4.6 Review

Efficacy of systemic therapies for moderate-to-severe psoriasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term treatment

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2012.04492.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Abbot
  2. Pfizer/Wyeth
  3. Janssen-Cilag
  4. Novartis
  5. Wyeth
  6. Wyeth Pharma, Munster, Germany
  7. Wyeth Pharma
  8. Biogen Idec

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Despite the chronicity of psoriasis, most systematic reviews focus on short-term treatment. Methods The systematic search strategy and results from the German Psoriasis Guidelines were adapted. To update the data a literature search in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library was conducted. The proportion of participants achieving =75% decrease in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) as well as Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) reduction at different time points were assessed. Trials were summarized with respect to time periods and study designs. Suitable trials were included in a meta-analysis. Particular attention was paid to statistical approaches of handling dropouts. Results A total of 33 articles including 27 trials totaling 6575 patients with active treatment were included in the systematic review. Seven randomized controlled trials were eligible for the meta-analysis. Over a 24 week treatment period infliximab [risk difference (RD) 78%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 7283%] and ustekinumab 90 mg every 12 weeks (RD 77%, 95% CI 7183%) were the most efficacious treatments. Adalimumab (RD: 60%, 95% CI 4574%) showed results within the range of different etanercept dosages (etanercept 50 mg once weekly: RD 62%, 95% CI, 5272%), (etanercept 25 mg twice weekly: RD 45%, 95% CI 3456%), (etanercept 50 mg twice weekly: RD 56%, 95% CI 4962%) and (etanercept 50 mg twice weekly until week 12, then 25 mg twice weekly: RD 50%, 95% CI 4257%). After 24 weeks a decrease in efficacy for inflximab, adalimumab and etanercept was observed. Conclusions More sufficient data is required to draw reliable conclusions in extended long-term treatment and head-to-head comparisons are necessary.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据