Deucravacitinib shows superior efficacy and safety in cutaneous lupus erythematosus compared to various biologics and small molecules - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 9.2 1区 医学 Q1 IMMUNOLOGY
Laura Anna Bokor, Katalin Martyin, Máté Krebs, Noémi Ágnes Galajda, Fanni Adél Meznerics, Bence Szabó, Péter Hegyi, Kende Lőrincz, Norbert Kiss, András Bánvölgyi, Bernadett Hidvégi
{"title":"Deucravacitinib shows superior efficacy and safety in cutaneous lupus erythematosus compared to various biologics and small molecules - A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Laura Anna Bokor, Katalin Martyin, Máté Krebs, Noémi Ágnes Galajda, Fanni Adél Meznerics, Bence Szabó, Péter Hegyi, Kende Lőrincz, Norbert Kiss, András Bánvölgyi, Bernadett Hidvégi","doi":"10.1016/j.autrev.2024.103723","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Novel therapies for cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) demonstrated efficacy and safety in previous trials. However, data on the comparison of these treatments is still lacking, limiting their integration into clinical practice. Therefore, our aim is to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of novel systemic therapies in CLE.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was performed across PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL on November 25, 2023, to identify studies involving patients with CLE or SLE with active skin involvement treated with novel systemic therapies. The primary outcomes assessed were the proportion of patients achieving the Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index-50 (CLASI-50), the change in CLASI-A, the occurrence of adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>18,280 records were retrieved, of which 53 met the inclusion criteria. Deucravacitinib showed significantly greater efficacy in achieving the CLASI50 compared to placebo (OR: 8.28, 95 % CI: 2.22-30.91). Both litifilimab (OR: 2.54, 95 % CI: 1.20-5.40) and anifrolumab (OR: 2.25, 95 % CI: 1.23-4.14) were also significantly more effective than placebo. No significant differences were observed in the occurrence of AEs and SAEs between these therapeutics and placebo.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Anifrolumab and litifilimab are effective and safe treatment options in CLE. However, deucravacitinib demonstrated superior efficacy and safety with fewer adverse events compared to anifrolumab. CLE patients who have shown an inadequate response to first- and second-line treatments may benefit from the incorporation of deucravacitinib into their treatment regimens.</p>","PeriodicalId":8664,"journal":{"name":"Autoimmunity reviews","volume":" ","pages":"103723"},"PeriodicalIF":9.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Autoimmunity reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autrev.2024.103723","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Novel therapies for cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) demonstrated efficacy and safety in previous trials. However, data on the comparison of these treatments is still lacking, limiting their integration into clinical practice. Therefore, our aim is to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of novel systemic therapies in CLE.

Methods: A systematic search was performed across PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL on November 25, 2023, to identify studies involving patients with CLE or SLE with active skin involvement treated with novel systemic therapies. The primary outcomes assessed were the proportion of patients achieving the Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index-50 (CLASI-50), the change in CLASI-A, the occurrence of adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs).

Results: 18,280 records were retrieved, of which 53 met the inclusion criteria. Deucravacitinib showed significantly greater efficacy in achieving the CLASI50 compared to placebo (OR: 8.28, 95 % CI: 2.22-30.91). Both litifilimab (OR: 2.54, 95 % CI: 1.20-5.40) and anifrolumab (OR: 2.25, 95 % CI: 1.23-4.14) were also significantly more effective than placebo. No significant differences were observed in the occurrence of AEs and SAEs between these therapeutics and placebo.

Conclusion: Anifrolumab and litifilimab are effective and safe treatment options in CLE. However, deucravacitinib demonstrated superior efficacy and safety with fewer adverse events compared to anifrolumab. CLE patients who have shown an inadequate response to first- and second-line treatments may benefit from the incorporation of deucravacitinib into their treatment regimens.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Autoimmunity reviews
Autoimmunity reviews 医学-免疫学
CiteScore
24.70
自引率
4.40%
发文量
164
审稿时长
21 days
期刊介绍: Autoimmunity Reviews is a publication that features up-to-date, structured reviews on various topics in the field of autoimmunity. These reviews are written by renowned experts and include demonstrative illustrations and tables. Each article will have a clear "take-home" message for readers. The selection of articles is primarily done by the Editors-in-Chief, based on recommendations from the international Editorial Board. The topics covered in the articles span all areas of autoimmunology, aiming to bridge the gap between basic and clinical sciences. In terms of content, the contributions in basic sciences delve into the pathophysiology and mechanisms of autoimmune disorders, as well as genomics and proteomics. On the other hand, clinical contributions focus on diseases related to autoimmunity, novel therapies, and clinical associations. Autoimmunity Reviews is internationally recognized, and its articles are indexed and abstracted in prestigious databases such as PubMed/Medline, Science Citation Index Expanded, Biosciences Information Services, and Chemical Abstracts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信