Safety and efficacy of alefacept, efalizumab, etanercept and infliximab in treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Article first published online: 10 JUN 2008
© 2008 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2008 British Association of Dermatologists
British Journal of Dermatology
Volume 159, Issue 2, pages 274–285, August 2008
How to Cite
Brimhall, A.K., King, L.N., Licciardone, J.C., Jacobe, H. and Menter, A. (2008), Safety and efficacy of alefacept, efalizumab, etanercept and infliximab in treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. British Journal of Dermatology, 159: 274–285. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2008.08673.x
Conflicts of interest A.M. has received consulting, research and/or speaking support from Abbott Laboratories, Allergan Inc, Amgen Inc, Astellas, Centocor Inc, Cephalon, Collagenex Pharmaceuticals, CombinatoRx, Connetics Corp, Galderma, Genentech Inc, UCB, Warner Chilcott, Wyeth and XOMA. The other authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare. None of the authors own stock in the biological agent manufacturing companies.
Preliminary results for three biological agents (alefacept, efalizumab and etanercept) excluding data from U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports were presented on poster 233 at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology held in Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A., 3–6 May 2006. The corresponding abstract was published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology 2006; 126 (Suppl. 4):A233.
- Issue published online: 17 JUL 2008
- Article first published online: 10 JUN 2008
- Accepted for publication 27 October 2007
- randomized controlled trial;
- safety event
Background The relatively recent introduction of biological agents to treat psoriasis presents clinicians with the need to objectively compare and contrast these agents to allow more effective treatment of their patients.
Objectives To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of biological agents in the treatment of plaque psoriasis.
Methods (i) Data sources: Four parallel systematic reviews conducted through July 2006, including peer-reviewed data and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports. (ii) Study selection: Randomized, controlled, double-blind, monotherapy trials of alefacept (n = 3), efalizumab (n = 5), etanercept (n = 4) and infliximab (n = 4); 16 studies comprising 7931 patients met inclusion criteria. (iii) Data extraction: Efficacy was measured by Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 achievement after 10–14 weeks of treatment, using intention-to-treat analysis. Safety was evaluated by the incidence of one or more adverse event(s) (AEs) and serious adverse event(s) (SAEs) during 10–30 weeks of treatment.
Results Pooled relative risk (RR) and number needed to treat (NNT) of PASI 75 achievement compared with placebo was computed using Mantel–Haenszel methods and the random effects model. All biological agents for psoriasis were efficacious (P < 0·001); however, there was a graded response for achievement of PASI 75: infliximab (RR = 17·40, NNT = 2), etanercept (RR = 11·73, NNT = 3), efalizumab (RR = 7·34, NNT = 4) and alefacept (RR = 3·70, NNT = 8). The risk of one or more AEs was evaluated by RR and number needed to harm (NNH). This was increased in the alefacept (RR = 1·09, P = 0·03, NNH = 15), efalizumab (RR = 1·15, P < 0·001, NNH = 9) and infliximab (RR = 1·18, P < 0·001, NNH = 9) groups compared with placebo. SAEs were increased in a sensitivity analysis of four efalizumab trials (n = 2443, RR = 1·92, P = 0·03, NNH = 60).
Conclusions The decreasing rank order for pooled efficacy was infliximab, etanercept, efalizumab and alefacept when compared with placebo. Pooling safety data revealed a previously unreported increased risk of AEs for alefacept, efalizumab and infliximab.