Number Needed to Treat Network Meta-Analysis to Compare Biologic Drugs for Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis
Rattachement africain : us, gb. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
INTRODUCTION: Number needed to treat (NNT) estimates are a practical metric to help identify the most effective therapies. Our objective is to compare 11 biologic drugs for moderate-to-severe psoriasis in terms of NNT. METHODS: The NNT data were obtained from a Bayesian network meta-analysis of 42 double-blind, randomized, phase 3 clinical trials for 11 biologics (adalimumab, brodalumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, guselkumab, infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, secukinumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab). We determined NNT to achieve Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75/90/100 responses at weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, and 48/52 and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) response 0, 1 at week 12. RESULTS: Highest efficacy (lowest NNT) was with brodalumab and ixekizumab for PASI 90 at weeks 4, 8, and 12; ixekizumab for PASI 90/100 at week 16; and brodalumab for PASI 100 at week 12. After 48/52 weeks, risankizumab had the highest efficacy for PASI 90/100 overlapping with guselkumab, brodalumab, and ixekizumab for PASI 90 and with brodalumab and ixekizumab for PASI 100. Ixekizumab had the highest efficacy for DLQI (0,1) at week 12. CONCLUSIONS: Brodalumab and ixekizumab had the lowest NNTs for achieving PASI responses at early time points and were not significantly different than risankizumab and guselkumab after 48/52 weeks.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Number Needed to Treat Network Meta-Analysis to Compare Biologic Drugs for Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis
- Date Crossref
- 22/03/2022
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.