SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Front. Immunol., 11 June 2021

Sec. Cytokines and Soluble Mediators in Immunity

Volume 12 - 2021 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.670398

Adverse Events Associated With Anti-IL-23 Agents: Clinical Evidence and Possible Mechanisms

  • 1. Department of Dermatology, Yueyang Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China

  • 2. Institute of Dermatology, Shanghai Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China

  • 3. Shanghai Skin Disease Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China

Article metrics

View details

31

Citations

16,1k

Views

4,5k

Downloads

Abstract

Background:

Anti-interleukin (IL)-23 agents are widely used for autoimmune disease treatment; however, the safety and risks of specific symptoms have not been systematically assessed.

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to summarize the characteristics and mechanisms of occurrence of five immunological and non-immunological adverse events caused by different anti-IL-23 agents.

Methods:

The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched for eligible randomized clinical trials published from inception through May 1, 2020. Randomized clinical trials that reported at least one type of adverse event after treatment were included, regardless of sex, age, ethnicity, and diagnosis. Two investigators independently screened and extracted the characteristics of the studies, participants, drugs, and adverse event types. The Cochrane Handbook was used to assess the methodological quality of the included randomized clinical trials. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Meta-regression was applied to determine the sources of heterogeneity, and subgroup analysis was used to identify the factors contributing to adverse events.

Results:

Forty-eight studies were included in the meta-analysis, comprising 25,624 patients treated with anti-IL-23 agents. Serious immunological or non-immunological adverse events were rare. Anti-IL-12/23-p40 agents appeared to cause adverse events more easily than anti-IL-23-p19 agents. The incidence of cancer did not appear to be related to anti-IL-23 agent treatment, and long-term medication could lead to mental diseases. The prevention of complications should be carefully monitored when administered for over approximately 40 weeks to avoid further adverse reactions, and the incidence of infection was the highest among general immunological adverse events.

Conclusions:

The application of anti-IL-23 agents induced a series of immunological and non-immunological adverse events, but these agents tend to be well-tolerated with good safety profiles.

Introduction

Autoimmune disorders represent a series of long-standing conditions with distinct appearances and characteristics. The mechanisms underlying central tolerance, peripheral tolerance, and adaptation ensure proper regulation of the immune system in healthy individuals to prevent autoimmunity (1). Current medical strategies for the treatment of autoimmune disorders mainly include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. However, these therapeutics are not effective in all patients, have undesirable adverse events (AEs), and fail to completely cure the diseases. Once symptoms appear, patients typically desire the resolution of pain rather than prevention of further onset. At the same time, biological agents (BAs) targeting cytokines, receptors, and signaling molecules that have been developed can overcome the limitations due to the multidrug resistance. In 1998, the Food and Drug Administration approved etanercept, a recombinant fusion protein of tumor necrosis factor receptor 2 with the Fc portion of human IgG1, as the first-generation BA for rheumatoid arthritis treatment. Since then, BAs have ushered in a new era in the treatment of autoimmune disorders. Consequently, the safety and tolerability of BAs in long-term and daily practice warrant more attention than ever.

BAs play a therapeutic role in blocking key inflammatory cytokines or cell-surface molecules (2). Their action mechanisms differ from those of chemical drugs and BAs are not digested in the gastrointestinal tract (3) Most BAs are naturally occurring proteins or humanized antibodies that can neutralize natural proteins, which can result in AEs. In contrast to those elicited by chemicals, AEs caused by BAs mainly depend on the chemistry, mode of action, metabolism, and immunogenicity (4). To distinguish the AEs caused by BAs from other adverse effects, AEs are classified into five types using the Greek alphabet (type α to ϵ) (3) (Table S1). Type α AEs occur after the abundant release of inflammatory factors with complicated and changeable symptoms. Type β AEs are immune-mediated and more serious than type α AEs. Type γ and δ AEs involve short-term and long-term toxicities, respectively, linked to the chemical structure of BAs and their metabolism. Type ϵ AEs occur during drug withdrawal, particularly when the drug is suddenly stopped.

Interleukin (IL)-23 affects inflammatory cells and relies on the ability of cytokines to indirectly counteract regulatory mechanisms. The anti-IL-23 agents has good safety and clinical curative effect (5). Ustekinumab was recognized as the most widely used anti-IL-12/23-p40 agent, which was approved in 2009 for the treatment of psoriasis (Pso) with advantages of few drug injections, high remission rates, and long-term sustainment. Although blocking the IL-23 immune axis is sufficient to treat many autoimmune disorders, the risk of serious infections and various AEs is a concern (3, 4). A phase III trial demonstrated that briakinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody directed against IL-12/23-p40 for psoriasis treatment, caused serious complications and AEs, and the drug developer withdrew its approval application submitted to the Food and Drug Administration and European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products in 2011 (6, 7). This incident resulted in controversy and additional scrutiny of anti-IL-23 agents. In a review of four commercial BAs, secukinumab (an IL-17 inhibitor) and ustekinumab were suggested to achieve better effects (8). Another study also proposed that the probability of AEs with anti-IL-23 agents is lower than that with anti-IL-17 agents (9). However, summaries of the safety of anti-IL-23 agents are not available; thus, further analysis is necessary.

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the incidence and characteristics of AEs caused by all anti-IL-23 agents currently available in the market (Table 1), and to provide a comprehensive synopsis based on existing evidence, of the efficacy and safety of anti-IL-23 agents, which will help to identify future research priorities.

Table 1

NameTrade namesubunitConstituentIndicationR & D stageIdentifier
UstekinumabStelaraIL-23/12-p40a fully human IgG1κ monoclonal antibodyPsoriasisPhase IV completedNCT01059773
Crohn’s diseasePhase IV ongoingNCT03885713
Ankylosing spondylitisPhase III terminatedNCT01330901
Rheumatoid arthritisPhase II completedNCT01645280
Psoriatic arthritisPhase III completedNCT01077362
Multiple sclerosisPhase II completedNCT00207727
Graft-versus-host diseasePhase II completedNCT01713400
Atopic dermatitisPhase II completedNCT01806662
Giant cell arteritisPhase II terminatedNCT02955147
Type I diabetes mellitusPhase II completedNCT02204397
Systemic lupus erythematosusPhase III ongoingNCT04060888
Hidradenitis suppurativaPhase II completedNCT01704534
SarcoidosisPhase II completedNCT00955279
Primary biliary cirrhosisPhase II completedNCT01389973
BriakinumabIL-23/12-p40a fully human IgG1λ monoclonal antibodyCrohn’s diseasePhase II terminatedNCT00562887
PsoriasisPhase III completedNCT00626002
Multiple sclerosisPhase II completedNCT00086671
GuselkumabTremfyaIL-23-p19a fully human IgG1λ monoclonal antibodyPsoriasisPhase IV completedNCT03573323
Rheumatoid arthritisPhase II completedNCT01645280
Palmoplantar pustulosisPhase III completedNCT02641730
TildrakizumabIlumyaIL-23-p19humanized IgG1κ monoclonal antibodyPsoriasisPhase IV ongoingNCT04339595
Psoriatic arthritisPhase III ongoingNCT04314531
RisankizumabSkyriziIL-23-p19humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibodyAnkylosing spondylitisPhase II completedNCT02047110
Crohn’s diseasePhase III ongoingNCT03105128
PsoriasisPhase IV ongoingNCT04102007
Psoriatic arthritisPhase III ongoingNCT03675308
AsthmaPhase II completedNCT02443298
Ankylosing spondylitisPhase II completedNCT02047110
BrazikumabIL-23-p19humanized IgG2 monoclonal antibodyCrohn’s diseasePhase III ongoingNCT03961815
PsoriasisPhase I completedNCT01094093
Ulcerative colitisPhase II ongoingNCT04277546
MirikizumabIL-23-p19humanized IgG4 monoclonal antibodyPsoriasisPhase III ongoingNCT03535194
Ulcerative colitisPhase III ongoingNCT03519945
Crohn’s diseasePhase III ongoingNCT03926130

Summary of Biological Agents Targeting IL-23.

R & D stage, Research and development stage; Ig, immunoglobulin.

*Clinical trial identifiers are provided for reference; please see the ClinicalTrials.gov website for further details. Data are accurate as of June 2020.

Methods

This systematic review was performed following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (9), and is presented according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Selection Criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were determined before initiating the study. The included studies were limited to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that reported at least one type of AE after anti-IL-23 agent treatment, regardless of sex, age, ethnicity, and diagnosis. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (i) no anti-IL-23 agents included; (ii) no reported AEs; (iii) meeting abstracts, cell or animal studies, reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses; and (iv) no full-text studies.

Outcomes

The primary outcomes considered were the incidence and grade of AEs according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0 (updated November 2017) of the Department of Health and Human Services. AEs of grades ≥ 3 were considered severe. Heterogeneity and AE incidence were evaluated using meta-regression and subgroup analyses. The primary outcomes included general information of the RCTs, and the secondary outcomes were measured according to the five AE types.

Selection of Studies and Data Extraction

The Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies published from inception through May 1, 2020, without language restrictions. The details of the clinical trials were searched at ClinicalTrials.gov until June 1, 2020. The search terms were grouped into three blocks (10).Character included “safety”, “side effects”, “adverse reactions” or “adverse events”. Clinical condition included “ustekinumab or stelara or CNTO 1275” or “briakinumab or ABT874” or “guselkumab or tremfya or CNTO1959” or “tildrakizumab or ilumya or SCH900222” or “risankizumab or skyrizi or ABBV 066” or “brazikumab or MEDI 2070” or “miriklzumab”. Trial design included clinical trial, random, and control. Vocabulary and syntax were adapted to be appropriate for each database. In total, 4,285 potential studies were identified from the electronic databases, and the detailed steps for study selection are shown in Figure S1.

Quality Assessments

The quality of the studies was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook (9), including: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of the outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other biases. The terms “low”, “unclear”, “high”, and “n/a” referred to low, uncertain, high risks of bias, and not applicable, respectively. The results were cross-checked by two investigators (YR, XJD) and disagreements were settled under discussion. Potential publication bias was detected by visual inspection of a funnel plot and formal testing with Egger’s test. Meta-regression was performed to explore the sources of study heterogeneity.

Statistical Analysis

We estimated the incidence of AEs associated with anti-IL-23 agent treatment. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the Q test and I2 statistic. The random-effects model was used to calculate the average statistics of the weighted combination of multiple research statistics. All analyses were performed using R software (version 3.8.6 [2018–3–15]) with the package Meta and Metafor function, and results were assessed at a significance level of P < 0.05.

Results

In total, 48 studies reported at least one type of AE caused by anti-IL-23 agents. The articles were retrieved from the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. A flowchart of the search process is presented in Figure S1. All included studies were RCTs. When a study had more than one dosage cohort, each cohort was used as an independent study for analysis.

Quality and Characteristics of the Studies

Visual inspection of the funnel plot showed no evident asymmetry, indicating that the pooled results were not influenced by publication bias (Figure S2). Egger’s test showed P = 0.3226, indicating no evidence of publication bias (Figure S3). The overall AE incidence revealed high between-study heterogeneity with I2 = 98%; the odds ratio (OR) was 64.76% with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 60.75–68.78 (Figure S4). The quality of most RCTs was high, according to the Cochrane quality assessment criteria (Table S2). The study population characteristics are shown in Table 2. To explore the potential sources of heterogeneity, meta-regression analysis was performed for the endpoints of AEs in different groups (Table 3).

Table 2

StudyRegionDesign(Phase)DiagnosisDrug/TargetTotal number of patients (M/F)Dose(mg/kg)mode of administrationCTCAE(Grade)
Krueger et al. (11)U.S.A., UtahIIPsUstekinumab/p40320 (222/98)0.75; 1.5i.h.3
Papp et al. (12)Canada, OntarioIIIPsUstekinumab/p401230 (840/390)0.75; 1.5i.h.3
Leonardi et al. (13)U.S.A., SkokieIIIPsUstekinumab/p40766 (531/235)0.75; 1.5i.h.3
Griffiths et al. (14)U.K., ManchesterIIIPsUstekinumab/p40903 (613/290)0.75; 1.5NA3
Igarashi et al. (15)Japan, TokyoII/IIIPsUstekinumab/p40158 (126/32)0.75; 1.5i.h.3
Tsai et al. (16)Taiwan; KoreaIIIPsUstekinumab/p40121 (103/18)0.75i.h.3
Gordon et al. (6)U.S.A., SkokieIIIPsBriakinumab/p40Induction: 1465 (1009/456)
Maintenance:745 (507/238)
3.33; 1.67NA4
Kimball et al. (17)U.S.A., ChicagoIIIPsUstekinumab/p40766 (531M235)0.75; 1.5NA3
Sandborn et al. (18)U.S.A., CaliforniaIIaCDUstekinumab/p40526 (217/309)1; 1.5; 3; 6i.v./i.h.3
Kimball et al. (19)U.S.A., BostonIIIPsUstekinumab/p40753 (523M230)0.75; 1.5i.h.3
McInnes et al. (20)U.K., GlasgowIIIPsAUstekinumab/p40615 (330/285)0.75; 1.5i.h.3
Zhu et al. (21)U.S.A. North DakotaIHealthyUstekinumab/p4055 (55/0) 1.5;0.75i.h.2
Langley et al. (22)Canada, Nova ScotiaIIIPsUstekinumab/p401212 (828/384)0.75; 1.5NA3
Ritchlin et al. (23)U.S.A., RochesterIIIPsAUstekinumab/p40312 (148/164)0.75; 1.5i.h.3
Sofen et al. (24)U.S.A., New YorkIPsGuselkumab/p1924 (15/9)0.17; 0.5; 1.67; 5i.h.2
Gordon et al. (25) U.S.A., ChicagoIIPsGuselkumab/p19293 (207/86)0.08; 0.25; 0.83; 1.67; 3.33i.h.4
Kavanaugh et al. (26)U.S.A., CaliforniaIIIPsAUstekinumab/p40615 (330/285)0.75; 1.5NA3
Kopp et al. (27) Austria, ViennaIPsTildrakizumab/p1977 (61/16)0.05; 0.1; 0.5; 3; 10i.v.3
Landells et al. (28)Canada,NewfoundlandIIIPsUstekinumab/p40110 (54/56)0.75; 1.5i.h.3
Papp et al. (29)Canada, WaterlooIIbPsTildrakizumab/p19355 (270/85)0.08; 0.42; 1.67; 3.33i.h.4
Thaçi et al. (30)Germany, Schleswig-
Holstein
IIIPsUstekinumab/p40676 (252/424)0.75; 1.5i.h3
Blauvelt et al. (31)U.S.A., OregonIIIbPsUstekinumab/p40676 (252/424)0.75; 1.5i.h4
Blauvelt et al. (32)U.S.A., OregonIIIPsGuselkumab/p19837 (608/129)1.67NA3
Feagan et al. (33)U.K., LondonIIbCDUstekinumab/p40UNIT-1: 741 (317/424)
UNIT-2: 628 (293/335)
IM-UNIT-I: 397 (173/224)
2.17; 6; 1.5i.v.3
Zhuang et al. (34) U.S.A., PennsylvaniaIPsGuselkumab/p19Part 1: 47 (45/2)
Part 2: 24 (15/9)
0.03; 0.1; 0.17; 0.3; 0.5; 1; 1.67; 3; 5; 10i.v.2
Blauvelt et al. (35) U.S.A., PortlandIIIbPsUstekinumab/p40378 (236/142)NAi.h.3
Papp et a. (36)Canada, WaterlooIIPsRisankizumab/p19
Ustekinumab/p40
166 (109/57)0.3; 1.5; 3; 0.75i.h.3
Reich et al. (37)Germany, HamburgIIIbPsUstekinumab/p40302 (202/100)0.75; 1.5i.h.3
Reich et al. (38)Germany, HamburgIIIPsGuselkumab/p19992 (692/300)1.67i.h.3
Reich et al. (39)Germany, HamburgIIIPsTildrakizumab/p19reSURFACE 1:
772 (533/239)
reSURFACE 2:
1090 (779/311)
1.67; 3.33i.h.4
Saeki et al. (40)Japan, TokyoIIADUstekinumab/p4079 (55/24)0.75; 1.5i.h.2
Deodhar et al. (41)U.S.A., OregonIIPsAGuselkumab/p19149 (76/73)1.67i.h.3
Nemoto et al. (42) Japan, TokyoIPsGuselkumab/p1924 (18/6)0.17; 0.5; 1.67; 5i.h.2
Ohtsuki et al. (43) Japan, TokyoIIIPsGuselkumab/p19192 (145/47)0.83; 1.67i.h.3
Paul et al. (44)France, ToulouseIIIbPsUstekinumab/p40302 (202/100)0.75; 1.5i.h.3
Terui et al. (45) Japan, TokyoIIPPGuselkumab/p1949 (14/35)3.33i.h.3
Ferris et al. (46)U.S.A., PittsburghIIIPsGuselkumab/p1978 (53/25)1.67i.h.3
Lee et al. (47) Korea, SeoulIIIPsUstekinumab/p4062 (49/13)0.75; 1.5i.h.3
Ohtsuki et al. (48)Japan, TokyoII/IIIPsRisankizumab/p19171 (143/28)1.25; 2.5NA3
Reich et al. (49)Germany, BerlinIIPsMirikizumab/p19205 (152/53)0.5; 1.67; 5i.h.3
Sandborn et al. (50)U.S.A., CaliforniaIIUCMirikizumab/p19249 (149/100)0.83; 3.33; 10i.v./i.h.3
Sands et al. (51)U.S.A., New YorkIIIUCUstekinumab/p40Induction: 961 (582/379)
Maintenance: 523 (297/226)
2.17; 6; 1.5i.v.4
Terui et al. (52)Japan, TokyoIIIPPGuselkumab/p19159 (30/129)1.67; 3.33i.h.3
Blauvelt et al. (53)U.S.A., OregonIVPsGuselkumab/p191027 (652/375)1.67i.h.3
Gelfand et al. (54) U.S.A., PennsylvaniaIVPsUstekinumab/p4043 (30/13)0.75; 1.5i.h.2
Reich et al. (55)Germany, HamburgIIIPsTildrakizumab/p19772 (533/239)1.67; 3.33i.h.4
Thaçi et al. (56)Germany, LubeckIIIbPsGuselkumab/p19119 (82/37)1.67i.h.3
Blauvelt et al. (57)U.S.A., OregonIIIPsRisankizumab/p19Part A: 507 (356/151)
Part B: 336 (239/97)
2.5i.h.4

Study population characteristics: the adverse events caused by anti-IL-23 agents.

AD, atopic dermatitis; CD, Crohn’s disease; PP, palmoplantar pustulosis; Ps, psoriasis; PsA, psoriatic arthritis; UC, ulcerative colitis; CTCAE, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0; U.S.A., United States of America; U.K., United Kingdom; NA, non-available; M/F, Male/Female; i.v., intravenous injection; i.h., hypodermic injection.

Table 3

Prespecified Source of HeterogeneityNumber of studiesMeta-regression coefficient with 95% confidence intervalMeta-regression P-value for Heterogeneity
Region0.037
 U.S.A201.22 [0.99,1.51]
 Europe111.17 [0.93,1.47]
 Asia91.31 [1.03,1.67]
 Other50.82 [0.67,0.99]
Action Subunits0.226
 p19220.93 [0.82,1.05]
 p40271.08 [0.95,1.23]
Clinical Phase Design0.133
 Phase I clinical51.00 [0.69,1.44]
 Phase II clinical110.92 [0.67,1.24]
 Phase II/III clinical21.10 [0.83,1.45]
 Phase III clinical260.90 [0.68,1.20]
 Phase IV clinical10.82 [0.45,1.50]
Sample Size0.004
 ≤ 500271.12 [0.99,1.27]
 > 500180.89 [0.79,1.01]
Administration0.983
 i.v.71.10 [0.91,0.87]
 i.h.330.91 [0.75.1.11]
 NA70.89 [0.71.1.13]
Diseases0.015
 Atopic dermatitis11.38 [0.60,3.20]
 Crohn’s disease21.49 [0.77,2.92]
 Palmoplantar pustulosis21.54 [0.74,3.19]
 Psoriasis331.31 [0.71,2.43]
 Psoriasis arthritis41.20 [0.63,2.29]
 Ulcerative colitis21.28 [0.66,2.50]
 Health10.76 [0.42,1.39]
Courses of Medication0.690
 ≤ half a year151.04 [0.89,1.21]
 > half a year300.96 [0.55,0.73]
Dose Adjustment0.258
 Yes300.91 [0.79,1.05]
 No151.10 [0.95,1.27]
Study Quality0.773
 Low risk340.99 [0.84,1.15]
 High risk11.35 [0.78,2.35]
 Uncertain risk101.01 [0.86,1.82]

Potential prespecified sources of heterogeneity explored among the studies reporting AEs associated with anti-IL-23 agents.

AEs, Adverse Events; CI, Confidence Interval; i.v., intravenous injection; i.h., hypodermic injection; NA, non-available.

Effect of Duration of Anti-IL-23 Treatment

Forty-five studies proposed a clear definition of medication courses. We sorted the AE incidence and found a high degree of heterogeneity among different treatment courses (Figure S6.3). To describe the characteristics of medication courses in-depth, each interval at 12 weeks was marked, and a line chart was created with an approximately equal number of courses (Figure 1A). The AE incidence was lower when the medication period lasted within three-quarters of a year (approximately 42 weeks) (Figure 1A).

Figure 1

Figure 1

(A) Box diagram for subgroup analysis. Box diagram for the incidence of changes in adverse events with different medication courses. (B) Heat map of different types of symptoms caused by different drugs. Red areas indicate greater relative probability of occurrence and lighter colored areas indicate a slight or null relative probability of occurrence. All data included in the heat map are statistically significant (P < 0.05).

Targeted Subunits and Commercial Drugs

Further subgroup analysis showed that the AE occurrence of anti-IL-23/IL-12-p40 agents was 65.23% (95% CI 61.74–68.57, I2 = 95%), which was higher than that of anti-IL-23-p19 agents of 58.71% (95% CI 55.40–61.94, I2 = 91%) (Table S3 and Figure S6.5.1). The evident differences in AE incidence were as follows: 71.56% (95% CI 66.68–75.98, I2 = 96%) for ustekinumab, 67.07% (95% CI 55.53–76.87, I2 = 88%) for briakinumab, 65.69% (95% CI 54.44–75.42, I2 = 96%) for risankizumab, 59.13% (95% CI 53.77–64.28, I2 = 79%) for guselkumab, and 51.19% (95% CI 45.80–56.56, I2 = 89%) for tildrakizumab (Table S3 and Figure S6.5.2). However, the results were also affected by the actual clinical usage.

Incidence of the Five Reaction Types

The pooled OR from the random-effects model for the five AE types associated with anti-IL-23 agents was analyzed. The incidence of type ϵ AEs was 13.3% (95% CI 6.23–26.17, I2 = 77%), which was higher than that of type α AEs with an incidence of 7.14% (95% CI 6.41–7.93, I2 = 97%), type β AEs at 6.57% (95% CI 5.81–7.41, I2 = 92%), and type γ AEs at 3.94% (95% CI 3.33–4.65, I2 = 80%). However, there was no significant effect on the incidence of type δ AEs.

Type α AEs

The anti-IL-23-p19 agents tended to most strongly increase the risk for type α AEs among the five types. The most frequent type of α AE during treatment was infections with an incidence of 36.35%; serious infections showed an incidence of <1.5% (Table S3 and Figure S7.1.1). The heat map shows darker areas with a high probability of incidence and lighter areas with a low probability of occurrence (Figure 1B). Notably, other common signs of type α reactions included upper respiratory tract infection (8.53%), headache (7.12%), and viral upper respiratory tract infection (6.73%). The other frequent type of α AEs included arthralgia, backache, cough, diarrhea, gastroenteritis, influenza, nausea, oropharyngeal pain, and pyrexia (Table S3 and Figure S7.1.1).

Type β AEs

Anti-IL-23-p19 agents were more likely to induce type β AEs. The most common symptom was nasopharyngitis, with an incidence of 12.21%. Other AEs with a higher probability of occurrence included anaphylaxis (5.00%), sinusitis (4.57%), and pruritus (4.40%). Other common type β AEs were bronchitis, erythema, injection-site reaction, and neutropenia (Table S3 and Figure S7.2.1).

Type γ AEs

Compared with the anti-IL-23-p19 agents, the anti-IL-12/23-p40 agents appeared to more frequently lead to type γ AEs. The most common type of γ AE symptom was increased transaminases (approximately 7.43%). Prolonged application of anti-IL-23 agents aggravated the original diseases, such as increasing the severity of Crohn’s disease (5.96%), hypertension (5.50%), ulcerative colitis (5.28%), Pso (3.92%), and cardiovascular events (0.76%) (Table S4 and Figure S7.3.1).

Type ϵ AEs

Anti-IL-23-p19 agents increased the risk of type ϵ AEs more than anti-IL-12/23-p40 agents. The most frequent symptom was depression (0.75%; Table S3 and Figure S7.4.1).

Discussion

Biological therapy has evolved, owing to improved integration of knowledge of the interactions between the immune system and related cytokines, which could affect the entire pathologic disease process. Anti-IL-23 agents displayed broad range of antagonistic activities because IL-23 is a critical upstream regulator (58). IL-23 acts early in the disease inflammatory cascade, which activates downstream effectors to maintain the TH17 cell phenotype (59). Moreover, IL-12 is considered to be proatherogenic and the inhibition of IL-12/23-p40 should confer cardioprotection (60). A previous study (n = 2,447) (5) indicated that anti-IL-23 agents appear to be safer and more effective in clinical application, but the drug-specific safety information has not been explored systematically. This is the first report to classify and review the AEs caused by anti-IL-23 agents, and to provide a statistical outline.

IL-23 is secreted by several immune cells in response to microbial products and inflammatory cytokines, which essentially bridge the innate and adaptive immune responses and drive early local immunity (61, 62). IL-23 is structurally composed of the unique IL-23-p19 subunit linked to the common p40 subunit that is shared with IL-12. Moreover, IL-23 and IL-12 are responsible for driving the differentiation of naïve T helper (TH) cells to TH17 and TH1 cells, respectively (63). TH17 cells secrete several proinflammatory cytokines, stimulate the proliferation of keratinocytes, and activate downstream inflammatory signal transduction (64). TH1 cells produce inflammatory cytokines and drive the expansion of inflammation. The inhibition of IL-23 blocks the cascade of both immune and inflammatory reactions (Figure 2). Primary subgroup analysis showed significant differences in the AE incidence of briakinumab, ustekinumab, guselkumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab (Table S3 and Figure S6.5.2). Anti-IL-12/23-p40 agents (briakinumab and ustekinumab) were more likely to cause AEs with an incidence of 65.23% (95% CI 61.74–68.57, I2 = 95%) (Table S3 and Figure S6.5.2) than anti-IL-23-p19 treatment, which may be related to its structural features (65). Therefore, a higher rate of malignancy with IL-12/23-p40 blockade was confirmed (66); IL-12 can promote the infiltration of cytotoxic T cells and IL-23 can promote inflammatory responses (66). While our results showed that anti-IL-23 treatment was rarely associated with an increased cancer risk (Figure S3), similar those of a recent study (67). In summary, the AEs caused by anti-IL-23 agents were mainly due to their immunological effects and broad range of biological effects.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Schematic of the induction and effects of IL-23 subunits and their corresponding receptors and signaling molecules. IL-23 is an essential factor required for the expansion of naive CD4+ T lymphocyte populations. The functional IL-23 receptors include IL-12Rβ1 and IL-23R. The downstream signaling molecule of IL-23R is STAT3, which drives TH17 and TH22 responses. The downstream signaling molecule of IL-12Rβ1 is STAT4, which drives the TH1 response. Under stimulation with different cell factor combinations, naive CD4+ cells differentiate into T helper (TH1, TH17, and TH22) cells to produce corresponding inflammatory factors and execute their functional activities. Inhibiting the upstream subunits (IL-12Rβ1 or IL-23R) can govern both upstream and downstream processes in the cascade to improve clinical symptoms. IFN, interferon; IL, interleukin; STAT, signal transducer and activator of transcription; TH, T helper; TGF, transforming growth factor; TNF, tumor necrosis factor.

AEs induced by BAs always require specific knowledge, as they are different from the common AEs elicited by chemicals or drugs (Table S1). The most common AE identified in the included studies was type α with an incidence of 7.14% (95% CI 6.41–7.93, I2 = 97%), and the highest risk was for type ϵ AEs (13.30%, 95% CI 6.23–26.17, I2 = 89%) (Table S3 and Figure S7). Type ϵ is the only non-immunological AE form, which may be associated with long-term medication. Previous studies (68, 69) have shown that excessive release of pathological inflammatory mediators may lead to a high incidence of anxiety and depression; moreover, the application of BAs induces psychologically relevant AEs. The most common type ϵ AE was psychiatric disorder with an incidence of 0.75% (Table S3 and Figure S7.5.1). This indicates that the treat-and-extend regimens over a longer period may lead to mental problems, which may also relate to the chronic duration. In summary, clinician should pay attention to communication and psychological guidance to patients.

The curative effect is often comparable with decreasing tolerance to AEs. A drug concentration-response relationship affects the clinical efficacy, indicating that a higher BA drug dose may achieve better and longer efficacy duration in the first few weeks (70). However, no significant dose-dependent efficacy of anti-IL-23 agents was observed during long-term treatment (71). Regardless of whether drug dose affects the curative effect, dose adjustment showed no significant effect on AEs in our analysis (Table 3). Dose tapering does not lead to persistent flares or safety issues (72); however, variation in medication courses may induce heterogeneity. According to the subgroup analysis, the incidence of AEs stabilized when the medication period was maintained within 40 weeks (Figure 1A). A previous study (11) showed that long-term BA treatment may even decrease the survival rate due to serious AEs and ineffective treatments. This suggests that anti-IL-23 treatment is relatively safe in the first three quarters of medication use, and an intervention such as combined treatment for potential complications should be considered within the first 40 weeks.

Currently, with the increasing popularity of BA treatment, the development of new drugs is actively taking place. These drugs are beneficial for treating symptoms, and assessing the applicability of patients for potential AEs is an essential step; however, the assessment method remains unclear, and there is currently no consensus on the most appropriate treatment duration of BAs for different diseases. In addition, BAs cannot prevent the entire disease mechanism, which has raised the question as to whether BAs can change the natural course of the disease. Moreover, BAs are relatively expensive and therefore increase healthcare costs, which could be resolved in the near future with the approaching expiration of patents. Finally, no study has discussed the risk of biologics solely in specific subpopulations (such as pregnant women, children, and the elderly), which should be the subject of future research.

This study has several strengths. First, several authors reviewed all available studies independently for data retrieval and analysis to reduce information bias or missing data. Second, the included studies were RCTs of generally high quality, which minimized the selection bias associated with differences between researchers and medical settings to some extent. Third, long-term follow-up studies were included with significant implications that were found by collating rare or non-immune AEs caused by anti-IL-23 agents. Fourth, no industry was involved in this work. However, there were also some limitations to this study. The different treatment strategies had different time points used as safety measures, which prevented inclusion of placebo control data for analysis. To resolve the ambiguity of AEs caused by BAs, we prolonged the observation periods and used five defined types to screen for AEs caused by anti-IL-23 agents. In addition, we used type ϵ analysis to detect long-term and rare AEs, but this was not an in-depth exploration. Further studies should focus on the differences in AEs associated with autoimmune disorders over long-term treatment, which would certainly help to tackle remaining questions in this field.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China [grant numbers: 82074427,81874470, 81973860], National Key Research and Development Program of China [grant number: 2018YFC1705305], Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality [grant number: 19ZR1458700], the Shanghai Pujiang Talent Plan (No. 2020PJD067), Shanghai Development Office of TCM [No. ZY(2018-2020)-FWTX-1008], and Shanghai Municipal Key Clinical Specialty (No. shslczdzk05001).

Statements

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: YR, XD, and BL. Data curation: XD and YiL. Formal analysis: LK, XS, and LL. Funding acquisition: XL and BL. Investigation: YR and YZ. Methodology: YR, XD, and YiL. Project Administration: HL and YuL. Resources: JS and MZ. Software: MX and LL. Supervision: BL and XL. Validation: LL and JC. Visualization: XL and BL. Writing – Original Draft Preparation: YR and XD. Writing – Review & Editing: XL and BL. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2021.670398/full#supplementary-material

Supplementary Figure 1

Flow diagram of the literature search and selection.

Supplementary Figure 2

Funnel plot

Supplementary Figure 3

Egger’s test

Supplementary Figure 4

Incidence of total adverse events with different anti-IL-23 agents in all patients.

Supplementary Figure 5

Incidence of cancers with different anti-IL-23 agents in all patients.

Supplementary Figure 6.1

Incidence of adverse events in different regions

Supplementary Figure 6.2

Incidence of adverse events with different. diagnoses in all patients

Supplementary Figure 6.3

Incidence of adverse events with different courses of medication in all patients.

Supplementary Figure 6.4.1

Incidence of adverse events with different therapeutic doses in all patients.

Supplementary Figure 6.4.2

Incidence of adverse events with different frequency of application in all patients.

Supplementary Figure 6.4.3

Incidence of adverse events in the induction and maintenance periods in all patients.

Supplementary Figure 6.5.1

Incidence of adverse events with different targeted subunits in all patients.

Supplementary Figure 6.5.2

Incidence of adverse events with different anti-IL-23 agents in all patients.

Supplementary Figure 7

Incidence of adverse events of all the symptoms using different anti-IL-23 agents.

Supplementary Figure 7.1.1

Incidence of type α adverse events symptoms using different anti-IL-23 agents in all patients.

Supplementary Figure 7.1.2

Incidence of type α adverse events using different targeted subunits in all patients.

Supplementary Figure 7.1.3

Incidence of type α adverse events using different anti-IL-23 agents in all patients.

Supplementary Figure 7.2.1

Incidence of type β adverse events symptoms using different anti-IL-23 agents in all patients.

Supplementary Figure 7.2.2

Incidence of type β adverse events using different targeted subunits in all patients.

Supplementary Figure 7.2.3

Incidence of type β adverse events using different anti-IL-23 agents in all patients.

Supplementary Figure 7.3.1

Incidence of type γ adverse events symptoms using different anti-IL-23 agents in all patients.

Supplementary Figure 7.3.2

Incidence of type γ adverse events using different targeted subunits in all patients.

Supplementary Figure 7.3.3

Incidence of type γ adverse events using different anti-IL-23 agents in all patients.

Supplementary Figure 7.4.1

Incidence of type δ adverse events symptoms using different anti-IL-23 agents in all patients.

Supplementary Figure 7.4.2

Incidence of type δ adverse events using different targeted subunits in all patients.

Supplementary Figure 7.4.3

Incidence of type δ adverse events using different anti-IL-23 agents in all patients.

Supplementary Figure 7.5.1

Incidence of type ϵ adverse events symptoms using different anti-IL-23 agents in all patients.

Supplementary Figure 7.5.2

Incidence of type ϵ adverse events using different targeted subunits in all patients.

Supplementary Figure 7.5.3

Incidence of type ϵ adverse events using different anti-IL-23 agents in all patients.

Abbreviations

Pso, psoriasis; RA, rheumatoid arthritis; AS, ankylosing spondylitis; SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus; CD, Crohn’s disease; NSAIDs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; SAID, steroid anti-inflammatory drugs; DMARDs, disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs; AEs, adverse events; BAs, biological agents; FDA, food and drug administration; TNFR2, tumor necrosis factor receptor 2; IL-23, Interleukin-23; EMEA, European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses; RCT, randomized clinical trial; EMBASE, Excerpta Medica data BASE; WOS, Web of Science; CI, confidence interval; OR, the odds ratio.

References

  • 1

    FragoulisGESiebertSMcInnesIB. Therapeutic Targeting of IL-17 and IL-23 Cytokines in Immune-Mediated Diseases. Annu Rev Med (2016) 67:337–53. doi: 10.1146/annurev-med-051914-021944

  • 2

    SmolenJSLandewéRBreedveldFCBuchMBurmesterGDougadosMet al. EULAR Recommendations for the Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis With Synthetic and Biological Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs: 2013 Update. Ann Rheum Dis (2014) 73(3):492509.

  • 3

    PichlerWJ. Adverse Side-Effects to Biological Agents. Allergy (2006) 61(8):912–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2006.01058.x

  • 4

    AubinFCarbonnelFWendlingD. The Complexity of Adverse Side-Effects to Biological Agents. J Crohns Colitis (2013) 7(4):257–62. doi: 10.1016/j.crohns.2012.06.024

  • 5

    LoftNDVaengebjergSHallingASSkovLEgebergA. Adverse Events With IL-17 and IL-23 Inhibitors for Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Phase III Studies. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol (2020) 34(6):1151–60. doi: 10.1111/jdv.16073

  • 6

    GordonKBLangleyRGGottliebABPappKAKruegerGGStroberBEet al. A Phase III, Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Fully Human IL-12/23 mAb Briakinumab in Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis. J Invest Dermatol (2012) 132(2):304–14. doi: 10.1038/jid.2011.304

  • 7

    StroberBECrowleyJJYamauchiPSOldsMWilliamsDA. Efficacy and Safety Results From a Phase III, Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Briakinumab With Etanercept and Placebo in Patients With Moderate to Severe Chronic Plaque Psoriasis. Br J Dermatol (2011) 165(3):661–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10419.x

  • 8

    WuDYueJTamLS. Efficacy and Safety of Biologics Targeting Interleukin-6, -12/23 and -17 Pathways for Peripheral Psoriatic Arthritis: A Network Meta-Analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford) (2018) 57(3):563–71. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kex452

  • 9

    HigginsJPTGreenS, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0. Cochrane Collaboration Website (2011). Available at: training.cochrane.org/handbook.

  • 10

    MoherDCookDJEastwoodSOlkinIRennieDStroupDF. Improving the Quality of Reports of Meta-Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials: The QUOROM Statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet (1999) 354(9193):1896–900. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04149-5

  • 11

    KruegerGGLangleyRGLeonardiCYeildingNGuzzoCWangYet al. A Human interleukin-12/23 Monoclonal Antibody for the Treatment of Psoriasis. N Engl J Med (2007) 356(6):580–92. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa062382

  • 12

    PappKALangleyRGLebwohlMKruegerGGSzaparyPYeildingNet al. Efficacy and Safety of Ustekinumab, a Human interleukin-12/23 Monoclonal Antibody, in Patients With Psoriasis: 52-Week Results From a Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial (PHOENIX 2). Lancet (2008) 371(9625):1675–84. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60726-6

  • 13

    LeonardiCLKimballABPappKAYeildingNGuzzoCWangYet al. Efficacy and Safety of Ustekinumab, a Human Interleukin-12/23 Monoclonal Antibody, in Patients With Psoriasis: 76-Week Results From a Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial (PHOENIX 1). Lancet (2008) 371(9625):1665–74. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60725-4

  • 14

    GriffithsCEStroberBEvan de KerkhofPHoVFidelus-GortRYeildingNet al. Comparison of Ustekinumab and Etanercept for Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis. N Engl J Med (2010) 362(2):118–28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810652

  • 15

    IgarashiAKatoTKatoMSongMNakagawaH. Japanese Ustekinumab Study Group. Efficacy and Safety of Ustekinumab in Japanese Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Plaque-Type Psoriasis: Long-Term Results From a Phase 2/3 Clinical Trial. J Dermatol (2012) 39(3):242–52. doi: 10.1111/j.1346-8138.2011.01347.x

  • 16

    TsaiTFHoJCSongMSzaparyPGuzzoCShenYKet al. Efficacy and Safety of Ustekinumab for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: A Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial in Taiwanese and Korean Patients (PEARL). J Dermatol Sci (2011) 63(3):154–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jdermsci.2011.05.005

  • 17

    KimballABGordonKBFakharzadehSYeildingNSzaparyPOSchenkelBet al. Long-Term Efficacy of Ustekinumab in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: Results From the PHOENIX 1 Trial Through Up to 3 Years. Br J Dermatol (2012) 166(4):861–72. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2012.10901.x

  • 18

    SandbornWJGasinkCGaoLLBlankMAJohannsJGuzzoCet al. Ustekinumab Induction and Maintenance Therapy in Refractory Crohn’s Disease. N Engl J Med (2012) 367(16):1519–28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1203572

  • 19

    KimballABPappKAWasfiYChanDBissonnetteRSofenHet al. Long-Term Efficacy of Ustekinumab in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis Treated for Up to 5 Years in the PHOENIX 1 Study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol (2013) 27(12):1535–45. doi: 10.1111/jdv.12046

  • 20

    McInnesIBKavanaughAGottliebABPuigLRahmanPRitchlinCet al. Efficacy and Safety of Ustekinumab in Patients With Active Psoriatic Arthritis: 1 Year Results of the Phase 3, Multicentre, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled PSUMMIT 1 Trial. Lancet (2013) 382(9894):780–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60594-2

  • 21

    ZhuYWangQFrederickBBouman-ThioEMariniJCKeenMet al. Comparison of the Pharmacokinetics of Subcutaneous Ustekinumab Between Chinese and Non-Chinese Healthy Male Subjects Across Two Phase 1 Studies. Clin Drug Investig (2013) 33(4):291301. doi: 10.1007/s40261-013-0072-2

  • 22

    LangleyRGLebwohlMKruegerGGSzaparyPOWasfiYChanDet al. Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Ustekinumab, With and Without Dosing Adjustment, in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: Results From the PHOENIX 2 Study Through 5 Years of Follow-Up. Br J Dermatol (2015) 172(5):1371–83. doi: 10.1111/bjd.13469

  • 23

    RitchlinCRahmanPKavanaughAMcInnesIBPuigLLiSet al. Efficacy and Safety of the Anti-IL-12/23 p40 Monoclonal Antibody, Ustekinumab, in Patients With Active Psoriatic Arthritis Despite Conventional Non-Biological and Biological Anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor Therapy: 6-Month and 1-Year Results of the Phase 3, Multicentre, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomised PSUMMIT 2 Trial. Ann Rheum Dis (2014) 73(6):990–9. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204655

  • 24

    SofenHSmithSMathesonRTLeonardiCLCalderonCBrodmerkelCet al. Guselkumab (an IL-23-specific mAb) Demonstrates Clinical and Molecular Response in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2014) 133(4):1032–40. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2014.01.025

  • 25

    GordonKBDuffinKCBissonnetteRPrinzJCWasfiYLiSet al. A Phase 2 Trial of Guselkumab Versus Adalimumab for Plaque Psoriasis. N Engl J Med (2015) 373(2):136–44. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1501646

  • 26

    KavanaughAPuigLGottliebABRitchlinCLiSWangYet al. Maintenance of Clinical Efficacy and Radiographic Benefit Through Two Years of Ustekinumab Therapy in Patients With Active Psoriatic Arthritis: Results From a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trial. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) (2015) 67(12):1739–49. doi: 10.1002/acr.22645

  • 27

    KoppTRiedlEBangertCBowmanEPGreiseneggerEHorowitzAet al. Clinical Improvement in Psoriasis With Specific Targeting of Interleukin-23. Nature (2015) 521(7551):222–6. doi: 10.1038/nature14175

  • 28

    LandellsIMaranoCHsuMCLiSZhuYEichenfieldLFet al. Ustekinumab in Adolescent Patients Age 12 to 17 Years With Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis: Results of the Randomized Phase 3 CADMUS Study. J Am Acad Dermatol (2015) 73(4):594603. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2015.07.002

  • 29

    PappKThaçiDReichKRiedlELangleyRGKruegerJGet al. Tildrakizumab (MK-3222), an Anti-Interleukin-23p19 Monoclonal Antibody, Improves Psoriasis in a Phase IIb Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial. Br J Dermatol (2015) 173(4):930–9. doi: 10.1111/bjd.13932

  • 30

    ThaçiDBlauveltAReichKTsaiTFVanaclochaFKingoKet al. Secukinumab Is Superior to Ustekinumab in Clearing Skin of Subjects With Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis: CLEAR, a Randomized Controlled Trial. J Am Acad Dermatol (2015) 73(3):400–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2015.05.013

  • 31

    BlauveltAReichKTsaiTFTyringSVanaclochaFKingoKet al. Secukinumab Is Superior to Ustekinumab in Clearing Skin of Subjects With Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis Up to 1 Year: Results From the CLEAR Study. J Am Acad Dermatol (2017) 76(1):6069.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2016.08.008

  • 32

    BlauveltAPappKAGriffithsCERandazzoBWasfiYShenYKet al. Efficacy and Safety of Guselkumab, An Anti-Interleukin-23 Monoclonal Antibody, Compared With Adalimumab for the Continuous Treatment of Patients With Moderate to Severe Psoriasis: Results From the Phase III, Double-Blinded, Placebo- and Active Comparator-Controlled VOYAGE 1 Trial. J Am Acad Dermatol (2017) 76(3):405–17. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2016.11.041

  • 33

    FeaganBGSandbornWJGasinkCJacobsteinDLangYFriedmanJRet al. Ustekinumab as Induction and Maintenance Therapy for Crohn’s Disease. N Engl J Med (2016) 375(20):1946–60. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1602773

  • 34

    ZhuangYCalderonCMarciniakSJJrBouman-ThioESzaparyPYangTYet al. First-in-Human Study to Assess Guselkumab (Anti-IL-23 mAb) Pharmacokinetics/Safety in Healthy Subjects and Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis. Eur J Clin Pharmacol (2016) 72(11):1303–10. doi: 10.1007/s00228-016-2110-5

  • 35

    BlauveltAFerrisLKYamauchiPSQureshiALeonardiCLFarahiKet al. Extension of Ustekinumab Maintenance Dosing Interval in Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: Results of a Phase IIIb, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Active-Controlled, Multicentre Study (PSTELLAR). Br J Dermatol (2017) 177(6):1552–61. doi: 10.1111/bjd.15722

  • 36

    PappKABlauveltABukhaloMGooderhamMKruegerJGLacourJPet al. Risankizumab Versus Ustekinumab for Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis. N Engl J Med (2017) 376(16):1551–60. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1607017

  • 37

    ReichKPinterALacourJPFerrandizCMicaliGFrenchLEet al. Comparison of Ixekizumab With Ustekinumab in Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: 24-Week Results From IXORA-S, a Phase III Study. Br J Dermatol (2017) 177(4):1014–23. doi: 10.1111/bjd.15666

  • 38

    ReichKArmstrongAWFoleyPSongMWasfiYRandazzoBet al. Efficacy and Safety of Guselkumab, An Anti-Interleukin-23 Monoclonal Antibody, Compared With Adalimumab for the Treatment of Patients With Moderate to Severe Psoriasis With Randomized Withdrawal and Retreatment: Results From the Phase III, Double-Blind, Placebo- and Active Comparator-Controlled VOYAGE 2 Trial. J Am Acad Dermatol (2017) 76(3):418–31. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2016.11.042

  • 39

    ReichKPappKABlauveltATyringSKSinclairRThaçiDet al. Tildrakizumab Versus Placebo or Etanercept for Chronic Plaque Psoriasis (reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2): Results From Two Randomised Controlled, Phase 3 Trials. Lancet (2017) 390(10091):276–88. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31279-5

  • 40

    SaekiHKabashimaKTokuraYMurataYShiraishiATamamuraRet al. Efficacy and Safety of Ustekinumab in Japanese Patients With Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase II Study. Br J Dermatol (2017) 177(2):419–27. doi: 10.1111/bjd.15493

  • 41

    DeodharAGottliebABBoehnckeWHDongBWangYZhuangYet al. Efficacy and Safety of Guselkumab in Patients With Active Psoriatic Arthritis: A Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 2 Study. Lancet (2018) 391(10136):2213–24. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-eular.2059

  • 42

    NemotoOHiroseKShibataSLiKKuboH. Safety and Efficacy of Guselkumab in Japanese Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Ascending-Dose Study. Br J Dermatol (2018) 178(3):689–96. doi: 10.1111/bjd.16236

  • 43

    OhtsukiMKuboHMorishimaHGotoRZhengRNakagawaH. Guselkumab, An Anti-Interleukin-23 Monoclonal Antibody, for the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Plaque-Type Psoriasis in Japanese Patients: Efficacy and Safety Results From a Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study. J Dermatol (2018) 45(9):1053–62. doi: 10.1111/1346-8138.14504

  • 44

    PaulCGriffithsCEMvan de KerkhofPCMPuigLDutroncYHennegesCet al. Ixekizumab Provides Superior Efficacy Compared With Ustekinumab Over 52 Weeks of Treatment: Results From IXORA-S, a Phase 3 Study. J Am Acad Dermatol (2019) 80(1):7079.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.06.039

  • 45

    TeruiTKobayashiSOkuboYMurakamiMHiroseKKuboH. Efficacy and Safety of Guselkumab, an Anti-Interleukin 23 Monoclonal Antibody, for Palmoplantar Pustulosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Dermatol (2018) 154(3):309–16. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.5937

  • 46

    FerrisLKOttEJiangJHongHCLiSHanCet al. Efficacy and Safety of Guselkumab, Administered With a Novel Patient-Controlled Injector (One-Press), for Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: Results From the Phase 3 ORION Study. J Dermatolog Treat (2020) 31(2):152–9. doi: 10.1080/09546634.2019.1587145

  • 47

    LeeMGHuangYHLeeJHLeeSCKimTGAwDCet al. Secukinumab Demonstrates Superior Efficacy and a Faster Response in Clearing Skin in Asian Subjects With Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis Compared With Ustekinumab: Subgroup Analysis From the CLEAR Study. J Dermatol (2019) 46(9):752–8. doi: 10.1111/1346-8138.15004

  • 48

    OhtsukiMFujitaHWatanabeMSuzakiKFlackMHuangXet al. Efficacy and Safety of Risankizumab in Japanese Patients With Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis: Results From the SustaIMM Phase 2/3 Trial. J Dermatol (2019) 46(8):686–94. doi: 10.1111/1346-8138.14941

  • 49

    ReichKRichPMaariCBissonnetteRLeonardiCMenterAet al. Efficacy and Safety of Mirikizumab (LY3074828) in the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis: Results From a Randomized Phase II Study. Br J Dermatol (2019) 181(1):8895. doi: 10.1111/bjd.17628

  • 50

    SandbornWJFerranteMBhandariBRBerlibaEFeaganBGHibiTet al. Efficacy and Safety of Mirikizumab in a Randomized Phase 2 Study of Patients With Ulcerative Colitis. Gastroenterology (2020) 158(3):53749.e10. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.08.043

  • 51

    SandsBESandbornWJPanaccioneRO’BrienCDZhangHJohannsJet al. Ustekinumab as Induction and Maintenance Therapy for Ulcerative Colitis. N Engl J Med (2019) 381(13):1201–14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1900750

  • 52

    TeruiTKobayashiSOkuboYMurakamiMZhengRMorishimaHet al. Efficacy and Safety of Guselkumab in Japanese Patients With Palmoplantar Pustulosis: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Dermatol (2019) 155(10):1153–61. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.1394

  • 53

    BlauveltAPappKGottliebAJarellAReichKMaariCet al. A Head-to-Head Comparison of Ixekizumab vs. Guselkumab in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis: 12-Week Efficacy, Safety and Speed of Response From a Randomized, Double-Blinded Trial. Br J Dermatol (2020) 182(6):1348–58. doi: 10.1111/bjd.19072

  • 54

    GelfandJMShinDBAlaviATorigianDAWernerTPapadopoulosMet al. Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Crossover Study of the Effects of Ustekinumab on Vascular Inflammation in Psoriasis (the VIP-U Trial). J Invest Dermatol (2020) 140(1):8593.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jid.2019.07.679

  • 55

    ReichKWarrenRBIversenLPuigLPau-CharlesIIgarashiAet al. Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Tildrakizumab for Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: Pooled Analyses of Two Randomized Phase III Clinical Trials (reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2) Through 148 Weeks. Br J Dermatol (2020) 182(3):605–17. doi: 10.1111/bjd.18232

  • 56

    ThaçiDPinterASebastianMTermeerCSticherlingMGerdesSet al. Guselkumab is Superior to Fumaric Acid Esters in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis Who are Naive to Systemic Treatment: Results From a Randomized, Active-Comparator-Controlled Phase IIIb Trial (POLARIS). Br J Dermatol (2020) 183(2):265–75. doi: 10.1111/bjd.18696

  • 57

    BlauveltALeonardiCLGooderhamMPappKAPhilippSWuJJet al. Efficacy and Safety of Continuous Risankizumab Therapy vs Treatment Withdrawal in Patients With Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Dermatol (2020) 156(6):111. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.0723

  • 58

    StriteskyGLYehNKaplanMH. IL-23 Promotes Maintenance But Not Commitment to the Th17 Lineage. J Immunol (2008) 181:5948–55. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.181.9.5948

  • 59

    ChanJRBlumenscheinWMurphyEDiveuCWiekowskiMAbbondanzoSet al. IL-23 Stimulates Epidermal Hyperplasia Via TNF and IL-20R2-Dependent Mechanisms With Implications for Psoriasis Pathogenesis. J Exp Med (2006) 203(12):2577–87. doi: 10.1084/jem.20060244

  • 60

    HauerADUyttenhoveCDe VosPStroobantVRenauldJCvan BerkelTJet al. Blockade of Interleukin-12 Function by Protein Vaccination Attenuates Atherosclerosis. Circulation (2005) 112(7):1054–62. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.533463

  • 61

    CaiYShenXDingCQiCLiKLiXet al. Pivotal Role of Dermal IL-17-producing γδ T Cells in Skin Inflammation. Immunity (2011) 35(4):596610. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2011.08.001

  • 62

    McKenzieBSKasteleinRACuaDJ. Understanding the IL-23-IL-17 Immune Pathway. Trends Immunol (2006) 27(1):1723. doi: 10.1016/j.it.2005.10.003

  • 63

    PatelDKuchrooV. Th17 Cell Pathway in Human Immunity: Lessons From Genetics and Therapeutic Interventions. Immunity (2015) 43(6):1040–51. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2015.12.003

  • 64

    KryczekIBruceATGudjonssonJEJohnstonAAphaleAVatanLet al. Induction of IL-17+ T Cell Trafficking and Development by IFN-Gamma: Mechanism and Pathological Relevance in Psoriasis. J Immunol (2008) 181(7):4733–41. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.181.7.4733

  • 65

    LangowskiJLZhangXWuLMattsonJDChenTSmithKet al. IL-23 Promotes Tumour Incidence and Growth. Nature (2006) 442(7101):461–5. doi: 10.1038/nature04808

  • 66

    LebwohlMGPappKAMarangellLBKooJBlauveltAGooderhamMet al. Psychiatric Adverse Events During Treatment With Brodalumab: Analysis of Psoriasis Clinical Trials. J Am Acad Dermatol (2018) 78(1):8189.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2017.08.024

  • 67

    SchmidtC. Suicidal Thoughts End Amgen’s Blockbuster Aspirations for Psoriasis Drug. Nat Biotechnol (2015) 33(9):894–5. doi: 10.1038/nbt0915-894b

  • 68

    EsseSMasonKJGreenACWarrenRB. Melanoma Risk in Patients Treated With Biologic Therapy for Common Inflammatory Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Dermatol (2020) 156(7):18. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1300

  • 69

    Van den BergheNDe KeyserESoenenRMeulemanLLanssensSGilsAet al. Clinical Response Correlates With 4-Week Postinjection Ustekinumab Concentrations in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis. Br J Dermatol (2020) 182(2):390–7. doi: 10.1111/bjd.18016

  • 70

    KhaliliehSHodsmanPXuCTzontchevaAGlasgowSMontgomeryD. Pharmacokinetics of Tildrakizumab (MK-3222), An Anti-IL-23 Monoclonal Antibody, After Intravenous or Subcutaneous Administration in Healthy Subjects. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol (2018) 123(3):294300. doi: 10.1111/bcpt.13001

  • 71

    AtalaySvan den ReekJMPAden BroederAAvan VugtLJOteroMENjooMDet al. Comparison of Tightly Controlled Dose Reduction of Biologics With Usual Care for Patients With Psoriasis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Dermatol (2020) 156(4):393400. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.4897

  • 72

    LeonLRodriguez-RodriguezLRosalesZGomezALamasJRPatoEet al. Long-Term Drug Survival of Biological Agents in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in Clinical Practice. Scand J Rheumatol (2016) 45(6):456–60. doi: 10.3109/03009742.2016.1141979

Summary

Keywords

anti-IL-23, adverse events, meta-analysis, systematic review, biologics

Citation

Ru Y, Ding X, Luo Y, Li H, Sun X, Zhou M, Zhou Y, Kuai L, Xing M, Liu L, Luo Y, Song J, Chen J, Li B and Li X (2021) Adverse Events Associated With Anti-IL-23 Agents: Clinical Evidence and Possible Mechanisms. Front. Immunol. 12:670398. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.670398

Received

21 February 2021

Accepted

24 May 2021

Published

11 June 2021

Volume

12 - 2021

Edited by

Jian-Ping Liu, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, China

Reviewed by

Saikat Majumder, University of Pittsburgh, United States; Jian-Ping Liu, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, China; Changhe Yu, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, China; Shaonan Liu, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, China

Updates

Copyright

*Correspondence: Xin Li, ; Bin Li,

†These authors have contributed equally to this work

This article was submitted to Cytokines and Soluble Mediators in Immunity, a section of the journal Frontiers in Immunology

Disclaimer

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Outline

Figures

Cite article

Copy to clipboard


Export citation file


Share article

Article metrics