The effects of selected biologics and a small molecule on Health-Related Quality of Life in adult plaque psoriasis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) is commonly used to assess the quality of life of patients with skin diseases. Clinical trials confirm the positive effect of the use of biologics and new molecules on the quality of life of patients with plaque psoriasis. MAIN
OBJECTIVES: Investigation of the effect of infliximab, adalimumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab and tofacitinib on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) measured by the DLQI in adult plaque psoriatic patients with respect to the patients' race, type of used agent/placebo, agent's dosage and treatment duration as well as the DLQI score prior to and after commencement of treatment.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Systematic literature searching for referential papers written in English using four databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov as well as and manual searching (Google) Cochran's (Q) and I2 tests were used for evaluation of heterogeneity or the degree of variation in the true effect size estimates between the analysed studies. The standardized mean difference (the SMD; Hedge's g score) was applied to measure the differences between the two means (i.e. two groups: treated vs non-treated or treated vs placebo). The data coding and Hedge's g values were calculated according to the guidance of MetaXL software version 5.3. MAIN
RESULTS: 43 studies, in total 25,898 individuals, were evaluated by the DLQI and weighted mean scores were derived for the analysis. The mean DLQI scores ranged from 6.83 to 17.8 with the overall DLQI score of 12.12 (95%CI: 11.24 to 13.06). A random-effects model demonstrated significant considerable heterogeneity of the study results (I2 = 98%; p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: Infliximab, adalimumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab and tofacitinib in adult plaque psoriatic patients improved HRQOL measured by the DLQI. The patients with lower quality of life before treatment obtained better results.

Introduction

Psoriasis, an incurable chronic inflammatory disease affecting approximately 2% of people worldwide, with the lowest incidence in the Asian and some African populations as well as the highest rate, i.e. up to 11%, in the Caucasian and Scandinavian populations, is most commonly observed in the form of plaque psoriasis (in 80% of all diagnosed cases) [1, 2]. It is often accompanied by various comorbidities, such as psoriatic arthritis, Crohn’s disease, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular diseases, all of which account for the psoriatic patients’ compromised quality of life frequently manifested by social withdrawal and hampered daily activities [3, 4]. This psychological aspect of psoriasis has found a reflection in the recommendations of the European Consensus on psoriasis treatment goals [5]. What is more, the use of biological drugs and new molecules appears to be improving the quality of life of the patients suffering from this debilitating disease [6]. The choice of treatment, however, depends on its severity, localization of the skin symptoms and the patient’s preferences and needs [5, 7].

In order to measure the severity of psoriasis, the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), Body Surface Area (BSA) and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) are used. The DLQI, a 10-item questionnaire, covers six domains of daily life, such as symptoms and feelings, daily activities, leisure, work and school, personal relationships and treatment. It is used in daily clinical practice as well as in clinical trials and its score ranges from 0 to 30. Thus, according to the European Consensus, BSA≥10 or PASI ≥10 or DLQI ≥ 10 qualify for the systemic treatment [5].

The first biologics used in the systemic treatment of psoriasis were the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, golimumab, certolizumab pegol) [6, 8]. Further development of biologics involved introduction of other biological drugs, i.e. the monoclonal antibodies that block interleukin 12 and 23 (ustekinumab) or target interleukin 23 (guselkumab, tildrakizumab, risankizumab) as well as those which are capable of blocking interleukin 17 (secukinumab, ixekizumab and brodalumab) [9-11]. It is worth noting that tofacitinib, which is one of the synthetic small molecules, plays an important role in the psoriasis treatment [12].

The DLQI is used to check for any correlations between the used biologics and improved quality of life in adult plaque psoriatic patients. Therefore, the main objective of the study was to investigate the effects of infliximab, adalimumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab and tofacitinib on Health-Related Quality of Life measured by the DLQI in adult plaque psoriatic patients taking into account the patients’ race, the type of used agent/placebo, the agent’s dosage and treatment duration as well as the DLQI score prior to and after the commencement of the treatment.

Methods

Search strategy

The study was designed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [13]. We conducted systematic literature searching using four databases: PubMed (until October, 2019), EMBASE (until October, 2019), Scopus (until October, 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov and manual searching (Google) for papers written in the English language. The literature search was limited to the years from 2000 to the end of October 2019.

The following approach of literature searching was used with the application of keywords: “psoriasis”, “quality of life”, “life quality”, “life”, “standard of living”, “living standards”, “Dermatology Life Quality Index”, “health-related quality of life”, then supplemented by “plaque”, “chronic”, “severe”, “DLQI” and “HRQOL”. Also, the following search builder was used: ("plaque psoriasis" OR “psoriasis”) AND ("quality of life" OR "life quality" OR "standard of living" OR "living standards" OR “health-related quality of life”) Additionally, the PubMed database was searched with the use of MeSH terms, as follows: (Psoriasis and Quality of life) “Psoriasis” [MeSH Terms] AND (“Quality of life” [MeSH Terms] OR “Quality of life” [All fields]) AND (“Socioeconomic Factors” [MeSH Terms] OR (“Socioeconomic Factors” [All fields]).

Our research was based on the PRISMA guidelines derived from http://www.prisma-statement.org/ and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6461330/.

Eligibility criteria

For the systematic review, both inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected. The former were as follows: 1. Study enrollment of adult patients, 2. Study enrollment of patients with plaque psoriasis, 3. Ability to extract the DLQI scores, 4. A sample group of ten or more. The latter criteria were as follows: 1. A review/case report study type, 2. Language other than English, 3. Other than plaque psoriasis clinical types of the disease, 4. Studies with no QoL assessment according to the DLQI. Eventually, we went for: the principal author, publication year, the number of studied patients, treatment regimen and its duration as well as the DLQI score prior to and after the treatment.

Data analysis

All the steps of meta-analysis were conducted with the use of the MetaXL software version 5.3 (EpiGear). Heterogeneity or the degree of variation in the true effect size estimates between the studies was evaluated using Cochran’s (Q) and I2 tests. The I2 test was used to assess the heterogeneity among the analysed studies—if the I2 value was between 0–40%, heterogeneity was rejected, its range between >40%-70% indicated substantial heterogeneity, while the scores >75% represented considerable heterogeneity. A random-effects model was preferred for heterogeneity presentation. The standardized mean difference (the SMD; Hedge’s g score) was applied to measure the differences between the two means (i.e. two groups: treated vs non-treated or treated vs placebo). Hedge’s g over 0.8 indicates a large effect size. A funnel plot graph, Doi plots and the Luis Furuya-Kanamori (LFK) index methods were used to check the existence of publication bias. LFK <1 indicates no asymmetry, LFK between 1–2 considers minor asymmetry, while LFK>2 suggests major asymmetry [14]. p values below 0.05 were considered as statistically significant.

Search results

The systematic literature search was terminated on October 31st, 2019, and next the titles of the articles, keywords as well as abstracts were assessed for eligibility. In the first screening, two independent researchers, blinded to each other, reviewed retrieved 894 studies, and subsequently removed 471 duplicates. 10 questionable papers were discussed and the decision was made together after negotiation (kappa statistic, 0.96). Since 273 papers did not meet the PRISMA criteria, 150 eligible papers were finally selected.

Compliance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the meta-analysis reduced the number of eligible papers to 43. Since 26 papers out of originally chosen 43 did not include appropriate data for the analysis of the effect of selected biological agents and a small molecule on HRQOL (e.g. changes in the DLQI scoring prior to and after the commencement of therapy, comparison between placebo and drug effect), while others lacked biologic agents in their analysis (phototherapy, topical therapy, methotrexate or other non-biologic drugs were explored), we were left with only 17 eligible papers.

However, we decided to include all of the 43 papers in our analysis in order to demonstrate the differences in the DLQI scoring for different races.

The detailed strategy used for the literature identification, screening and selection is summarized in Fig 1.

Fig 1

Flowchart of the research methodology for systematic review based on the PRISMA guidelines.

Results

HRQOL measured by the DLQI–study characteristics

In the 43 studies which met our inclusion criteria the total of 25,898 individuals were evaluated by the DLQI and the weighted mean scores were derived for the analysis. The performed meta-analysis took into account the patients’ age, sex and race in order evaluate the mean differences in the DLQI scores. Among the enrolled patients, we observed the predominance of male plaque psoriatic patients (range from 50 to 81%) and the individuals were on average over 45 years old. However, some of the studies enrolled individuals of different ages (i.e. 18–82 years old), and even focused on elderly psoriatic subjects (>65 years old) [15-18]. Some of the papers revealed almost equal proportions between male and female study subjects although at times the percentage of females was higher than the percentage of males [19-23]. As for the race of the evaluated patients, most of the studies demonstrated differentiation in the patients’ race. Only 13 out of the analysed 43 studies evaluated single-race groups (8 studies enrolled only Asians and 5 studies enrolled only Caucasians). Moreover, another 11 out of the analysed 43 papers suffered from the lack of data concerning the patients’ race. The mean DLQI scores with 95%CI achieved in selected papers are presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Summary results of the meta-analysis on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in plaque psoriasis adult patients measured by the dermatology life quality index (DLQI) depending on the race.

Study/trial name	Race	Mean DLQI	Lower limit	Upper limit	Sample size
Armstrong (2019) VOYAGE 1&2	Caucasian (81.9%)	14.5	11.9	15.4	1829
	Asian (14.1%)
	Afroamerican (4.0%)
Arora (2018)	Asian (100%)	10.68	8.67	12.7	29
Körber (2018) ERASURE, FIXTURE, CLEAR	Caucasian (77.1%)	13.8	13.3	14.3	841
	Asian (15.7%)
	Afroamerican and unknown (7.2%)
Papadavid (2018)	Caucasian (100%)	11.1	8.84	13.4	50
Petridis (2018)	Caucasian (100%)	15.0	13.6	15.4	136
Zachariae (2018)	Unknown	10.9	9.88	11.9	142
Imafuku (2017)	Caucasian >90%	13.0	12.4	13.6	1296
Guenther (2017) UNCOVER 2&3	Caucasian (92.4%)	12.5	12.2	12.8	2570
	Asian (3.1%)
	Afroamerican and other (4.5%)
Parthasaradhi (2017)	Asian (100%)	15.43	14.7	16.2	155
Chua (2017)	Asian (100%)	10.3	7.18	13.04	28
Strober (2017)	Unknown	11.0	10.1	11.9	221
Breteque (2017)	Unknown	11.3	10.8	11.8	749
Thaçi (2017)a ESTEEM1	Caucasian >90%	12.4	11.9	12.9	844
Thaçi (2017)b ESTEEM2	Caucasian >90%	12.6	11.9	13.3	411
Sticherling (2017) PRIME	Unknown	17.8	16.8	18.8	105
Blauvelt (2017) CLEAR	Caucasian (86.8%)	13.3	12.7	13.9	676
	Other (13.2%)
Griffiths (2017)	Caucasian (92.2%)	12.6	12.0	12.8	666
	Other (7.8%)
Kimbal (2016)a JAPD	Caucasian (79.6%)	9.3	8.39	10.2	270
	Asian (16.7%)
	Afroamerican and other (3.7%)
Kimbal (2016)b RHAZ	Caucasian (92.5%)	13.1	12.7	13.5	1294
	Asian (4.8%)
	Afroamerican and other (2.7%)
Kimbal (2016)c RHBC	Caucasian (92.7%)	12.0	11.6	12.4	1340
	Asian (3.0%)
	Afroamerican and other (4.3%)
Kimbal (2016)d RHBA	Caucasian (92.6%)	12.3	11.9	12.7	1218
	Asian (3.0%)
	Afroamerican and other (4.4%)
Torii (2016)	Asian (100%)	9.29	8.53	10.0	314
Maccari (2016) LIBERE	Unknown	10.0	9.05	10.9	125
Valenzuela (2016)	Unknown	12.8	12.3	13.3	1101
Atakan (2016) TUR-PSO	Caucasian (100%)	6.83	6.62	7.04	3131
Ayala (2015) TANGO	Caucasian (97.4%)	12.9	10.6	15.3	38
	Other (2.6%)
Gahalaut (2014)	Asian (100%)	14.45	13.5	15.4	40
Zhu (2014)	Unknown	10.9	9.88	11.9	142
Poulin (2014)	Caucasian (92.5%)	11.6	10.7	12.5	240
	Other (7.5%)
Larsen (2013)	Unknown	11.4	10.3	12.5	163
Roongpisuthipong (2013)	Asian (100%)	8.0	5.52	10.5	10
Vender (2012)	Unknown	13.7	12.9	14.5	246
Nakagawa (2012)	Asian (100%)	10.9	9.9	11.9	158
Yang (2012)	Asian (100%)	14.4	12.9	16.0	129
Barker (2011) RESTORE	Caucasian (97.5%)	13.6	12.9	14.4	868
	Other (2.5%)
Torii (2010)	Asian (100%)	11.6	8.9	14.2	54
Revicki (2007)	White (90.8%)	11.3	10.9	11.7	1205
	Asian (2.2%)
	Other (7.0%)
Flystrom (2008)	Unknown	8.6	6.6	10.6	68
Colombo (2008)	Caucasian (100%)	8.9	7.94	9.86	150
Feldman (2008)	Caucasian (92.6%)	13.1	12.6	13.6	835
	Asian (2.8%)
	Afroamerican and Other (4.6%)
Shikiar (2007)	Caucasian (90%)	13.5	12.0	15.0	95
	Other (10%)
Shikiar (2006)	Caucasian (90.5%)	12.71	11.6	13.9	147
	Asian (3.4%)
	Afroamerican (2.7%)
	Other (3.4%)
Reich (2006)	Unknown	12.5	11.8	13.2	378
Feldman (2005)	Unknown	12.7	11.7	13.7	198
Feldman (2004)	Unknown	11.58	10.5	12.5	182
Gordon (2003)	Caucasian (90%)	12.0	11.4	12.6	556
	Other (10%)
Finlay (2003)	Caucasian (90%)	11.1	10.5	12.1	474
	Other (10%)

The mean DLQI scores ranged from 6.83 to 17.8 throughout the studies. The overall DLQI score in the model was 12.12 (95%CI: 11.24 to 13.06). A random-effects model demonstrated significant considerable heterogeneity of the study results (I2 = 98%; p<0.001) (S1A Fig). In order to examine bias in the results of the performed meta-analysis, the funnel plot analysis and LFK index were applied. Despite considerable heterogeneity of the results, we did not find asymmetry in the funnel plot graph (S1B Fig), which confirmed the LFK score of 0.86 (S1C Fig).

Changes in the DLQI score as an effect of selected agents (treatment vs baseline)

Out of the selected studies 17 papers comprising 7,466 subjects were eligible for evaluation of the effect of selected agents on DLQI scoring. The values of SMD were compared between the groups of patients screened by the DLQI prior to the therapy and after the commencement of treatment. The detailed data referring to the effect of selected agents on the DLQI scoring and SMD (Hedge’s g) are presented in Table 2. Due to a small number of studies (<10) for each therapy regimen, the asymmetry was measured by the LFK index and a random-effects model was applied.

Table 2

Summary of the published data and standardized mean differences (SMDs; Hedge’s g) of DLQI measured prior to and after the commencement of infliximab, adalimumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab and tofacitinib plaque psoriasis patients.

Study	Drug	Patients (n)	Treatment duration (weeks)	DLQI prior to treatment*	DLQI after the treatment*	SMD (Hedge’s g)	Citation
Torii (2016)	Infliximab	314	42	9.29±6.85	3.61±4.18	-0.98	[33]
Yang (2012)		80	26	14.4±6.2	4.3±5.6	-1.71	[29]
Barker (2011)		653	26	13.5±7.2	2.2±5	-1.82	[32]
Torii (2010)		35	42	12.7±6.8	2.7±8	-1.35	[16]
Feldman (2008)		835	10	13±7	3.1±5.1	-1.62	[54]
Reich (2006)		301	24	12.7±7	2.7±7.3	-1.40	[38]
Feldman (2005)		198	10	12.7±7	3.1±5.1	-1.57	[39]
Pooled SMD (Hedge’s g) of -1.49 (95%CI: -1.74 to -1.25); I2 = 92%
Pooled effect estimates of -1.53 (95%CI: -1.81 to -1.24); I2 = 92%
Armstrong (2019)	Adalimumab	582	24	14.6±7.1	5.0±7.7	-1.27	[36]
Revicki (2007)		808	16	11.3±6.6	3.0±4.5	-1.47	[15]
Shikiar (2007)		95	12	13.5±7.7	2.4±6.3	-1.58	[30]
Shikiar (2006)		147	12	12.71±7.18	5.28±6.49	-1.09	[34]
Pooled SMD (Hedge’s g) of -1.34 (95%CI: -1.52 to -1.15); I2 = 76%
Pooled effect estimates of -1.45 (95%CI: -1.68 to -1.22); I2 = 80%
Zachariae (2018)	Ixekizumab	142	24	10.9±6.2	2.5±5.8	-1.40	[37]
Imafuku (2017)a		432	12	13.2±7	2.5±6.91	-1.54	[24]
Imafuku (2017)a		433	12	13.9±7	2.8±7.38	-1.54	[24]
Zhu (2014)		141	16	10.9±6.2	4.7±6.1	-1.01	[35]
Pooled SMD (Hedge’s g) of -1.39 (95%CI: -1.61 to -1.17); I2 = 80%
Pooled effect estimates of -1.36 (95%CI: -1.56 to -1.16); I2 = 80%
Körber (2018)	Secukinumab	841	52	13.8±7.4	2.2±4.4	-1.91	[23]
Sticherling (2017)		105	24	17.8±5.3	2.8±5.3	-2.83	[26]
Pooled SMD (Hedge’s g) of -2.35 (95%CI: -3.25 to -1.44); I2 = 95%
Pooled effect estimates of -1.98 (95%CI: -3.12 to -1.84); I2 = 95%
Griffiths (2017)a	Tofacitinib	331	24	12.4±6.2	5.1±7.28	-1.08	[27]
Griffiths (2017)b		335	24	12.4±6.2	2.6±7.28	-1.45	[27]
Valenzuela (2016)a		328	12	13±7.2	5.6±7.24	-1.02	[28]
Valenzuela (2016)b		330	12	13.3±7.27	3.5±5.45	-1.53	[28]
Pooled SMD (Hedge’s g) of -1.27 (95%CI: -1.61 to -1.17); I2 = 89%
Pooled effect estimates of -1.21 (95%CI: -1.49 to -1.23); I2 = 89%

* mean±SD.

Infliximab

Out of the selected agents, infliximab was the most frequently studied drug, which was reported in 7 papers with the total number of 2,416 patients. These 7 studies demonstrated considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 92%; p = <0.01) and minor asymmetry (LFK = 1.47). All the studies demonstrated a large effect size of infliximab that ranged from -0.98 to -1.82, and the pooled g was -1.49 (95%CI: -1.74 to -1.25). The duration of therapy varied from 10 to 42 weeks (S2C Fig).

Adalimumab

The effect of adalimumab on the improvement of the DLQI scoring was evaluated in 4 studies (1,632 patients) (S2A Fig). All of them demonstrated a large effect size on the DLQI with the pooled overall Hedge’s g (g) of -1.34 (95%CI: -1.52 to -1.15) and considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 76%; p = 0.01). The selected studies enrolled over 80% participants of the Caucasian race. The therapy outcomes were collected after either 12 or 16 or 24 weeks of the treatment. The LFK index of 2.0 demonstrated minor asymmetry of the results.

Ixekizumab

The effect of ixekizumab on the HRQOL improvement measured by the DLQI was analyzed in 3 studies (1,148 patients), however, one of them evaluated two therapy regimens depending on the frequency of the drug administration (once every two weeks or once every four weeks) (Imafuku et al.) [24] (S2B Fig). Two studies enrolled only Asian subjects and, on the whole, the therapy duration ranged from 12 to 24 weeks. The overall pooled effect of ixekizumab reached g of -1.39 (95%CI: -1.61 to -1.17) with considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 80%; p = <0.01) and major asymmetry (LFK = 2.82).

Secukinuma

The data concerning secukinumab efficacy was pooled from two papers summarizing the phase III trials: ERASURE, FIXTURE, CLEAR and PRIME, including 946 psoriatic individuals [25]. Considerable heterogeneity was found between the papers (I2 = 95%; p<0.001), and the pooled size effect for secukinumab was -2.35 (95%CI: -3.25 to -1.44). Because only two papers were pooled, the asymmetry was not possible to assess. Both papers differed in the duration of treatment, and they were as follows: 24 and 52 weeks, respectively [23, 26] (S2D Fig).

Tofacitinib

Two phase III trials (1,324 patients) reported mean DLQI changes resulting from tofacitinib therapy. Griffiths et al. studied two therapy regimens dependent on a drug dose (5 or 10 mg of tofacitinib), and Valenzuela et al. used the same protocol [27, 28]. However, therapy duration was 12 and 24 weeks, respectively. In the analysis the overall pooled g was -1.27 (95%CI: -1.52 to -1.02) (S2D Fig). The I2 score was equal to 89% (p<0.01), while the LFK = -2.32 (major asymmetry).

Changes in the DLQI score as an effect of selected agents (treatment vs placebo)

In 10 clinical trials (3 –phase II and 7 –phase III trials) the selected agents were used as a comparator to a placebo in order to assess the changes in HRQOL measured by the DLQI (Table 3).

Table 3

Summary of the published data and standardized mean differences (SMDs; Hedge’s g) of DLQI between two groups of plaque psoriasis individuals treated with the use of either a selected agent or a placebo.

Study/phase	Drug	Drug treated group (n)	Placebo treated group (n)	Reduction in DLQI from baseline to outcome (drug)*	Reduction in DLQI from baseline to outcome (placebo)*	SMD (Hedge’s g)	Citation
Yang (2012) III	Infliximab vs placebo	80	42	-10.1	-8.9	-0.21	29
Torii (2010) III		35	19	-10.0	-7.7	-0.01	21
Feldman (2008) II		835	208	-9.9	-0.6	-1.45	54
Reich (2006) III		301	77	-10.0	-0.2	-1.26	38
Feldman (2005) II		198	51	-9.6	-2.6	-1.44	39
Pooled SMD (Hedge’s g) of -0.91 (95%CI: -1.41 to -0.42); I2 = 93%
Pooled effect estimates of -1.12 (95%CI: -1.82 to -0.86); I2 = 93%
Armstrong (2019) III	Adalimumab vs placebo	582	422	-9.5	-1.8	-1.06	36
Revicki (2007) III		808	397	-8.3	-2.2	-1.13	20
Shikiar (2007) II		95	52	-11.1	-1.5	-1.33	30
Pooled SMD (Hedge’s g) of -1.11 (95%CI: -1.20 to -1.02); I2 = 5%
Pooled effect estimates of -1.11 (95%CI: -1.20 to -1.02); I2 = 5%
Imafuku (2017)a III	Ixekizumab vs placebo	432	431	-10.7	-2.6	-1.22	24
Imafuku (2017)b III		433	431	-11.1	-2.6	-1.15	24
Pooled SMD (Hedge’s g) of -1.19 (95%CI: -1.29 to -1.09); I2 = n/a
Pooled effect estimates of -1.19 (95%CI: -1.29 to -1.09); I2 = n/a
Valenzuela (2016)a III	Tofacitinib vs placebo	328	107	-7.4	-2.0	-0.63	28
Valenzuela (2016)b III		330	107	-9.8		-1.09	28
Pooled SMD (Hedge’s g) of -0.86 (95%CI: -1.31 to -0.40); I2 = n/a
Pooled effect estimates of -0.86 (95%CI: -1.31 to -0.40); I2 = n/a

* mean change.

Among them, the model for infliximab enrolled 50% of all the eligible studies (S3A Fig). The overall pooled effect of infliximab compared to placebo was -0.91 (95%CI: -1.41 to -0.91) (I2 =, p = <0.01), but Yang et al. and Torii et al. studies showed a small effect size, as follows: -0.21 and -0.01, respectively [16, 29]. Both of the studies involved only 183 patients in total, which probably affected the major asymmetry of the results represented by the LFK index (4.73). The studies concerning the comparison of therapy efficacy (improvement of the DLQI scoring) between adalimumab and placebo demonstrated the lack of heterogeneity (I2 = 5%, p = 0.35) (S3B Fig). The pooled effect size was -1.11 (95%CI: -1.20 to -1.02). The study of Shikiar et al. [30] weighted only 6.3% due to a small number of enrolled subjects (95 patients). Both ixekizumab and tofacitinib had a large effect size on the DLQI: -1.19 and -0.86, respectively, compared to placebo. The data were derived from single studies with the analysis of subgroups depending on the used dose (Table 3).

Discussion

The presented meta-analysis was based on the DLQI weighted mean scores derived from 43 studies meeting the inclusion criteria and comprising 25,898 adults suffering from plaque psoriasis of the Caucasian, Asian, Afro-American or unknown race investigated in single-race or mixed-race groups. As for the studied race, apart from Atakan’s et al. research into a group of Turks with plaque psoriasis, the obtained results were similar, i.e. no asymmetry was observed (the LFK score of 0.86) [31]. Atakan et al. study results may have been different because of different geographic and climatic regions the investigated Turkish patients lived in. As for the other investigated race groups, it is difficult to prove any racial influence on the DLQI because of the lack of information regarding their geographic and climatic conditions. In general, the race of the studied subjects does not give grounds for making an assumption that the race had an impact on the improvement of the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of adult plaque psoriatic patients treated with the investigated agents.

Out of the aforementioned 43 studies regarding adult plaque psoriatic patients, 17 papers comprising 7,466 study subjects were further analyzed with reference to the effects of selected biologics, i.e. infliximab, adalimumab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab, and a small molecule, i.e. tofacitinib, on the HRQOL of the studied patients. The I2 test results for all the studied agents revealed high heterogeneity, therefore a random-effects model was used. Out of all the investigated agents, secukinumab had the highest heterogeneity (I2 = 95%), whereas the lowest heterogeneity was observed for adalimumab (I2 = 76%). Apparently, the use of these agents positively affected the studied patients’ quality of life, which was confirmed by the Pooled standardized mean differences (SMD; Hedge’s g score) values. Interestingly, the higher the DLQI score prior to the commencement of the treatment with infliximab, adalimumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab and tofacitinib, the better the improvement of the patients’ quality of life, which was confirmed by the SMD; (Hedge’s g).

The majority of scientific studies (7 papers) included in this meta-analysis investigated the effect of infliximab on the HRQOL of adult plaque psoriatic patients (2,416 individuals). While the best improvement of the quality of life (QqL) after commencement of infliximab therapy in the group consisting of 97.5% of Caucasians was reported by Barker et al (the SMD; Hedge’s g: -1,82), the least improvement in the quality of life was observed in both Torri et al. studies, where all the treated patients were Asians [16, 32, 33].

According to the DLQI, the best effect of treatment with adalimumab was observed in the study of Shikiar et al. [30] of 2007, where the value of the DLQI before the treatment was 13.5±7.7 and after the treatment it dropped to 2.4±6.3, the number of studied patients, however, was smaller than in the other studied groups treated with this agent (the SMD; Hedge’s g of -1.58) [30]. Yet, the Pooled SMD (Hedge’s g) for adalimumab was -1.34, which was indicative of its lower efficacy in the improvement of the HRQOL of the studied adult plaque psoriatic patients in comparison with the other biologic agents. The duration of treatment (in weeks) with adalimumab had only a slight effect on the improvement of the HRQOL of the studied patients, however, its dosage and frequency of administration proved to play a role. In comparison to the Shikiar et al. study results of 2006 (the SMD; Hedge’s g: - 1.09), in which the patients were administered 80 mg of adalimumab at week 0 and week 1, followed by 40 mg every week beginning at week 2, the Shikiar et al. study results of 2007, where the patients received 80 mg of adalimumab at 0 week, followed by 40 mg every other week beginning at week 1, showed better improvement of the HRQOL of the investigated patients (the SMD; Hedge’s g: - 1.58) [30, 34].

The values of the SMD (Hedge’s g) for the effects of treatment with ixekizumab did not differ much from each other except for the SMD value obtained in the Zhu et al. study (the SMD; Hedge’s g: -1.01), which meant that the improvement of the HRQOL in the studied patients was worse in comparison to the other analyzed studies [35]. This may be connected with the administered doses of ixekizumab in two groups investigated in the Zhu et al. study, i.e.10 mg/25mg in one group and 75/150mg in the other group [35]. The dosage in the former group may have had a negative effect on the final values of the SMD (Hedge’s g). The study of Imafuku et al. of 2017 reported an improved HRQOL after a 12-week therapy with ixekizumab (the SMD; Hedge’s g -1.54), which may have been connected with the dosage and frequency of ixekizumab administration [24]. The dosage of ixekizumab was higher in Imafuku et al. than in Zhu et al study [24, 35].

The best value of the Pooled SMD (Hedge’s g), i.e. -2.35, was obtained by secukinumab, which means that the treatment with this agent was most effective and improved the HRQOL of the patients the most. However, this good result might have been caused by the fact that only two groups of patients were investigated, i.e. the Korber et al. group—841 patients, and the Sticherling et al. group—105 patients, where the latter had the highest DLQI value (17.8±5.3) prior to the commencement of the treatment, whereas after the treatment the value of the DLQI dropped to 2.8±5.3 (the SMD; Hedge’s g– 2.83) [23, 26].

Quite recently, Jabbar-Lopez et al. performed a network meta-analysis comparing biologics (adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, secukinumab, ustekinumab, and ixekizumab) with one another, methotrexate, or placebo in the patients with moderate-severe chronic plaque psoriasis taking into account not only the mean change in the DLQI but also assessing other outcomes, i.e. clear/nearly clear and PASI 75 [36]. All biologic therapies had statistically significant increased odds of the mean change in the DLQI compared with placebo at 12 to 16 weeks. Secukinumab performed the best and placebo the worst in terms of the mean change in the DLQI. Adalimumab, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and ustekinumab were all similar with regard to the mean change in the DLQI, whereas etanercept was less effective [36].

Griffiths et al. and Valenzuela et al. did research into the efficacy of tofacitinib, a synthetic small molecule, with reference to its ability to improve the HRQOL of adult plaque psoriatic patients [27, 28]. Even though Valenzuela et al. reported a relatively good effect of tofacitinib on the improvement of the psoriatic patients’ quality of life, its overall efficacy is the poorest of all the investigated agents (the Pooled SMD; Hedge’s g of -1.27) [28]. Tian et al. performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in the patients with chronic plaque psoriasis, however, they assessed outcomes other than the DLQI, i.e. physician global assessment, PASI75 and PASI90 [37]. The authors found that compared to placebo tofacitinib was significantly more effective, whereas the incidence of adverse reactions was significantly higher [37].

In the presented meta-analysis, a comparison between the effect of treatment with infliximab, adalimumab, ixekizumab, and tofacitinib versus placebo on the improvement of the HRQOL of adult plaque psoriatic patients showed varied heterogeneity. The studies comparing adalimumab vs placebo demonstrated the lack of heterogeneity (I2 = 5%), while the analysis of infliximab vs placebo presented high heterogeneity (I2 = 93%). The lack of heterogeneity in the analysis of adalimumab vs placebo may have been related to a small number of the investigated groups, their predominant Caucasian race, and similar SMD; (Hedge’s g) [15, 30, 38]. The highest heterogeneity observed in the analysis comparing the effect of infliximab vs placebo may have resulted from dissimilar standardized mean differences = SMD (from Hedge’s g = -0,21 to Hedge’s g = -1,45), great differences in the number of patients taking the drug or placebo and various races in each studied group. The I2 value of ixekizumab and tofacitinib versus placebo was not calculated because of the insufficient study material [24, 28].

Generally, the effect of each of the applied agents on the HRQOL of the studied patients was considerably better in comparison with the use of placebo, i.e. the Pooled SMD; Hedge’s g of -1.11 for adalimumab, -1.19 for ixekizumab, -0.86 for tofacitinib. Interestingly, the Pooled SMD; Hedge’s g was -0.91 for infliximab and the placebo effect was remarkably high in the study of Yang et al. (the SMD; Hedge’s g -0.21) and in the study of Torii et al. (the SMD, Hedge’s g -0.01) [16, 29]. It is worth noting that in the Yang et al. and Torii et al. studies the investigated groups were 100% Asian, which could be suggestive of some racial significance [16, 29]. However, since both Yang’s and Torii’s groups were small (n = 80, n = 35, respectively) the validity of these results should be confirmed by further research [16, 29].

Strengths and limitations of the study

Limitations of this meta-analysis result from the use of solely DLQI to assess the effect of selected biologics and a small molecule on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in adult plaque psoriasis patients. Heterogeneity was noted across the studies. Apart from the lack of information about the race of the studied patients in certain analyzed papers, the meta-analysis includes limited information on the patients’ sex, age, duration of psoriasis and its onset as well as co-existing diseases [24, 26, 28, 35, 39–41]. Thus, the data quality and heterogeneity may restrict the interpretation of the pooled risk estimates.

Conclusion

Infliximab, adalimumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab and tofacitinib in adult plaque psoriatic patients improved HRQOL measured by the DLQI. The patients with lower quality of life before treatment obtained better results. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first meta-analysis that compares the effects of the selected biologics and a small molecule on HRQOL measured by the DLQI in adult plaque psoriasis patients. This meta-analysis also compares biologics, a small molecule and the placebo effect on the DLQI in psoriatic patients.

PRISMA 2009 checklist.

(DOC)

Click here for additional data file.

PRISMA NMA checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review involving a network meta-analysis.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

10 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-16022

The effects of selected biologics and a small molecule on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in adult plaque psoriasis patients measured by Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) – systematic review and meta-analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Karpinska-Mirecka,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 24 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ahmed Negida, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please ensure you have included the full electronic search strategy for at least one database and uploaded it as an additional file.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The present meta-analysis aims to assess the utility of biological agents and one small molecule inhibitor (Tocafitinib) in improving the quality of life of Psoriasis patients (as measured by the DLQI). Psoriasis can be a highly debilitating condition, and the advent of a number of new therapeutic options does call into need a systematic analysis of the different treatments. There is a recent network meta-analysis (2017) by Lopez et al. covering the same biological agents (infliximab, adalimumab, ixekizumab, Secukinumab). Due to the network structure of the analysis, it was able to better compare the different biological agents. In addition, it had a somewhat wider coverage of outcomes, as it was not restricted solely to the DLQI as an outcome measure. There is also one recent meta-analysis (2019) by Tian et al. conducted specifically on the small molecule inhibitor Tocafitinib (assessing outcomes other than the DLQI; namely Physician global assessment response, PASI75 and PASI90) in which a significant improvement was seen.

In addition, I believe correcting the following points of methodology would probably improve the overall value of the manuscript and hopefully improve the chances of a successful publication:

1. The authors state that 423 studies qualified for full-text screening; however, the PRISMA diagram shows that only 150 articles were assessed for eligibility.

2. The authors’ PRISMA diagram shows a total of 43 included studies; however, they then proceed to choose 17 papers for evaluation of select biologic agents without clarifying the rationale as to why these 17 studies were the chosen ones. This may well be justified due to the nature of the selected studies, but I believe it would be best for the authors to clearly outline the justification for their selection.

3. The authors included a network diagram despite the fact that no network analysis was done. I think, for the sake of brevity, the diagram should probably be removed.

4. I do not believe the “citations” column in tables 1-3 serve to add much value, as the number of citations of included studies is not directly relevant to the review.

In addition, as the quality of writing greatly affects publication chances, and as the manuscript contains some linguistic errors, the paper would probably benefit from a grammatical revision to improve readability.

The aforementioned previous Meta-Analyses:

1. Quantitative Evaluation of Biologic Therapy Options for Psoriasis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

2. Efficacy and Safety of Tofacitinib for the Treatment of Chronic Plaque Psoriasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Reviewer #2: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis in which the authors investigates the effects and efficiency of different biologics and many biological drugs on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in adult plaque psoriasis patients measured by Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). DLQI is commonly used tool to assess quality of life of patients with skin diseases. The authors found that Infliximab, adalimumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab and tofacitinib in adult plaque psoriatic patients improved HRQOL measured by DLQI. The manuscript is well-written and structured. It also provides a tool for the physician to choose the right biological agent to improve the quality of life in patients with psoriasis.

Reviewer #3: The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of infliximab, adalimumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and tofacitinib on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) measured by DLQI in adult plaque psoriatic patients.

Although the overall approach of this review is proper, I have few comments:

1. Title: abbreviations should be avoided. Also, replace (– systematic) with (: A systematic).

2. The short title is missing.

3. Abstract

a) Main Objectives: remove (Aim of the study)

b) Material and Methods

- Searched through XX, insert the last date searched.

- clearly outline the eligibility criteria

- Insert the software used for analysis.

c) The results are inadequately reported, please add data of the pooled effect estimates.

d) Keywords are missing.

4. Introduction: place references at the end of sentences.

5. Methods

- The authors searched databases until October 2019. I would suggest updating the searching process for recently published relevant articles.

- No data on how the risk of bias assessment was performed.

6. Results

- Data on the screening process are incomplete and wrongly placed. Please move it to “Methods.”

- Data in Table 1 and Figure 2 are the same. Repeating data is not preferred; thus, I would recommend that one of them can be submitted as a supplementary file. The same is true for other tables and figures of the same outcome.

7. A completed PRISMA checklist is missing.

8. Figures should be submitted in better resolutions.

9. Language: The entire manuscript needs extensive professional revision for grammatical errors and stylistic editing to improve the quality of English. For example,

- Page 1: (to assess the quality), not (to assess quality); (confirm the positive effect) not (confirm positive effect); (with an overall DLQI score) not (with overall DLQI score); (The random-effects model) not (Random effects model). (Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov and manual searching) & (ixekizumab, secukinumab and tofacitinib), a comma should be placed before (and), etc.

Reviewer #4: Dear Author,

There are some points to consider when you revise your manuscript.

The title of your study is too long. It would be better to make it short such as following;

(The effects of selected biologics and a small molecule on Health-Related Quality of Life: systematic review and meta-analysis.)

The affiliation sentence needs revision.

The reference need to be revised according to the journal guideline.

It also need English editing.

Why did you include 43 studies while only 17 of them assessed the DQLI of patients on biologic treatments? based on your objective you should only include these 17 studies.

Reviewer #5: Title

I believe it is unnecessary to put in the title of the article that Health-Related Quality of Life was measured by DLQI.

I think that would be enough: The effects of selected biologics and a small molecule on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in adult plaque psoriasis patients – systematic review and meta-analysis". Quality of Life can be a keyword.

Methods

In "Search strategy":... papers of all languages. In "Eligibility criteria" ..... 2. non-English language...

Please clarify this.

Results: ".....the 43 studies, which met our inclusion criteria, the total of 25,898 individuals were evaluated by DLQI and....... (15,16,17,18,19) .......(20,21,22,23)" ......

Strengths and Limitations of the study (24, 26, 28, 35, 37, 38, 39 )

You should quote the references of sequential numbers by placing only a hyphen between the first and the last number and not mentioning all the numbers, as follows: 15-19 and 20-23 and 24, 26, 28, 35, 37-39

"As for ethnicity of the evaluated cases, most of the studies demonstrated differentiation in the patients’ race. Only 13/43 studies evaluated single-ethnic group (8 studies enrolled only Asian and 5 studies only Caucasian patients). Moreover, 11/43 papers suffered from the lack of data concerning the patients’ race."

Race and ethnicity have different meanings. You need to standardize the term. See also table 1

Conclusion

"This meta-analysis also compares biologics, a small molecule and placebo effect on DLQI in psoriatic patients."

You didn't say the conclusion about this small molecule

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

23 Sep 2020

Answer to the Reviewer 1:

Thank you for your evaluation. I would like to answer your questions.

The present meta-analysis aims to assess the utility of biological agents and one small molecule inhibitor (Tocafitinib) in improving the quality of life of Psoriasis patients (as measured by the DLQI). Psoriasis can be a highly debilitating condition, and the advent of a number of new therapeutic options does call into need a systematic analysis of the different treatments. There is a recent network meta-analysis (2017) by Lopez et al. covering the same biological agents (infliximab, adalimumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab). Due to the network structure of the analysis, it was able to better compare the different biological agents. In addition, it had a somewhat wider coverage of outcomes, as it was not restricted solely to the DLQI as an outcome measure. There is also one recent meta-analysis (2019) by Tian et al. conducted specifically on the small molecule inhibitor Tocafitinib (assessing outcomes other than the DLQI; namely Physician global assessment response, PASI75 and PASI90) in which a significant improvement was seen.

In addition, I believe correcting the following points of methodology would probably improve the overall value of the manuscript and hopefully improve the chances of a successful publication:

The aforementioned previous Meta-Analyses:

1. Quantitative Evaluation of Biologic Therapy Options for Psoriasis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

2. Efficacy and Safety of Tofacitinib for the Treatment of Chronic Plaque Psoriasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Answer to the Reviewer 1: Thank you for your comments. Both meta-analyses you suggested have now been included in Discussion.

1. The authors state that 423 studies qualified for full-text screening; however, the PRISMA diagram shows that only 150 articles were assessed for eligibility.

Answer to the Reviewer 1: Thank you for your valuable remark.

We started our meta-analysis by reviewing the PRISMA guidelines derived from http://www.prisma-statement.org/ and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6461330/ and then two independent researchers selected 423 papers from different databases which met the PRISMA requirements. Later, after we had screened titles, keywords and abstracts of the selected 423 papers, it turned out that 273 papers (out of those originally chosen 423 papers) did not meet the PRISMA criteria because they lacked certain data (e.g. quality of life measured by means of adequate tools, non-psoriasis patients included in the study or papers, mixed type population of patients with different dermatologic or inflammatory diseases, a lack of analysis of drugs’ effect on the quality of life). Finally, we excluded the papers which were regarded as original at first but then turned out to be reviews or other types of articles, therefore, we were eventually left with 150 eligible papers.

2. The authors’ PRISMA diagram shows a total of 43 included studies; however, they then proceed to choose 17 papers for evaluation of select biologic agents without clarifying the rationale as to why these 17 studies were the chosen ones. This may well be justified due to the nature of the selected studies, but I believe it would be best for the authors to clearly outline the justification for their selection.

Answer to the Reviewer 1: Thank you for another observant remark. Obviously, we took a shortcut but following your advice we are including this “clear outline” in the present version of the manuscript.

The number 17 resulted from exclusion of 26 papers (out of originally chosen 43) because some of them did not include appropriate data for the analysis of the effect of selected biological agents and a small molecule on HRQL (e.g. changes in DLQI scoring prior to and after the commencement of therapy, comparison between placebo and drug effect), while others lacked biologic agents in their analysis (phototherapy, topical therapy, methotrexate or other non-biologic drugs were explored).

However, we decided to include all of the 43 papers in our analysis in order to demonstrate the differences in DLQI scoring for different races. We believe that presented Table and Figure are helpful in noticing these differences.

3. The authors included a network diagram despite the fact that no network analysis was done. I think, for the sake of brevity, the diagram should probably be removed.

Answer to the Reviewer 1: Following the reviewer’s suggestion, for which we are grateful, the network diagram has been removed from the paper.

4. I do not believe the “citations” column in tables 1-3 serve to add much value, as the number of citations of included studies is not directly relevant to the review.

In addition, as the quality of writing greatly affects publication chances, and as the manuscript contains some linguistic errors, the paper would probably benefit from a grammatical revision to improve readability.

Answer to the Reviewer 1: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Following the reviewer's comment, the citation column and number of citations in Tables 1-3 has been removed. Linguistic and grammatical errors have also been corrected.

Answer to the Reviewer 2

Thank you for your evaluation.

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis in which the authors investigates the effects and efficiency of different biologics and many biological drugs on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in adult plaque psoriasis patients measured by Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). DLQI is commonly used tool to assess quality of life of patients with skin diseases. The authors found that Infliximab, adalimumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab and tofacitinib in adult plaque psoriatic patients improved HRQOL measured by DLQI. The manuscript is well-written and structured. It also provides a tool for the physician to choose the right biological agent to improve the quality of life in patients with psoriasis.

Answer to the Reviewer 2: Thank you for your evaluation. We appreciate your work.

Answer to the Reviewer 3

Thank you for your evaluation. I would like to answer your questions.

The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of infliximab, adalimumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and tofacitinib on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) measured by DLQI in adult plaque psoriatic patients.

Although the overall approach of this review is proper, I have few comments:

1. Title: abbreviations should be avoided. Also, replace (– systematic) with (: A systematic).

Answer to the Reviewer 3: Thank you for your remarks. The abbreviations in the title have been removed. Linguistic and grammatical errors have been corrected.

2. The short title is missing.

Answer to the Reviewer 3: Thank you for your opinion. The short title has been added.

3. Abstract

a) Main Objectives: remove (Aim of the study)

b) Material and Methods

- Searched through XX, insert the last date searched.

- clearly outline the eligibility criteria

- Insert the software used for analysis.

c) The results are inadequately reported, please add data of the pooled effect estimates.

d) Keywords are missing.

Answer to the Reviewer 3: Thanks for your suggestions. The ,,Aim of the study’’ has been substituted with “Main Objectives”. The last search date has been added to the manuscript (October 31st, 2019). The eligibility criteria are written more clearly. The software used for analysis has been inserted (Meta XL software version 5.3.).

Pooled SMD which represent effect size (standardized mean difference) and 95% confidence interval (using a random-effects model) are indicated by diamond in each figure, however, according to reviewer's suggestion pooled effect estimates were included in table 2 and 3.

Keywords have been added to the manuscript. Keywords: psoriasis, dermatology life quality index, quality of life, biologic agents, tofacitinib, meta-analysis.

4. Introduction: place references at the end of sentences.

Answer to the Reviewer 3: References have been added at the end of the sentences.

5. Methods

- The authors searched databases until October 2019. I would suggest updating the searching process for recently published relevant articles.

Answer to the Reviewer 3: Thank you for this comment. Two meta-analyses have been added to the discussion:

1. Quantitative Evaluation of Biologic Therapy Options for Psoriasis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

2. Efficacy and Safety of Tofacitinib for the Treatment of Chronic Plaque Psoriasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

6. No data on how the risk of bias assessment was performed.

Answer to the Reviewer 3: We used ordinary methods (funnel plot analysis) and a quite new and reliable method (Luis Furuya-Kanamori index) to assess the risk of bias. The methodology and short description of the used method was described in materials and method section. We would like to introduce reviewer to this method and let us quote the Doi plots and Luis Furuya-Kanamori (LFK) index methods: “LFK generates the Doi plot and estimates the LFK index to detect and quantify asymmetry of study effects. The Doi plot replaces the conventional scatter (funnel) plot of precision versus effect with a folded normal quantile (Z-score) versus effect plot. The studies form the limbs of this plot, if there is asymmetry there will be unequal deviation of both limbs of the plot from the mid-point or more studies making up one limb compared to the other. In the absence of asymmetry, it would be expected that a perpendicular line to the X-axis from the tip of the Doi plot would divide the plot into two regions with similar areas. The LFK index quantifies the difference between these two regions in terms of their respective areas under the plot and the difference in the number of studies included in each limb. The closer the value of the LFK index to zero, the more symmetrical the Doi plot. LFK index values outside the interval between -1 and +1 are deemed consistent with asymmetry (i.e. publication bias).”

References:

https://econpapers.repec.org/software/bocbocode/s458762.htm

https://journals.lww.com/ijebh/Citation/2018/12000/A_new_improved_graphical_and_quantitative_method.3.aspx

6. Results

- Data on the screening process are incomplete and wrongly placed. Please move it to “Methods.”

- Data in Table 1 and Figure 2 are the same. Repeating data is not preferred; thus, I would recommend that one of them can be submitted as a supplementary file. The same is true for other tables and figures of the same outcome.

Answer to the Reviewer 3: Data on the verification process has been transferred to methods. Figures have been added to the supplementary file.

7. A completed PRISMA checklist is missing.

Answer to the Reviewer 3: A completed Prisma checklist has been added.

8. Figures should be submitted in better resolutions.

Answer to the Reviewer 3: Thank you for your comment. We have provided figures in better resolution, now they are in 300 DPI.

9. Language: The entire manuscript needs extensive professional revision for grammatical errors and stylistic editing to improve the quality of English. For example,

- Page 1: (to assess the quality), not (to assess quality); (confirm the positive effect) not (confirm positive effect); (with an overall DLQI score) not (with overall DLQI score); (The random-effects model) not (Random effects model). (Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov and manual searching) & (ixekizumab, secukinumab and tofacitinib), a comma should be placed before (and), etc.

Answer to the Reviewer 3: Linguistic and grammatical errors have been corrected.

Answer to the Reviewer 4

Thank you for your evaluation. I would like to answer your questions.

-There are some points to consider when you revise your manuscript.

The title of your study is too long. It would be better to make it short such as following;

(The effects of selected biologics and a small molecule on Health-Related Quality of Life: systematic review and meta-analysis.)

The affiliation sentence needs revision.

The reference need to be revised according to the journal guideline.

It also need English editing.

-Why did you include 43 studies while only 17 of them assessed the DQLI of patients on biologic treatments? based on your objective you should only include these 17 studies.

Answer to the Reviewer 4:

-Thank you for your remarks. The manuscript’s title has been corrected, the affiliation sentences have also been revised. The references have been revised according to the journal guidelines. Linguistic and grammatical errors have been corrected.

Reviewer 4

Why did you include 43 studies while only 17 of them assessed the DQLI of patients on biologic treatments? based on your objective you should only include these 17 studies.

Answer to the Reviewer 4

The number 17 resulted from exclusion of 26 papers (out of originally chosen 43) because some of them did not include appropriate data for the analysis of the effect of selected biological agents and a small molecule on HRQL (e.g. changes in DLQI scoring prior to and after the commencement of therapy, comparison between placebo and drug effect), while others lacked biologic agents in their analysis (phototherapy, topical therapy, methotrexate or other non-biologic drugs were explored).

However, we decided to include all of the 43 papers in our analysis in order to demonstrate the differences in DLQI scoring for different races. We believe that presented Table and Figure are helpful in noticing these differences.

Answer to the Reviewer 5

Title

I believe it is unnecessary to put in the title of the article that Health-Related Quality of Life was measured by DLQI. I think that would be enough: The effects of selected biologics and a small molecule on Health- Related Quality of Life (HRQqL) in adult plaque psoriasis patients- systematic reciew and meta-analysis’’. Quality of Life can by a keyword.

Answer to the Reviewer 5: Thank you for your comments. The title of the manuscript has been changed to ,,The effects of selected biologics and a small molecule on Health-Related Quality of Life in adult plaque psoriasis patients - A systematic review and meta-analysis’’. “Quality of life” has been added as a keyword.

Methods:

In ,,search strategy’’ papers of all languages. In eligibility criteria 2. Non- English language. Please clarify this.

Answer to the Reviewer 5: Search strategy has been improved. The works were searched for, among papers which have been written in the English language.

Results the 43 studies, which met our inclusion criteria, the total of 25,898 individuals were evaluated by DLQI and......(15,16,17,18,19).(20,21,22,23 ......Strengths and Limitations of the study (24, 26, 28, 35, 37, 38, 39 ).

You should quote the references of sequential numbers by placing only a hyphen between the first and the last number and not mentioning all the numbers, as follows: 15-19 and 20-23 and 24, 26, 28, 35, 37-39.

Answer to the Reviewer 5: Thank you for your remarks. We have made all corrections following the reviewer’s suggestions.

"As for ethnicity of the evaluated cases, most of the studies demonstrated differentiation in the patients’ race. Only 13/43 studies evaluated single-ethnic group (8 studies enrolled only Asian and 5 studies only Caucasian patients). Moreover, 11/43 papers suffered from the lack of data concerning the patients’ race."

Race and ethnicity have different meanings. You need to standardize the term. See also table 1

Answer to the Reviewer 5: Thank you for your remarks. Everything has been corrected according reviewer’s suggestions.

Conclusion:

"This meta-analysis also compares biologics, a small molecule and placebo effect on DLQI in psoriatic patients."

You didn't say the conclusion about this small molecule.

Answer to the Reviewer 5:

Thank you for your comment. “A small molecule” has been added in Conclusion.

Submitted filename: Response to the Reviewers 21-st september.2020.docx

Click here for additional data file.

19 Oct 2020

The effects of selected biologics and a small molecule on Health-Related Quality of Life in adult plaque psoriasis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PONE-D-20-16022R1

Dear Dr. Karpinska-Mirecka,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ahmed Negida, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: The authors have addressed all my comments/suggestions.

Reviewer #4: None

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes: Marilda Aparecida Milanez Morgado de Abreu

13 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-16022R1

The effects of selected biologics and a small molecule on Health-Related Quality of Life in adult plaque psoriasis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Dear Dr. Karpińska-Mirecka:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ahmed Negida

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE