Introduction The comparative efficacy of targeted systemic therapies for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) has not been systematically assessed using recent phase 3 data. This network meta-analysis assesses the comparative efficacy of targeted systemic therapies without the addition of topical corticosteroids (TCS) and/or topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI) in adults with moderate to severe AD. Methods The systematic literature review searched through 17 May 2021 for phase 3/4 trials with upadacitinib, interleukin-4 (IL-4), interleukin-13 (IL-13), or JAK inhibitors compared with placebo or active intervention for adults and adolescents with moderate to severe AD with inadequate response to TCS/TCI or for whom TCS/TCI was medically inadvisable, without restrictions on year or region. Researchers assessed data using PRISMA guidelines. The proportion of patients achieving trial co-primary endpoints [Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) and reduction of ≥ 2 points from baseline; proportion of patients achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) improvement ≥ 75% from baseline (EASI-75)]; EASI improvement ≥ 90% from baseline (EASI-90); and ≥ 4-point improvement on Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale from baseline (ΔNRS ≥ 4) were evaluated using Bayesian network meta-analysis. Results Of 3415 initially identified records, network meta-analysis (NMA) ultimately included 6 records representing 9 unique studies. Two upadacitinib trials were also included. Eleven clinical trials including 6254 patients were analyzed. Upadacitinib 30 mg daily was the most efficacious therapy across all endpoints at the primary endpoint (week 12 or 16) and at earlier timepoints, followed by upadacitinib 15 mg daily and abrocitinib 200 mg daily. Discussion Many factors need to be considered for treatment selection for AD. These findings can help healthcare providers when personalizing a patient’s treatment. Conclusion Upadacitinib 30 mg daily, upadacitinib 15 mg daily, and abrocitinib 200 mg daily may be the most efficacious targeted systemic therapies over 12–16 weeks of therapy in AD. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13555-022-00721-1.

Background Given rapid innovation in advanced therapies for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis, we investigated their comparative efficacy and safety during induction and maintenance through network meta-analysis. Methods Using Bayesian methods, endpoints of clinical remission and clinical response per Full Mayo score, and endoscopic improvement were assessed in bio-naïve and bio-exposed populations. Safety was assessed in overall populations by all adverse events, serious adverse events, discontinuation due to adverse events, and serious infections. Phase 3 randomised controlled trials were identified via systematic literature review, including the following advanced therapies: infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab, golimumab, tofacitinib, ustekinumab, filgotinib, ozanimod, and upadacitinib. Random effects models were used to address between-study heterogeneity. Intent-to-treat efficacy rates were calculated by adjusting maintenance outcomes by likelihood of induction response. Results Out of 48 trials identified, 23 were included. Across all outcomes and regardless of prior biologic exposure, intent-to-treat efficacy rates were highest for upadacitinib, owing to its highest ranking for all efficacy outcomes in induction and for all but clinical remission during maintenance among bio-naïve induction responders. For all advanced therapies versus placebo, there were no significant differences in serious adverse events or serious infections across therapies. For all adverse events, golimumab had higher odds vs placebo during maintenance; for discontinuation due to adverse events, upadacitinib had lower odds vs placebo during induction, while ustekinumab and vedolizumab had lower odds vs placebo during maintenance. Conclusions Upadacitinib may be the most efficacious therapy for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis based on intent-to-treat analyses, with similar safety across advanced therapies.

Background The therapeutic armamentarium to treat adult patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) continues to evolve. With this rapid innovation, the comparative efficacy and safety of more recent advanced therapies remain unknown. Methods Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to indirectly compare the efficacy and safety of advanced therapies for induction (6–10 weeks) and maintenance (44–54 weeks post-induction response) in adults with moderately-to-severely active UC. Efficacy was assessed separately in bio-naïve and bio-exposed populations by clinical remission (Full Mayo score [FM] of ≤2 with no subscore >1), clinical response (decrease from baseline in FM ≥3 points and ≥30% with decrease in rectal bleeding score [RBS] of ≥1 or absolute RBS ≤1) and endoscopic improvement (endoscopic score ≤1); ad hoc analyses were conducted on upadacitinib (UPA) RCT data to produce FM outcomes. Safety was assessed by discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and serious infections. Induction therapies included UPA 45 mg, adalimumab 160/80 mg, filgotinib 100 and 200 mg, golimumab 200/100 mg, infliximab 10 and 5 mg/kg, ozanimod 0.92 mg, tofacitinib 10 mg, ustekinumab (UST) 6 mg/kg, and vedolizumab (VED) 300 mg. The maintenance analysis included low and high maintenance doses of these therapies. Phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified via systematic literature review. Random effects models were used to account for expected heterogeneity in endpoints and study design. Guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence were followed. Results Out of 31 RCTs identified, 23 were included (18 for induction and 14 for maintenance). Odds ratios vs. placebo (PBO), numbers needed to treat/harm, and surface under the cumulative ranking curve estimates are presented for efficacy in bio-naïve (Table 1) and bio-exposed (Table 2) populations and for safety in overall populations (Table 4). Intent-to-treat rates of maintenance efficacy outcomes adjusted by the likelihood of induction response show UPA to be consistently the most efficacious therapy (Table 3). There were no significant differences in serious AEs or serious infections for any advanced therapy vs PBO. For discontinuation due to AEs, only UPA had significantly lower odds vs PBO after induction, while UST and VED had significantly lower odds vs PBO after maintenance (Table 4). Conclusion In patients with moderately-to-severely active UC, UPA 45 mg induction and 30 mg maintenance appear more efficacious than other advanced therapies/PBO at inducing and maintaining clinical response, clinical remission, and endoscopic response, with no greater safety assessments vs PBO, over 1-year.

No abstract

No abstract