Oral apremilast in the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis: Results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Small molecule therapy for managing moderate to severe psoriatic arthritis

INTRODUCTION

The majority of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients experience a good clinical response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and biologic therapies (bDMARDs). However, treatment failure with these drugs can represent a relevant clinical problem. Moreover, in daily clinical practice, the appropriate identification of patients eligible for these agents can be conditioned by numerous aspects, mainly represented by comorbidities, such as history of malignancies, chronic and recurrent infectious diseases. Areas covered: We searched in the PUBMED database and review published data on the efficacy and safety profile of the small molecules, inhibitor of phosphodiesterase 4, apremilast, and of JAK/STAT pathways, tofacitinib, in PsA. Moreover, we report data on the other JAK inhibitor, baricitinib, and the A(3) adenosine receptors agonist, CF101, emerging by studies conducted in psoriasis patients. Expert opinion: In Psoriatic Arthritis, apremilast appears promising for PsA and recent studies have shown a good efficacy and an acceptable safety profile. Data on tofacitinib in PsA are limited. Studies on the small molecules, baricitinib and CF101 are still incomplete and limited to trials conducted in Rheumatoid Arthritis and in psoriasis. Further studies on small molecules and on their underlining mechanisms are advocated in PsA.

Novel Phosphodiesterase 4 Inhibitor FCPR03 Alleviates Lipopolysaccharide-Induced Neuroinflammation by Regulation of the cAMP/PKA/CREB Signaling Pathway and NF-κB Inhibition

Overactivation of microglia contributes to the induction of neuroinflammation, which is highly involved in the pathology of many neurodegenerative diseases. Phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) represents a promising therapeutic target for anti-inflammation; however, the dose-limiting side effects, such as nausea and emesis, have impeded their clinic application. FCPR03, a novel selective PDE4 inhibitor synthesized in our laboratory, shows little or no emetic potency; however, the anti-inflammatory activities of FCPR03 in vitro and in vivo and the molecular mechanisms are still not clearly understood. This study was undertaken to delineate the anti-inflammatory effects of FCPR03 both in vitro and in vivo and explore whether these effects are regulated by PDE4-mediated signaling pathway. BV-2 microglial cells stimulated by lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and mice injected i.p. with LPS were established as in vitro and in vivo models of inflammation. Our results showed that FCPR03 dose dependently suppressed the production of tumor necrosis factor α, interleukin-1β, and iinterleukin-6 in BV-2 microglial cells treated with LPS. The role of FCPR03 in the production of proinflammatory factors was reversed by pretreatment with protein kinase A (PKA) inhibitor H89. In addition, FCPR03 reduced the levels of proinflammatory factors in the hippocampus and cortex of mice injected with LPS. Our results further demonstrated that FCPR03 effectively increased the production of cAMP, promoted cAMP response element binding protein (CREB) phosphorylation, and inhibited nuclear factor κB (NF-κB) activation both in vitro and in vivo. Our findings suggest that FCPR03 inhibits the neuroinflammatory response through the activation of cAMP/PKA/CREB signaling pathway and NF-κB inhibition.

New targets in psoriatic arthritis

PsA is an immune-mediated chronic inflammatory disease that affects both skin and joints; it is a heterogeneous disease characterized by synovitis, enthesitis, dactylitis and spondylitis. The impact on patients and the burden of disease are substantial. For assessment of the disease, patient-reported outcomes are increasingly important. Conventional therapy consists of NSAIDs, local and systemic CSs, and synthetic and biological DMARDs. While MTX, LEF, SSZ and CYC are the synthetic drugs mainly used, TNF-α blocking agents have represented the majority of biologics used in the last decade (infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab and golimumab). Treat-to-target strategies have been used successfully in PsA. This review concentrates on new developments, mainly covering biologic agents with an IL-17 inhibitor (secukinumab) and an anti-IL-23 agent (ustekinumab), but also synthetic drugs, including a novel phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor (apremilast) and a Janus kinase inhibitor (tofacitinib) that blocks mainly Jak3 and Jak1 and, to a lesser extent, Jak2. The efficacy of some of these new agents may be even better for the skin than for the joints.

PDE4 Inhibition and Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Novel Therapeutic Avenue

BACKGROUND

In the last few decades, a better knowledge of the inflammatory pathways involved in the pathogenesis of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) has promoted biological therapy as an important tool to treat IBD patients. However, in spite of a wider spectrum of biological drugs, a significant proportion of patients is unaffected by or lose their response to these compounds, along with increased risks of infections and malignancies. For these reasons there is an urgent need to look for new pharmacological targets. The novel Phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitors have been recently introduced as new modulators of intracellular signals and gene transcription for the treatment of IBD.

AIM

To discuss and describe the state of the art of this new class of compounds in the IBD field, with particular attention to apremilast.

METHODS

Published articles selected from PubMed were comprehensively reviewed, with key words including apremilast, inflammatory disease, IBD, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, pathogenesis, therapies, and treatment.

RESULTS

PDE4 inhibitors generate elevated intracellular levels of cyclic Adenosine Monophosphate (cAMP), that consequently down-regulate the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines in the mucosa of IBD patients. The newly developed apremilast is one of these drugs and has already been approved for the treatment of dermatologic/rheumatologic inflammatory conditions; studies in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis have in fact demonstrated its clinical activity. However, no clinical trials have yet been published on the use of apremilast in IBD.

CONCLUSION

In light of the similarity of pro-inflammatory signaling pathways across the gut, the skin, and joints, apremilast is likely supposed to show its efficacy also in IBD.

Inhibition of phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) reduces dermal fibrosis by interfering with the release of interleukin-6 from M2 macrophages

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the disease-modifying effects of phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibition in preclinical models of systemic sclerosis (SSc).

METHODS

We studied the effects of PDE4 inhibition in a prevention and a treatment model of bleomycin-induced skin fibrosis, in the topoisomerase mouse model as well as in a model of sclerodermatous chronic graft-versus-host disease. To better understand the mode of action of PDE4 blockade in preclinical models of SSc, we investigated fibrosis-relevant mediators in fibroblasts and macrophages from healthy individuals and patients suffering from diffuse-cutaneous SSc on blockade of PDE4.

RESULTS

Specific inhibition of PDE4 by rolipram and apremilast had potent antifibrotic effects in bleomycin-induced skin fibrosis models, in the topoisomerase I mouse model and in murine sclerodermatous chronic graft-versus-host disease. Fibroblasts were not the direct targets of the antifibrotic effects of PDE4 blockade. Reduced leucocyte infiltration in lesional skin on PDE4 blockade suggested an immune-mediated mechanism. Further analysis revealed that PDE4 inhibition decreased the differentiation of M2 macrophages and the release of several profibrotic cytokines, resulting in reduced fibroblast activation and collagen release. Within these profibrotic mediators, interleukin-6 appeared to play a central role.

CONCLUSIONS

PDE4 inhibition reduces inflammatory cell activity and the release of profibrotic cytokines from M2 macrophages, leading to decreased fibroblast activation and collagen release. Importantly, apremilast is already approved for the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Therefore, PDE4 inhibitors might be further developed as potential antifibrotic therapies for patients with SSc. Our findings suggest that particularly patients with inflammation-driven fibrosis might benefit from PDE4 blockade.

The safety of ustekinumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis

INTRODUCTION

The cytokines interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23 have been involved in the pathogenesis of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Ustekinumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting the p40 subunit shared by IL-12 and IL-23. Ustekinumab prevents the interaction of IL-12 and IL-23 binding to their receptors, blocking the T1 and T17 inflammatory pathways. Ustekinumab has been evaluated for the treatment of various chronic immune mediated diseases including psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Most of the data regarding the safety of ustekinumab come from the experience treating patients with psoriasis, but clinical trials have demonstrated its efficacy and safety in the treatment of both diseases. The most common adverse events observed during the clinical trials are mild in intensity, and include respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, headache and injection site reactions. Throughout long-term ustekinumab treatment, serious infections or major cardiovascular adverse events occurred rarely. Areas covered: In this review we report the safety data that come from phase II and phase III clinical trials that assay the efficacy and safety of ustekinumab in PsA, including recently published data corresponding to long-term studies. Relevant references were obtained through a literature search in MEDLINE/Pubmed (search strategy: ustekinumab AND psoriatic arthritis) for articles published until November 2016, complemented by a manual search. Expert opinion: In clinical practice, ustekinumab is generally a well-tolerated treatment, and the safety profile in psoriatic arthritis is similar to that reported in plaque psoriasis.

Review of the treatment of psoriatic arthritis with biological agents: choice of drug for initial therapy and switch therapy for non-responders

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a heterogeneous chronic inflammatory disease with a broad clinical spectrum and variable course. It can involve musculoskeletal structures as well as skin, nails, eyes, and gut. The management of PsA has changed tremendously in the last decade, thanks to an earlier diagnosis, an advancement in pharmacological therapies, and a wider application of a multidisciplinary approach. The commercialization of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, and infliximab) as well as interleukin (IL)-12/23 (ustekinumab) and IL-17 (secukinumab) inhibitors is representative of a revolution in the treatment of PsA. No evidence-based strategies are currently available for guiding the rheumatologist to prescribe biological drugs. Several international and national recommendation sets are currently available with the aim to help rheumatologists in everyday clinical practice management of PsA patients treated with biological therapy. Since no specific biological agent has been demonstrated to be more effective than others, the drug choice should be made according to the available safety data, the presence of extra-articular manifestations, the patient’s preferences (e.g., administration route), and the drug price. However, future studies directly comparing different biological drugs and assessing the efficacy of treatment strategies specific for PsA are urgently needed.

The Inflammatory Response in Psoriasis: a Comprehensive Review

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory autoimmune disease characterized by an excessively aberrant hyperproliferation of keratinocytes. The pathogenesis of psoriasis is complex and the exact mechanism remains elusive. However, psoriasis is thought to result from a combination of genetic, epigenetic, and environmental influences. Recent studies have identified that epigenetic factors including dysregulated DNA methylation levels, abnormal histone modification and microRNAs expressions are involved in the development of psoriasis. The interplay of immune cells and cytokines is another critical factor in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. These factors or pathways include Th1/Th2 homeostasis, the Th17/Treg balance and the IL-23/Th17 axis. Th17 is believed particularly important in psoriasis due to its pro-inflammatory effects and its involvement in an integrated inflammatory loop with dendritic cells and keratinocytes, contributing to an overproduction of antimicrobial peptides, inflammatory cytokines, and chemokines that leads to amplification of the immune response. In addition, other pathways and signaling molecules have been found to be involved, including Th9, Th22, regulatory T cells, γδ T cells, CD8(+) T cells, and their related cytokines. Understanding the pathogenesis of psoriasis will allow us to develop increasingly efficient targeted treatment by blocking relevant inflammatory signaling pathways and molecules. There is no cure for psoriasis at the present time, and much of the treatment involves managing the symptoms. The biologics, while lacking the adverse effects associated with some of the traditional medications such as corticosteroids and methotrexate, have their own set of side effects, which may include reactivation of latent infections. Significant challenges remain in developing safe and efficacious novel targeted therapies that depend on a better understanding of the immunological dysfunction in psoriasis.

Economic Evaluation of Timely Versus Delayed Use of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors for Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis in the US

INTRODUCTION

The present study aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes and costs associated with timely versus delayed use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) among patients with moderately to severely active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with and without moderate/severe psoriasis (Ps) from a US payer's perspective.

METHODS

An economic model evaluated PsA patients initially treated with a TNFi (timely TNFi use) or apremilast (delayed TNFi use). Patients without joint (American College of Rheumatology 20%, [ACR20]) improvement either switched TNFis or initiated one. ACR20 responses were evaluated for all patients and skin responses by Psoriasis Area Severity Index 75% (PASI75) for those with concomitant PsA and Ps. Published randomized controlled trials and publicly available databases provided model inputs. Effectiveness measures included 1-year responses and number needed to treat (NNT). Direct costs, costs per responder, and incremental costs per responder were calculated.

RESULTS

After 1 year, timely TNFi-treated patients had higher ACR20 responses (70.4% vs. 59.6%) and lower NNTs (1.42 vs. 1.68) compared with delayed use. Among PsA + Ps patients, timely TNFi use was associated with higher ACR20 + PASI75 responses (41.0% vs. 30.0%) and lower NNTs (2.44 vs. 3.33). Cost per ACR20 responder was higher ($56,492 vs. $52,835) among PsA patients without Ps; with concomitant Ps, cost per ACR20 + PASI75 responder was lower for timely TNFi use ($100,954 vs. $111,686). Incremental costs per responder for timely versus delayed TNFi were $76,823 in PsA and $71,791 in PsA and Ps.

CONCLUSION

Timely use of TNFis is a cost-effective strategy for the management of PsA based on improvements in both joint and/or skin disease.

FUNDING

AbbVie Inc.

Neurological and Neuropsychiatric Adverse Effects of Dermatologic Medications

Severe, recalcitrant dermatologic conditions often require systemic treatment. Although efficacious, these medications have been associated with wide-ranging adverse reactions. Some are reversible, predictable, and either dose-dependent or treatment length-dependent, while others are unpredictable, irreversible, and potentially fatal. This review examines the neuropsychiatric adverse effects associated with US FDA-approved medications for treatment of the following dermatologic pathologies that typically require systemic therapy: autoimmune dermatoses, acne, psoriasis, and melanoma. A search of the literature was performed, with adverse effects ranging from mild headaches and neuropathy to severe encephalopathies. The medications associated with the most serious reactions were those used to treat psoriasis, especially the older non-biologic medications such as cyclosporine A and methotrexate. Given the importance of these systemic dermatologic therapies in treating severe, recalcitrant conditions, and the wide variety of potentially serious neuropsychiatric adverse effects of these medications, neurologists, psychiatrists, dermatologists, oncologists, and primary care providers must be aware of the potential for these neuropsychiatric adverse reactions to allow for appropriate counseling, management, and medication withdrawal.

Management of psoriatic arthritis in 2016: a comparison of EULAR and GRAPPA recommendations

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a heterogeneous, potentially severe disease. Many therapeutic agents are now available for PsA, but treatment decisions are not always straightforward. To assist in this decision making, two sets of recommendations for the management of PsA were published in 2016 by international organizations - the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA). In both sets of recommendations, the heterogeneity of PsA is recognized and the place of various drugs in the therapeutic armamentarium is discussed. Such agents include conventional DMARDs, such as methotrexate, and targeted therapies including biologic agents, such as ustekinumab, secukinumab and TNF inhibitors, or the targeted synthetic drug apremilast. The proposed sequential use of these drugs, as well as some other aspects of PsA management, differ between the two sets of recommendations. This disparity is partly the result of a difference in the evaluation process; the focus of EULAR was primarily rheumatological, whereas that of GRAPPA was balanced between the rheumatological and dermatological aspects of disease. In this Perspectives article, we address the similarities and differences between these two sets of recommendations and the implications for patient management.

The Clinical and Cost Effectiveness of Apremilast for Treating Active Psoriatic Arthritis: A Critique of the Evidence

As part of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) single technology appraisal (STA) process, the manufacturer of apremilast was invited to submit evidence for its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) for whom disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have been inadequately effective, not tolerated or contraindicated. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Centre for Health Economics at the University of York were commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper provides a description of the ERG review of the company's submission, the ERG report and submission and summarises the NICE Appraisal Committee's subsequent guidance (December 2015). In the company's initial submission, the base-case analysis resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £14,683 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for the sequence including apremilast (positioned before tumour necrosis factor [TNF]-α inhibitors) versus a comparator sequence without apremilast. However, the ERG considered that the base-case sequence proposed by the company represented a limited set of potentially relevant treatment sequences and positions for apremilast. The company's base-case results were therefore not a sufficient basis to inform the most efficient use and position of apremilast. The exploratory ERG analyses indicated that apremilast is more effective (i.e. produces higher health gains) when positioned after TNF-α inhibitor therapies. Furthermore, assumptions made regarding a potential beneficial effect of apremilast on long-term Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) progression, which cannot be substantiated, have a very significant impact on results. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC), when taking into account their preferred assumptions for HAQ progression for patients on treatment with apremilast, placebo response and monitoring costs for apremilast, concluded that the addition of apremilast resulted in cost savings but also a QALY loss. These cost savings were not high enough to compensate for the clinical effectiveness that would be lost. The AC thus decided that apremilast alone or in combination with DMARD therapy is not recommended for treating adults with active PsA that has not responded to prior DMARD therapy, or where such therapy is not tolerated.

The effects of apremilast on the QTc interval in healthy male volunteers: a formal, thorough QT study

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of apremilast and its major metabolites on the placebocorrected change-from-baseline QTc interval of an electrocardiogram (ECG).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Healthy male subjects received each of 4 treatments in a randomized, crossover manner. In the 2 active treatment periods, apremilast 30 mg (therapeutic exposure) or 50 mg (supratherapeutic exposure) was administered twice daily for 9 doses. A placebo control was used to ensure doubleblind treatment of apremilast, and an openlabel, single dose of moxifloxacin 400 mg was administered as a positive control. ECGs were measured using 24-hour digital Holter monitoring.

RESULTS

The two-sided 98% confidence intervals (CIs) for ΔΔQTcI of moxifloxacin completely exceeded 5 ms 2 - 4 hours postdose. For both apremilast dose studies, the least-squares mean ΔΔQTcI was < 1 ms at all time points, and the upper limit of two-sided 90% CIs was < 10 ms. There were no QT/QTc values > 480 ms or a change from baseline > 60 ms. Exploratory evaluation of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data showed no trend between the changes in QT/QTc interval and the concentration of apremilast or its major metabolites M12 and M14.

CONCLUSIONS

Apremilast did not prolong the QT interval and appears to be safe and well tolerated up to doses of 50 mg twice daily.

A Phase III, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Apremilast in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis: Results of the PALACE 2 Trial

OBJECTIVE

Apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, downregulates intracellular inflammatory mediator synthesis by elevating cyclic adenosine monophosphate levels. The PALACE 2 trial evaluated apremilast efficacy and safety in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) despite prior conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and/or biologic therapy.

METHODS

Eligible patients were randomized (1:1:1) to placebo, apremilast 20 mg BID, or apremilast 30 mg BID. At Week 16, patients with swollen and tender joint count improvement < 20% entered early escape, with placebo patients rerandomized (1:1) to apremilast 20 mg BID or 30 mg BID while apremilast patients continued on their initial apremilast dose. At Week 24, patients remaining on placebo were rerandomized to apremilast 20 mg BID or 30 mg BID. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving > 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) at Week 16.

RESULTS

In the intent-to-treat population (N = 484), ACR20 at Week 16 was achieved by more patients receiving apremilast 20 mg BID [37.4% (p = 0.0002)] and 30 mg BID [32.1% (p = 0.0060)] versus placebo (18.9%). Clinically meaningful improvements in signs and symptoms of PsA, physical function, and psoriasis were observed with apremilast through Week 52. The most common adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, headache, and upper respiratory tract infection. Diarrhea and nausea generally occurred early and usually resolved spontaneously with continued treatment. Laboratory abnormalities were infrequent and transient.

CONCLUSION

Apremilast demonstrated clinical improvements in PsA for up to 52 weeks, including signs and symptoms, physical function, and psoriasis. No new safety signals were observed. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01212757.

New therapeutic solutions for Behçet's syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Behçet's syndrome (BS) is a systemic inflammatory disorder characterized by a wide range of potential clinical manifestations with no gold-standard therapy. However, the recent classification of BS at a crossroads between autoimmune and autoinflammatory syndromes has paved the way to new further therapeutic opportunities in addition to anti-tumor necrosis factor agents.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides a digest of all current experience and evidence about pharmacological agents recently described as having a role in the treatment of BS, including interleukin (IL)-1 inhibitors, tocilizumab, rituximab, alemtuzumab, ustekinumab, interferon-alpha-2a, and apremilast.

EXPERT OPINION

IL-1 inhibitors currently represent the most studied agents among the latest treatment options for BS, proving to be effective, safe and with an acceptable retention on treatment. However, since BS is a peculiar disorder with clinical features responding to certain treatments that in turn can worsen other manifestations, identifying new treatment options for patients unresponsive to the current drug armamentarium is of great relevance. A number of agents have been studied in the last decade showing changing fortunes in some cases and promising results in others. The latter will potentially provide their contribution for better clinical management of BS, improving patients' quality of life and long-term outcome.

Apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, in patients with psoriatic arthritis and current skin involvement: a phase III, randomised, controlled trial (PALACE 3)

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate apremilast treatment in patients with active psoriatic arthritis, including current skin involvement, despite prior therapy with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and/or biologic agents.

METHODS

Patients (N=505) were randomised (1:1:1) to placebo, apremilast 20 mg twice daily, or apremilast 30 mg twice daily. Rescue therapy with apremilast was designated at week 16 for placebo patients not achieving 20% improvement in swollen and tender joint counts. At week 24, the remaining placebo patients were then randomised to apremilast 20 mg twice daily or 30 mg twice daily. The efficacy and safety of apremilast were assessed over 52 weeks.

RESULTS

At week 16, significantly more patients receiving apremilast 20 mg twice daily (28%) and 30 mg twice daily (41%) achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria versus placebo (18%; p=0.0295 and p<0.0001, respectively), and mean decrease in the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index score was significantly greater with apremilast 30 mg twice daily (-0.20) versus placebo (-0.07; p=0.0073). In patients with baseline psoriasis body surface area involvement ≥3%, significantly more apremilast 30 mg twice daily patients achieved 50% reduction from baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (41%) versus placebo (24%; p=0.0098) at week 16. At week 52, observed improvements in these measures demonstrated sustained response with continued apremilast treatment. Most adverse events were mild to moderate in severity; the most common were diarrhoea, nausea, headache and upper respiratory tract infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Apremilast demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis at week 16; sustained improvements were seen with continued treatment through 52 weeks. Apremilast was generally well tolerated and demonstrated an acceptable safety profile.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01212770.

Apremilast: A Review in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis

Apremilast (Otezla(®)) is an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor indicated for the twice-daily treatment of adults with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Its use in these patient populations has been assessed in two phase III clinical trial programmes (ESTEEM and PALACE). At 16 weeks in the two ESTEEM trials, apremilast reduced the severity and extent of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, including nail, scalp and palmoplantar manifestations, versus placebo in adults, with these benefits generally being sustained over 52 weeks of treatment. Similarly, in three PALACE trials (PALACE 1-3), apremilast improved the signs and symptoms of PsA relative to placebo at 16 weeks in adults with active disease despite treatment with conventional synthetic and/or biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. These PsA benefits were generally sustained for up to 104 weeks of treatment; skin involvement, enthesitis and dactylitis also improved with the drug. Apremilast was generally well tolerated, with the most common adverse events being diarrhoea and nausea in the first year of treatment (usually occurring in the first 2 weeks after the first dose and resolving within 4 weeks) and nasopharyngitis and upper respiratory tract infection with continued treatment. Although further longer-term and comparative efficacy and tolerability data would be beneficial, the current clinical data indicate that apremilast is an effective and well tolerated option for the management of psoriasis and PsA in adults.

Impact of Renal Impairment on the Pharmacokinetics of Apremilast and Metabolite M12

The pharmacokinetics of apremilast and its major metabolite M12 were evaluated in subjects with varying degrees of renal impairment. Men and women with renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 60‒89 mL/min [mild, n = 8], 30‒59 mL/min [moderate, n = 8], or <30 mL/min [severe, n = 8]) or demographically healthy matched (control) subjects (n = 24) received a single oral dose of apremilast 30 mg. Plasma apremilast and metabolite M12 concentrations were determined, and pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated from samples obtained predose and up to 72 hours postdose. In subjects with mild to moderate renal impairment, apremilast pharmacokinetic profiles were similar to healthy matched subjects. In subjects with severe renal impairment, apremilast elimination was significantly slower, and exposures based on area under the plasma concentration‐versus‐time curve from time zero extrapolated to infinity and maximum observed plasma concentration were increased versus healthy matched subjects. Metabolite M12 pharmacokinetic profiles for subjects with mild renal impairment were similar to those of the healthy matched subjects; however, they were increased in both the moderate and severe renally impaired subjects. Dose reduction of apremilast is recommended in individuals with severe renal impairment, but not in those with mild to moderate renal impairment.

A Review of Psoriasis, Therapies, and Suicide

Many chronic medical disorders are associated with psychiatric morbidity. Yet the psychological burden of these disorders often goes unnoticed. In dermatology, psoriasis has a higher association with psychiatric illness, including depression and suicide risk, compared with many other conditions. Studies suggest that effective treatment of psoriasis results in the improvement of psychiatric morbidity, particularly depression and anxiety. New biologic treatments for psoriasis may offer help beyond clearing of the skin in these patients and may lead to a reduction of psychiatric morbidity. Although concerns have been raised regarding the potential link between interleukin-17R blockade in the treatment of psoriasis and suicide, current literature provides no evidence to support this association.

Novel treatment options for juvenile idiopathic arthritis

The purpose of this review is to summarize the newer and possible future treatments for the arthritis and systemic features in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), including evidence supporting their efficacy and safety.

Clinical studies in dermatology require a post-treatment observation phase to define the impact of the intervention on the natural history of the complaint

The use of a post-treatment period of observation or "regression phase" is common in pharmaceutical and cosmetic clinical dermatology studies. Regression phases can be incorporated into a variety of study designs, ranging from simple post-treatment observation for a defined period, as has been used for moisturizers, antidandruff formulations, and treatments for acne, to more complex randomized intermittent-treatment designs, as used in studies of psoriasis pharmacotherapies. Extensive information can be derived from a regression phase. Notably, it can provide useful data on the persistence of effect and time to relapse after treatment cessation, which are particularly relevant to skin conditions in which consumer or patient adherence to treatment is suboptimal. By incorporating a regression phase, a clinical study can more closely reflect "real-world" behavior, e.g., the switching by consumers from antidandruff to beauty shampoos. The regression phase can also help to differentiate between products that show similar effectiveness during the treatment phase, and monitoring post-treatment physiological end points can provide valuable evidence on the safety and mechanism of action of the therapy.

European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies: 2015 update

BACKGROUND

Since the publication of the European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in 2012, new evidence and new therapeutic agents have emerged. The objective was to update these recommendations.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed regarding pharmacological treatment in PsA. Subsequently, recommendations were formulated based on the evidence and the expert opinion of the 34 Task Force members. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendations were allocated.

RESULTS

The updated recommendations comprise 5 overarching principles and 10 recommendations, covering pharmacological therapies for PsA from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), to conventional synthetic (csDMARD) and biological (bDMARD) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, whatever their mode of action, taking articular and extra-articular manifestations of PsA into account, but focusing on musculoskeletal involvement. The overarching principles address the need for shared decision-making and treatment objectives. The recommendations address csDMARDs as an initial therapy after failure of NSAIDs and local therapy for active disease, followed, if necessary, by a bDMARD or a targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD). The first bDMARD would usually be a tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. bDMARDs targeting interleukin (IL)12/23 (ustekinumab) or IL-17 pathways (secukinumab) may be used in patients for whom TNF inhibitors are inappropriate and a tsDMARD such as a phosphodiesterase 4-inhibitor (apremilast) if bDMARDs are inappropriate. If the first bDMARD strategy fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD may be used.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations provide stakeholders with an updated consensus on the pharmacological treatment of PsA and strategies to reach optimal outcomes in PsA, based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion.

Tailored treatment options for patients with psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis: review of established and new biologic and small molecule therapies

The diverse clinical picture of PsA suggests the need to identify suitable therapies to address the different combinations of clinical manifestations. This review aimed to classify the available biologic agents and new small molecule inhibitors (licensed and nonlicensed) based on their proven efficacy in treating different clinical manifestations associated with psoriasis and PsA. This review presents the level of evidence of efficacy of different biologic treatments and small molecule inhibitors for certain clinical features of treatment of PsA and psoriasis, which was graded in categories I–IV. The literature searches were performed on the following classes of biologic agents and small molecules: TNF inhibitors (adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, golimumab, certolizumab), anti-IL12/IL23 (ustekinumab), anti-IL17 (secukinumab, brodalumab, ixekizumab), anti-IL6 (tocilizumab), T cell modulators (alefacept, efalizumab, abatacept, itolizumab), B cell depletion therapy (rituximab), phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor (apremilast) and Janus kinase inhibitor (tofacitinib). A comprehensive table including 17 different biologic agents and small molecule inhibitors previously tested in psoriasis and PsA was generated, including the level of evidence of their efficacy for each of the clinical features included in our review (axial and peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, and nail and skin disease). We also proposed a limited set of recommendations for a sequential biologic treatment algorithm for patients with PsA who failed the first anti-TNF therapy, based on the available literature data. There is good evidence that many of the biologic treatments initially tested in psoriasis are also effective in PsA. Further research into both prognostic biomarkers and patient stratification is required to allow clinicians the possibility to make better use of the various biologic treatment options available. This review showed that there are many potentially new treatments that are not included in the current guidelines that can be used for selected categories of patients based on their disease phenotype, clinician experience and access to new biologic therapies.

Emerging drugs for psoriatic arthritis

INTRODUCTION

The majority of Psoriatic Arthritis patients experience a good clinical response to anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF)-α therapies. However, treatment failure with anti-TNF-α can represent a relevant clinical problem.

AREAS COVERED

We review the efficacy and safety profile of biological therapies that have been reported from randomized, controlled trials in phase II and phase III available in Pubmed Database for agents targeting IL-12/23p40 antibody (ustekinumab) and IL-17 (secukinumab), inhibitor of phosphodiesterase 4, (apremilast), and of JAK/STAT pathways (tofacitinib) and CTLA4 co-stimulation (abatacept) in Psoriatic Arthritis.

EXPERT OPINION

In Psoriatic Arthritis, main emerging drugs are represented by the fully human monoclonal IL-12/23p40 antibody, ustekinumab, the agent targeting IL-17, secukinumab, and the inhibitor of phosphodiesterase 4, apremilast. Results on T cell co-stimulation inhibition by abatacept are insufficient both in psoriasis and in PsA. In vitro investigations on JAK/STAT pathways in PsA suggest that tofacitinib could represent a further valuable therapeutic option. Emerging biological treatments other than anti-TNF agents, ustekinumab, secukinumab and apremilast appear promising for Psoriatic Arthritis and recent studies have showed a good efficacy and an acceptable safety profile; however, further and long-term studies are advocated.

Oral tofacitinib efficacy, safety and tolerability in Japanese patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: A randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor that is being investigated for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Japanese patients aged 20 years or more with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis were double‐blindly randomized 1:1 to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg b.i.d. for 16 weeks, open‐label 10 mg b.i.d. for 4 weeks, then variable 5 or 10 mg b.i.d. to Week 52. Primary end‐points at Week 16 were the proportion of patients achieving at least a 75% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI75) and Physician's Global Assessment of “clear” or “almost clear” (PGA response) for psoriasis, and 20% or more improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) for patients with psoriatic arthritis. Safety was assessed throughout. Eighty‐seven patients met eligibility criteria for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (5 mg b.i.d., n = 43; 10 mg b.i.d., n = 44), 12 met eligibility criteria for psoriatic arthritis (5 mg b.i.d., n = 4; 10 mg b.i.d., n = 8) including five who met both criteria (10 mg b.i.d.). At Week 16, 62.8% and 72.7% of patients achieved PASI75 with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg b.i.d., respectively; 67.4% and 68.2% achieved PGA responses; all patients with psoriatic arthritis achieved ACR20. Responses were maintained through Week 52. Adverse events occurred in 83% of patients through Week 52, including four (4.3%) serious adverse events and three (3.2%) serious infections (all herpes zoster). No malignancies, cardiovascular events or deaths occurred. Tofacitinib (both doses) demonstrated efficacy in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis through 52 weeks; safety findings were generally consistent with prior studies.

Indirect comparisons of the efficacy of subsequent biological agents in patients with psoriatic arthritis with an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: a meta-analysis

Significant portion of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) could not tolerate or do not have a satisfactory response to either non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), non-biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), or even TNF inhibitors. Non-TNF inhibitor biologic agents have emerged as second-line therapy in such situation. However, the comparative efficacy of these agents remains unknown as head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not available. RCTs examining the efficacy of non-TNF inhibitor biologic agents in patients with PsA who experienced inadequate response or intolerance of TNF inhibitors were identified. If more than one RCT was available for a given biologic agent, the pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95 % confidence interval (CI) of achieving 20 % improvement according to American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) response across trials were calculated. The pooled OR for each biologic agent was then compared using the indirect comparison technique. Five RCTs of four non-TNF inhibitor biologic agents, including abatacept, secukinumab, ustekinumab, and apremilast, with 675 participants were identified and included in the data analyses. We found no significant difference in any comparisons, with the p values ranging from 0.14 to 0.98. Our study demonstrates that the likelihood of achieving the ACR20 response in patients with TNF inhibitor experience is not significantly different between the four non-TNF biologic agents. However, the interpretation of this analysis is limited by the small sample sizes. Head-to-head comparisons are still required to confirm the comparative efficacy.

Apremilast: A Novel Drug for Treatment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To review the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of apremilast and determine its role relative to other agents in the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

DATA SOURCES

A PubMed search (1946 to December 2015) using the terms apremilast and CC-10004 was conducted to identify relevant articles.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

In vitro or in vivo evaluations of apremilast published in the English language were eligible for inclusion. Controlled clinical trials that involved psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis were selected for review.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Four trials were identified on the treatment of psoriasis. In those that involved doses of 30 mg twice daily, a significantly greater percentage of patients receiving apremilast (28.8% to 40.9%) compared with placebo (5.3% to 5.8%) achieved at least 75% improvement from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score at 16 weeks. Two trials were identified on the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. In the one that involved a dose of 30 mg twice daily, a significantly greater percentage of patients receiving apremilast (38.1%) compared with placebo (19.0%) achieved the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement at 16 weeks. In all trials, the drug had an acceptable safety profile, with the most common adverse effects of diarrhea, nausea, and headache.

CONCLUSIONS

Apremilast has a novel mechanism of action and is safe and effective for the management of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. At this time, apremilast should be reserved for patients unable to take disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Pharmacological treatment of spondyloarthritis: exploring the effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biological therapies

Spondyloarthritis represents a heterogeneous group of articular inflammatory diseases that share common genetic, clinical and radiological features. The therapy target of spondyloarthritis relies mainly in improving patients' quality of life, controlling articular inflammation, preventing the structural joints damage and preserving the functional abilities, autonomy and social participation of patients. Among these, traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have been demonstrated to be effective in the management of peripheral arthritis; moreover, in the last decade, biological therapies have improved the approach to spondyloarthritis. In patients with axial spondyloarthritis, tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors are currently the only effective therapy in patients for whom conventional therapy with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs has failed. The aim of this review is to summarize the current experience and evidence about the pharmacological approach in spondyloarthritis patients.

Indirect comparisons of the efficacy of biological agents in patients with psoriatic arthritis with an inadequate response to traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs or to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

While the efficacy of biologic agents for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) has been well demonstrated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the data on their relative efficacy is limited. This meta-analysis is aimed at assessing the comparative efficacy of these agents in patients who had persistently active disease despite traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)/disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), or who could not tolerate NSAIDs/DMARDs.

METHODS

RCTs examining the efficacy of biologic agents in patients with PsA who experienced inadequate response or intolerance of traditional DMARDs or NSAIDs were identified. If more than one RCT were available for a given biologic agent, the pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of attaining a 20% improvement according to American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) response across trials were calculated. The pooled risk ratios for each biologic agent were then compared using the indirect comparison technique.

RESULTS

A total of 12 RCTs were identified and included in the data analyses. We found that patients who received older TNF inhibitors (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab) had a statistically significantly higher chance of achieving ACR20 response compared with apremilast, ustekinumab, and certolizumab. The likelihood of achieving ACR20 response among secukinumab users (at the dose of 150 mg and 300 mg weekly) was also higher compared with apremilast, ustekinumab, and certolizumab, though the relative risk did not always reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that patients with PsA who experience inadequate response or intolerance of traditional DMARDs or NSAIDs have a higher probability of achieving the ACR20 response with older TNF inhibitors and secukinumab.

New treatments for inflammatory rheumatic disease

As our understanding of the pathogenesis of autoimmune diseases is growing, new therapies are being developed to target disease-specific pathways. Since the introduction of etanercept in 1998, several biotechnological agents have been developed, most of them indicated in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, but also psoriatic arthritis. Most currently available molecules target TNF-alfa with different strategies (i.e., etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, and certolizumab pegol), IL-6 (tocilizumab), CTLA-4 (abatacept), and B cells (rituximab, belimumab) as they are key mediators in the cascade of inflammation. Further, small molecules have been recently developed to target intracellular signaling, such as Janus Kinases for tofacitinib, the first FDA-approved small molecule for rheumatoid arthritis. Most novel treatments are being developed for arthritis with specific differences between rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis, as well as for systemic lupus erythematosus, following the approval of belimumab. Finally, biologic therapies are effective also in gout, mainly targeting interleukin-1 to block the inflammasome. This review article describes the new and upcoming treatment options for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and gout to dissect what we should be aware of when discussing these new and promising molecules.

Psoriatic arthritis: latest treatments and their place in therapy

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a heterogeneous chronic inflammatory disease that may affect peripheral and axial joints, entheses, skin and nails, and other organs. Treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, steroid and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs had been the backbone of traditional management of PsA for many years. However, improvement in our understanding of immunopathogenesis of PsA has led to new immunomodulatory therapies. Introduction of novel agents has raised the bar for treatment and helped drive research into additional therapeutic options.

Managing patients with psoriatic disease: the diagnosis and pharmacologic treatment of psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic, systemic inflammatory disease. Up to 40 % of patients with psoriasis will go on to develop PsA, usually within 5-10 years of cutaneous disease onset. Both conditions share common pathogenic mechanisms involving genetic and environmental factors. Because psoriasis is typically present for years before PsA-related joint symptoms emerge, dermatologists are in a unique position to detect PsA earlier in the disease process through regular, routine screening of psoriasis patients. Distinguishing clinical features of PsA include co-occurrence of psoriatic skin lesions and nail dystrophy, as well as dactylitis and enthesitis. Patients with PsA are usually seronegative for rheumatoid factor, and radiographs may reveal unique features such as juxta-articular new bone formation and pencil-in-cup deformity. Early treatment of PsA with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs has the potential to slow disease progression and maintain patient quality of life. Optimally, a single therapeutic agent will control both the skin and joint psoriatic symptoms. A number of traditional treatments used to manage psoriasis, such as methotrexate and cyclosporine, are also effective for PsA, but these agents are often inadequately effective, temporary in benefit and associated with significant safety concerns. Biologic anti-tumour necrosis factor agents, such as etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab, are effective for treating patients who have both psoriasis and PsA. However, a substantial number of patients may lose efficacy, have adverse effects or find intravenous or subcutaneous administration inconvenient. Emerging oral treatments, including phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors, such as apremilast, and new biologics targeting interleukin-17, such as secukinumab, brodalumab and ixekizumab, have shown encouraging clinical results in the treatment of psoriasis and/or PsA. Active and regular collaboration of dermatologists with rheumatologists in managing patients who have psoriasis and PsA is likely to yield more optimal control of psoriatic dermal and joint symptoms, and improve long-term patient outcomes.

Diagnosing and treating psoriatic arthritis: an update

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is an inflammatory arthritis of uncertain pathogenesis, affecting approximately one in four patients with psoriasis. Onset of psoriasis typically precedes the development of PsA. Therefore, the dermatologist is ideally positioned to recognize the early signs and symptoms of PsA for diagnosis and subsequent treatment. The role of the dermatologist in early diagnosis and treatment is essential for preventing pain and functional disabilities, as well as the joint deterioration that accompanies progressive forms of PsA. Diagnosis of PsA is a key aspect of the clinical decision process for the dermatologist, as psoriasis plus PsA requires a different therapeutic approach from that required for psoriasis alone. Furthermore, PsA is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular comorbidities that present significant health concerns. In this review, the pathogenesis and comorbidities of PsA are discussed. In addition, screening and imaging tools that aid in the diagnosis of PsA, as well as tools used for efficacy assessment, are reviewed. Available therapies are presented, with a focus on targeted biologics and emerging treatments.

Assessing the effectiveness of synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in psoriatic arthritis - a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Psoriatic arthritis is an inflammatory arthritis the primary manifestations of which are locomotor and skin disease. Although a number of guidelines have been published citing strategies for reducing disease progression, the evidence base for disease-modifying agents is unclear. This forms the focus of this systematic review.

METHODS

The systematic review was undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2009 checklist. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that looked at the impact of interventions with disease-modifying agents, either synthetic drugs or biologics on musculoskeletal outcomes, notably American College of Rheumatology 20 percent responders. Results were analyzed using Review Manager 5.1.6 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). Whilst our primary focus was on published trials, we also looked at new trials presented in abstract form in 2013-2014 that were not yet published to avoid omitting important and up-to-date information on developing treatments.

RESULTS

Our in-depth analysis included 28 trials overall enrolling 5,177 patients published between the 1980s and now as well as limited analysis of some studies in abstract form as described earlier. The most frequently available locomotor outcome measure was the American College of Rheumatology 20 percent responders. The risk ratio for achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20 percent responders response was positive in favor of treatment (risk ratio 2.30; 95% confidence interval 1.78-2.96); however, there was evidence of considerable heterogeneity between trials. Overall randomized controlled trials of established synthetic disease-modifying agents were largely negative (methotrexate, ciclosporin and sulfasalazine) though leflunomide showed a small positive effect. A new synthetic agent, apremilast, did show a positive benefit. For biologics, TNF inhibitors already licensed for use were effective and similar benefits were seen with newer agents including ustekinumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, and abatacept, although the latter did not impact on skin problems. Important limitations of the systematic review included, first, the fact that for many agents there were little data and, second, much of the recent data for newer biologics were only available in abstract form.

CONCLUSION

Conventional disease-modifying agents, with the possible exception of leflunomide, do not show clear evidence of disease-modifying effects in psoriatic arthritis, though a newer synthetic disease-modifying agents, apremilast, appears more effective. Biologic agents appear more beneficial, although more evidence is required for newer agents. This review suggests that it may be necessary to review existing national and international management guidelines for psoriatic arthritis.

Apremilast for Behçet's syndrome--a phase 2, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Oral ulcers, the hallmark of Behçet's syndrome, can be resistant to conventional treatment; therefore, alternative agents are needed. Apremilast is an oral phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor that modulates several inflammatory pathways.

METHODS

We conducted a phase 2, multicenter, placebo-controlled study in which 111 patients with Behçet's syndrome who had two or more oral ulcers were randomly assigned to receive 30 mg of apremilast twice daily or placebo for 12 weeks. This regimen was followed by a 12-week extension phase in which the placebo group was switched to apremilast and a 28-day post-treatment observational follow-up phase. The patients and clinicians were unaware of the study assignments throughout the trial. The primary end point was the number of oral ulcers at week 12. Secondary outcomes included pain from these ulcers (measured on a 100-mm visual-analogue scale, with higher scores indicating worse pain), the number of genital ulcers, overall disease activity, and quality of life.

RESULTS

The mean (±SD) number of oral ulcers per patient at week 12 was significantly lower in the apremilast group than in the placebo group (0.5±1.0 vs. 2.1±2.6) (P<0.001). The mean decline in pain from oral ulcers from baseline to week 12 was greater with apremilast than with placebo (-44.7±24.3 mm vs. -16.0±32.5 mm) (P<0.001). Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea were more common in the apremilast group (with 22, 9, and 12 incidents, respectively, among 55 patients) than in the placebo group (with 10, 1, and 2 incidents, respectively, among 56 patients), findings that were similar to those in previous studies of apremilast. There were two serious adverse events in patients receiving apremilast.

CONCLUSIONS

Apremilast was effective in treating oral ulcers, which are the cardinal manifestation of Behçet's syndrome. This preliminary study was neither large enough nor long enough to assess long-term efficacy, the effect on other manifestations of Behçet's syndrome, or the risk of uncommon serious adverse events. (Funded by Celgene; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00866359.).

Predictors of response to TNF antagonists in patients with ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To identify predictors of response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Methods

Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials and observational studies based on a systematic search. Meta-analyses of similar observations were performed using random effects computing summary OR. Heterogeneity was tested using I², and risks of bias using funnel plots and the Egger test. Meta-regression was used to explore causes of heterogeneity.

Results

The electronic search captured 1340 references and 217 abstracts. 17 additional articles were identified after searching by hand. A total of 59 articles meet the purpose of the study and were reviewed. 37 articles (33 studies) included 6736 patients with AS and 23 articles (22 studies) included 4034 patients with PsA. 1 article included data on AS and PsA. Age (OR (95% CI) 0.91 (0.84 to 0.99), I²=84.1%), gender (1.57 (1.10 to 2.25), I²=0.0%), baseline BASDAI (1.31 (1.09 to 1.57), I²=0.0%), baseline BASFI (0.86 (0.79 to 0.93), I²=24.9%), baseline dichotomous C reactive protein (CRP) (2.14 (1.71 to 2.68), I²=22.3%) and human leucocyte antigen B27 (HLA-B27) (1.81 (1.35 to 2.42), I²=0.0%) predict BASDAI50 response in AS. No factor was identified as a source of heterogeneity. Only meta-analysis of baseline BASFI showed risk of publication bias (Egger test, p=0.004). Similar results were found for ASAS criteria response. No predictors of response were identified in PsA.

Conclusions

Young age, male sex, high baseline BASDAI, low baseline BASFI, high baseline CRP and HLA-B27 predict better response to TNF antagonists in AS but not in PsA.

Emerging drugs for the treatment of axial and peripheral spondyloarthritis

INTRODUCTION

The topic under discussion is of strong relevance to the field of spondyloarthritis (SpA) because, in addition to established biological, there are new promising compounds. The reason for the review is to put all available data together to allow for an overview on recent developments and to especially inform readers about emerging drugs, biologics and small molecules in the field of SpA.

AREAS COVERED

This review on new therapies in axial and peripheral SpA comprising psoriatic arthritis (PsA) shows, that, in addition to the established anti-TNF agents infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, golimumab, certolizumab and the first biosimilar approved in the EU, there are at least two emerging biologics in the field of SpA: ustekinumab, a compound targeting IL12/IL-23 via the p40 subunit of both cytokines works for psoriasis and PsA and probably also for Crohn's disease, and the anti-IL-17 antibody secukinumab which has also been shown to work in psoriasis, both compounds seem to also work in ankylosing spondylitis. In addition, the potential of two small molecules, apremilast a phoshodiesterase4 inhibitor and tofacitinib, a januskinase inhibitor is discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Since, in contrast to rheumatoid arthritis, the therapeutic array in SpA is currently limited to TNF-blockers, and since there is still an unmet need because some patients do not respond to anti-TNF therapy at all or they loose response, new agents with a different mechanism of action are eagerly awaited.

Inhibitors of phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE 4): A new therapeutic option in the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris and psoriatic arthritis

Psoriasis vulgaris and psoriatic arthritis are inflammatory diseases in which inflammation and sustained inducing lesions result from immune disorders associated with overactivity of T cells that produce multiple proinflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin (IL): IL-2, IL-12, IL-17, IL-22 or IL-23. Modern treatment of these diseases is focused on reducing the inflammatory process responsible for the development of the disease. In recent years, the treatment of psoriasis is developing at a dynamic rate. Such therapeutic advances are contributed to the possibility of patient therapy through the use of some registered biologic agents, such as TNF-α inhibitors (infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab), and an inhibitor of the p40 subunit common to IL-12 and IL-23 (ustekinumab). In addition to the already registered medications for the indications mentioned above, there is a large group of preparations that are currently undergoing clinical trials in Europe, Canada and the United States, which provides hopes of therapy efficacy and safety.