug level, for treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis (CPP) and to determine patient and disease characteristics that modify outcomes of interest.

Data sources:

Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science from inception to June 2012, with no language restrictions.

Review methods:

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were included in our review if they compared treatment with Food and Drug Administration-approved biologic systemic agents with either an approved nonbiologic systemic agent or phototherapy in adult patients with CPP and provided data on at least one prespecified outcome. Using predefined criteria, data on study design and population, interventions, quality, and outcomes were extracted. No quantitative analyses were performed and all data were qualitatively synthesized. The strength of evidence (SOE) for individual outcome was rated, when possible, as insufficient (I), low (L), moderate (M), or high (H). The applicability of the body of evidence was described.

Results:

Five RCTs and four observational studies directly compared therapies from the specified classes. An additional five studies provided data on the transition of patients from one therapy to another. Studies generally reported short-term outcomes (median of 24 weeks) in small (<200 subjects) international patient populations. Compared with methotrexate, adalimumab improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) [SOE: L], Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) [SOE: L], Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA) score [SOE: L], and patient’s assessment of disease severity score [SOE: L], while reducing pain [SOE: L] and pruritus [SOE: L] with no effect on infection rates [SOE: L]. Compared with acitretin, etanercept improved PASI [SOE: M] and compared with methotrexate, infliximab improved HRQoL [SOE: L], PASI [SOE: L], and PGA [SOE: L]. Compared with methotrexate, ustekinumab improved PGA [SOE:L]. Data were insufficient for any other comparisons and outcomes. Data from the post-hoc subgroup analysis of one RCT that compared treatment with adalimumab with treatment with methotrexate suggested that as disease severity improved, so did a patient’s HRQoL. Data were insufficient to evaluate the impact of any other patient or disease characteristics on outcomes.

Conclusions:

In patients with CPP, there were limited data directly comparing systemic biologic agents with either systemic nonbiolgic agents or with phototherapy on an individual drug level. Overall there is insufficient evidence to determine the comparative effectiveness of individual therapies, as compared with each other between the specified classes, with few exceptions. For the comparisons of adalimumab versus methotrexate, infliximab versus methotrexate, ustekinumab versus methotrexate, and etanercept versus acitretin, there is predominantly low strength of evidence favoring the individual biologic agent versus the nonbiologic agent. Additional trials directly comparing biologic systemic agents, systemic nonbiologic agents, and phototherapy are needed.

Contents

Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services1, Contract No. 290-2007-10067-I, Prepared by: The University of Connecticut/Hartford Hospital Evidence-based Practice Center, Hartford, CT

Suggested citation:

Lee S, Coleman CI, Limone B, Kaur R, White CM, Kluger J, Sobieraj DM. Biologic and Nonbiologic Systemic Agents and Phototherapy for Treatment of Chronic Plaque Psoriasis. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 85. (Prepared by the University of Connecticut/Hartford Hospital Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10067-I.) AHRQ Publication No.12(13)-EHC144-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. November 2012. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.

This report is based on research conducted by the University of Connecticut/Hartford Hospital Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No.290-2007-10067-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.

This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.

None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.

1

540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; www​.ahrq.gov

Bookshelf ID: NBK115091PMID: 23285484

Views

Similar articles in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...