Interventions for chronic palmoplantar pustulosis.

Palmoplantar pustulosis is a chronic inflammatory disease in which sterile, relapsing pustules appear on the palms and soles, possibly in conjunction with other symptoms. The previous Cochrane Review on this topic was published in 2006, before biological treatments were extensively used. To assess the effects of interventions for chronic palmoplantar pustulosis to induce and maintain complete remission. We searched the following databases up to March 2019: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of the included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We considered RCTs including people with palmoplantar pustulosis or chronic palmoplantar pustular psoriasis assessing topical therapy, systemic therapy, combinations of topical or systemic therapies, or non-pharmacological therapies compared with placebo, no intervention, or each other. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our outcomes included 'Proportion of participants cleared or almost cleared', 'Proportion of participants with adverse effects serious or severe enough to cause withdrawal', 'Proportion of participants with at least 50% improvement in disease severity', and 'Proportion of participants with adverse effects'. We included 37 studies (1663 participants; mean age 50 years (range 34 to 63); 24% males). These studies reported condition severity differently. Around half of the included trials stated the setting (hospitals, community clinics, or both). More than half of the studies were at high risk of bias in at least one domain. Our included studies assessed mainly systemic treatments (retinoids, ciclosporin, biologics, etretinate + PUVA (combination of psoralens and long-wave ultraviolet radiation) therapy combined, and antibiotics), but also topical treatments (dermocorticoids, vitamin D) and phototherapy (PUVA, ultraviolet A1 (UVA1)). Other interventions were assessed by single studies. The most common comparator was placebo. All results presented in this abstract were assessed in the short term (mean treatment duration was 11 weeks (range 8 to 24 weeks)) and are based on participants with chronic palmoplantar pustulosis. All outcome time point measurements were taken from baseline and assessed at the end of treatment. Short-term and long-term outcomes were defined as measurement up to 24 weeks after randomisation and between 24 and 104 weeks after randomisation, respectively. One trial (188 participants) assessed the topical vitamin D derivative maxacalcitol versus placebo and found that maxacalcitol may be more effective than placebo in achieving clearance (risk ratio (RR) 7.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.85 to 33.12; low-quality evidence), and the risk of adverse effects (such as mild local irritation, pruritus, and haematological or urinary test abnormalities) is probably similar in both groups (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.19; moderate-quality evidence). Severity was not reported. Two trials (49 participants) assessed PUVA therapy versus placebo or no treatment, providing very low-quality evidence. Adverse effects were reported with oral PUVA (including nausea, ankle swelling, and non-purulent conjunctivitis) and with local PUVA (including blistering, erythema, and pruritus). With regard to the systemic retinoid alitretinoin, one trial (33 participants; moderate-quality evidence) showed that alitretinoin probably makes little or no difference in reducing severity when compared to placebo (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.30). A similar number of adverse events were reported in both treatment groups, including headache, cheilitis, nausea, arthralgia, and nasopharyngitis (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.17). Clearance was not reported. There may be little or no difference between etanercept and placebo in achieving clearance (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.08 to 34.28; 1 study; 15 participants; low-quality evidence); however, the 95% CI was very wide, showing there may be a difference between groups. Severity was not measured. More patients treated with placebo may achieve reduced severity than those treated with ustekinumab, but the wide 95% CI indicates there might be little or no difference between groups and there might be greater effect with ustekinumab (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.13; 1 study; 33 participants; low-quality evidence). Clearance was not reported. It is uncertain whether guselkumab increases clearance when compared to placebo (2 studies; 154 participants) because the quality of evidence is very low, but guselkumab probably better reduces disease severity (RR 2.88, 95% CI 1.24 to 6.69; 1 study; 49 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Secukinumab is probably superior to placebo in reducing severity (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.35; 1 study; 157 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but our clearance outcome was not reported. None of these trials reported on occurrence of adverse effects. Only two of the studies discussed above reported adverse effects serious or severe enough to cause withdrawal. Guselkumab may cause more serious adverse events when compared to placebo, but there is uncertainty due to the very wide 95% CI showing there may be little or no difference and showing more events with placebo (RR 2.88, 95% CI 0.32 to 25.80; 1 study; 49 participants; low-quality evidence). Secukinumab probably causes more serious adverse events than placebo (RR 3.29, 95% CI 1.40 to 7.75; 1 study; 157 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence is lacking for major chronic palmoplantar pustulosis treatments such as superpotent corticosteroids, phototherapy, acitretin, methotrexate, and ciclosporin. Risk of bias and imprecision limit our confidence. Maxacalcitol may be more effective than placebo in achieving clearance in the short term (low-quality evidence), and the risk of adverse effects is probably similar (moderate-quality evidence). Oral alitretinoin is probably no more effective than placebo in reducing severity, with a similar risk of adverse effects (moderate-quality evidence). Regarding biological treatments, we are uncertain of the effect of etanercept on clearance and the effect of ustekinumab on severity (low-quality evidence). Secukinumab and guselkumab are probably superior to placebo in reducing severity (moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events not requiring withdrawal were not reported for these treatments. Reporting of serious adverse effects was incomplete: compared to placebo, secukinumab probably caused more participant withdrawals (moderate-quality evidence), but we are uncertain of the effect of guselkumab (low-quality evidence). Future trials should assess commonly used treatments using validated severity and quality of life scales.

Obeid G ，Do G ，Kirby L ，Hughes C ，Sbidian E ，Le Cleach L ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.

Sbidian E ，Chaimani A ，Garcia-Doval I ，Do G ，Hua C ，Mazaud C ，Droitcourt C ，Hughes C ，Ingram JR ，Naldi L ，Chosidow O ，Le Cleach L ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. To compare the efficacy and safety of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety. For this living systematic review we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to September 2020: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers to the same date. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to eligible RCTs. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse events. Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse events). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons, according to CINeMA, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer on treatment hierarchy: 0% (treatment is the worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (treatment is the best for effectiveness or safety). We included 158 studies (18 new studies for the update) in our review (57,831 randomised participants, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (58%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 20 treatments. In all, 133 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (53/158) as being at high risk of bias; 25 were at an unclear risk, and 80 at low risk. Most studies (123/158) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report their source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in reaching PASI 90. At class level, in reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the non-biological systemic agents. At drug level, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, risankizumab and guselkumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab, and etanercept. Ustekinumab and adalimumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than etanercept; ustekinumab was more effective than certolizumab, and the clinical effectiveness of ustekinumab and adalimumab was similar. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and three non-biological drugs: fumaric acid esters (FAEs), ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab, and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar, except for ixekizumab which had a better chance of reaching PASI 90 compared with secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab. The clinical effectiveness of these seven drugs was: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 50.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 20.96 to 120.67, SUCRA = 93.6; high-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 32.48, 95% CI 27.13 to 38.87; SUCRA = 90.5; high-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.76, 95% CI 23.96 to 34.54; SUCRA = 84.6; high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86; SUCRA = 81.4; high-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 25.79, 95% CI 21.61 to 30.78; SUCRA = 76.2; high-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.52, 95% CI 21.25 to 30.64; SUCRA = 75; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 23.55, 95% CI 19.48 to 28.48; SUCRA = 68.4; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as mirikizumab, tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to moderate certainty for all the comparisons. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions. Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the evidence for all the interventions was of low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials directly comparing active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between non-biological systemic agents and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Sbidian E ，Chaimani A ，Garcia-Doval I ，Doney L ，Dressler C ，Hua C ，Hughes C ，Naldi L ，Afach S ，Le Cleach L ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. This is the baseline update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2017, in preparation for this Cochrane Review becoming a living systematic review. To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety. We updated our research using the following databases to January 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and the conference proceedings of a number of dermatology meetings. We also searched five trials registers and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) reports (until June 2019). We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant RCTs. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse effects (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse effects. Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse effects). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes, according to GRADE, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We included 140 studies (31 new studies for the update) in our review (51,749 randomised participants, 68% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (59%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 19 treatments. In all, 117 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (57/140) as being at high risk of bias; 42 were at an unclear risk, and 41 at low risk. Most studies (107/140) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report the source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90. At class level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents. At drug level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, infliximab, all of the anti-IL17 drugs (ixekizumab, secukinumab, bimekizumab and brodalumab) and the anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab, but not tildrakizumab) were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and 3 anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept. Adalimumab and ustekinumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than certolizumab and etanercept. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and between two conventional drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness for these seven drugs was similar: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 29.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 19.94 to 43.70, Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) = 88.5; moderate-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.12, 95% CI 23.17 to 34.12, SUCRA = 88.3, moderate-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 27.67, 95% CI 22.86 to 33.49, SUCRA = 87.5, high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86, SUCRA = 83.5, low-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.84, 95% CI 20.90 to 31.95; SUCRA = 81; moderate-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 23.97, 95% CI 20.03 to 28.70, SUCRA = 75.4; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 21.96, 95% CI 18.17 to 26.53, SUCRA = 68.7; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to very low certainty for just under half of the treatment estimates in total, and moderate for the others. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were very similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions. Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab were the best choices for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence (low-certainty evidence for bimekizumab). This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. Indeed, we found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, but the evidence for all the interventions was of very low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials comparing directly active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between conventional systemic and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Sbidian E ，Chaimani A ，Afach S ，Doney L ，Dressler C ，Hua C ，Mazaud C ，Phan C ，Hughes C ，Riddle D ，Naldi L ，Garcia-Doval I ，Le Cleach L ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Interventions for hand eczema.

Christoffers WA ，Coenraads PJ ，Svensson Å ，Diepgen TL ，Dickinson-Blok JL ，Xia J ，Williams HC ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》