Efficacy and safety of systemic treatments for moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis: meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Dermatologists may choose from various conventional and biological systemic agents to treat patients with moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis. We set out to analyse systematically the efficacy and tolerability of approved treatments for moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis. We undertook a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of systemic treatment approved for moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis. Efficacy was assessed as the proportion of participants with 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index at primary efficacy measurement (week 8–16). Safety was summarized as rates of adverse events and withdrawals. Direct and indirect comparative efficacy was assessed by random effects meta‐analysis of risk differences (RDs). In total, 48 eligible RCTs totalling 16 696 patients (11 178 randomized to biologics, 1888 to conventional treatments) were identified. In placebo‐controlled trials, infliximab was the most efficacious RD 76%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 73–79%]. Adalimumab (RD 61%, 95% CI 56–67%), and ustekinumab 45 mg (RD 63%, 95% CI 59–66%) and 90 mg (RD 67%, 95% CI 60–74%) each had similar efficacy. These biologics are more effective than etanercept and all conventional treatments. Head‐to‐head trials indicate the superiority of adalimumab and infliximab over methotrexate (MTX), the superiority of ustekinumab over etanercept, the nonsignificant superiority of ciclosporin over MTX, and the dose‐dependent efficacy of etanercept and ustekinumab. Fumaric acid is as efficacious as MTX. Safety of treatments could not be pooled due to a lack of standardization in reporting across trials. In conclusion, the qualitative and quantitative evidence is much stronger for biological interventions than for conventional treatments.