Comparative Effectiveness of Bimekizumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis: Results from a Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis
Author(s)
Mease PJ1, Gladman DD2, Merola JF3, Nash P4, Grieve S5, Laliman-Khara V5, Willems D6, Taieb V7, Prickett AR8, Coates LC9
1Swedish Medical Center and Providence St. Joseph Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA, 2Schroeder Arthritis Institute, Krembil Research Institute, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 3Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA, 4School of Medicine, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 5Cytel Inc., Waltham, MA, USA, 6UCB Pharma, Brussels, WLG, Belgium, 7UCB Pharma, Colombes, France, 8UCB Pharma, Slough, UK, 9Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Diseases, University of Oxford and Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: To compare the relative efficacy and safety of bimekizumab, a selective inhibitor of interleukin (IL)‑17F in addition to IL-17A, against approved biologic- and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) for psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted following PRISMA guidelines to identify randomized controlled trials of b/tsDMARDs in PsA published January 1991 through 2 May 2022. Bayesian binomial fixed-effect and random-effects network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted for efficacy outcomes (American College of Rheumatology [ACR] 20/50/70, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index [PASI] 90/100) for b/tsDMARD-naïve (bio-naïve) and tumor necrosis factor inhibitor-experienced (TNFi-experienced) patients using data at week 16, or 12/24 if unavailable. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were analyzed in a mixed bio-naïve/TNFi-experienced population using week 12–24 data. Analyses in bio-naïve patients were adjusted for variation in baseline risk across RCTs. Treatments were ranked according to surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values.
RESULTS: 41 RCTs were identified that met NMA inclusion criteria. In the NMA in bio-naïve patients, bimekizumab ranked 6th for ACR20 (SUCRA=0.75), 5th for ACR50 (SUCRA=0.74), and 3rd for ACR70 (SUCRA=0.81) among 21 treatments. In TNFi-experienced patients, bimekizumab ranked 1st among 16 treatments for ACR20 (SUCRA=0.98), 2nd among 15 treatments for ACR50 (SUCRA=0.84) and 1st among 15 treatments for ACR70 (SUCRA=0.83). For PASI90 and PASI100 in bio-naïve patients, bimekizumab ranked 2nd among 15 treatments (SUCRA=0.89) and 1st among 11 treatments (SUCRA=0.95), respectively. For PASI90 and PASI100 in TNFi-experienced patients, bimekizumab ranked 1st among 10 treatments (SUCRA=0.81) and 2nd among 7 treatments (SUCRA=0.79), respectively. In the mixed population, bimekizumab was comparable to other b/tsDMARDs for SAEs.
CONCLUSIONS: According to this NMA, bimekizumab was one of the highest-ranked treatments in terms of efficacy on joint and skin outcomes in bio-naïve and TNFi-experienced PsA patients with comparable safety versus other b/tsDMARDs.
Conference/Value in Health Info
Value in Health, Volume 26, Issue 6, S2 (June 2023)
Code
SA64
Topic
Clinical Outcomes, Study Approaches
Topic Subcategory
Clinical Outcomes Assessment, Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy, Literature Review & Synthesis, Meta-Analysis & Indirect Comparisons
Disease
Biologics & Biosimilars, Drugs, Musculoskeletal Disorders (Arthritis, Bone Disorders, Osteoporosis, Other Musculoskeletal)