One-year safety and efficacy of ustekinumab and results of dose adjustment after switching from inadequate methotrexate treatment: the TRANSIT randomized trial in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis

Methotrexate Dosing Regimen for Plaque-type Psoriasis: An Update of a Systematic Review

Background Methotrexate (MTX) is a systemic treatment for plaque-type psoriasis. At the time of approval, no dose-ranging studies were performed. Nowadays, a uniform dosing regimen is lacking. This might contribute to suboptimal treatment with the drug.Objective To summarize the literature involving the MTX dosing regimens in psoriasis patients.Methods In this SR, RCTs and documents with aggregated evidence (AgEv) on the MTX dosing regimen in psoriasis were summarized. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which oral, subcutaneous or intramuscular MTX was used in patients with psoriasis and AgEv, were included. The MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched up to June 20, 2022. This SR was registered in PROSPERO.Results Thirty-nine RCTs had a high risk of bias. Test dosages were given in only 3 RCTs. In the RCTs, MTX was usually prescribed in a start dose of 7.5 mg/week (n = 13). MTX was mostly given in a start dose of 15 mg/week, in the AgEv (n = 5). One guideline recommended a test dose, in other aggregated evidence a test dose was not mentioned or even discouraged.Conclusions There is a lack of high-quality evidence and available data for dosing MTX in psoriasis is heterogeneous.

Angiotensin AT2 Receptor Stimulation Alleviates Collagen-Induced Arthritis by Upregulation of Regulatory T Cell Numbers

The angiotensin AT₂ receptor (AT₂R) is a main receptor of the protective arm of the renin-angiotensin system and exerts for instance anti-inflammatory effects. The impact of AT₂R stimulation on autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is not yet known. We investigated the therapeutic potential of AT₂R-stimulation with the selective non-peptide AT₂R agonist Compound 21 (C21) in collagen-induced arthritis (CIA), an animal model for inflammatory arthritis. Arthritis was induced by immunization of DBA/1J mice with collagen type II (CII). Prophylactic and therapeutic C21 treatment alleviates arthritis severity and incidence in CIA. Joint histology revealed significantly less infiltrates of IL-1 beta and IL-17A expressing cells and a well-preserved articular cartilage in C21- treated mice. In CIA, the number of CD4⁺CD25⁺FoxP3⁺ regulatory T (Treg) cells significantly increased upon C21 treatment compared to vehicle. T cell differentiation experiments demonstrated increased expression of FoxP3 mRNA, whereas IL-17A, STAT3 and IFN-gamma mRNA expression were reduced upon C21 treatment. In accordance with the mRNA data, C21 upregulated the percentage of CD4⁺FoxP3⁺ cells in Treg polarizing cultures compared to medium-treated controls, whereas the percentage of CD4⁺IL-17A⁺ and CD4⁺IFN-gamma⁺ T cells was suppressed. To conclude, C21 exerts beneficial effects on T cell-mediated experimental arthritis. We found that C21-induced AT₂R-stimulation promotes the expansion of CD4⁺ regulatory T cells and suppresses IL-17A production. Thus, AT₂R-stimulation may represent an attractive treatment strategy for arthritis.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2021: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes an additional 19 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 167, and randomised participants to 58,912, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.5 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (57%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (140) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (57/167) had high risk of bias; 23 unclear risk, and most (87) low risk. Most studies (127/167) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions, except anti-IL23. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23 and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 50.19, 95% CI 20.92 to 120.45), bimekizumab (RR 30.27, 95% CI 25.45 to 36.01), ixekizumab (RR 30.19, 95% CI 25.38 to 35.93), risankizumab (RR 28.75, 95% CI 24.03 to 34.39). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab and risankizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than other anti-IL17 drugs (secukinumab and brodalumab) and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab and brodalumab) and anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab) except tildrakizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents (adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept). Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab; adalimumab and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low- to moderate-certainty for all the comparisons (except methotrexate versus placebo, which was high-certainty). The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.5 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports from regulatory agencies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Direct comparison of risankizumab and fumaric acid esters in systemic therapy-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Fumaric acid esters (FAEs; Fumaderm^®) are the most frequently prescribed first‐line systemic treatment for moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis in Germany. Risankizumab (Skyrizi^®) is a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody that specifically binds to the p19 subunit of interleukin 23.

Objectives

To compare risankizumab treatment to FAEs in patients with psoriasis.

Methods

This phase III randomized, active‐controlled, open‐label study with blinded assessment of efficacy was conducted in Germany. Patients were randomized (1 : 1) to subcutaneous risankizumab 150 mg (weeks 0, 4 and 16) or oral FAEs at increasing doses from 30 mg daily (week 0) up to 720 mg daily (weeks 8–24). Enrolled patients were adults naïve to and candidates for systemic therapy, with chronic moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis. Phototherapy was not allowed within 14 days before or during the study.

Results

Key efficacy endpoints were met at week 24 for risankizumab (n = 60) vs. FAEs (n = 60) (P < 0·001): achievement of a ≥ 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI; primary endpoint 83·3% vs. 10·0%), ≥ 100% improvement in PASI (50·0% vs. 5·0%), ≥ 75% improvement in PASI (98·3% vs. 33·3%), ≥ 50% improvement in PASI (100% vs. 53·3%) and a Static Physician’s Global Assessment of clear/almost clear (93·3% vs. 38·3%). The rates of gastrointestinal disorders, flushing, lymphopenia and headache were higher in the FAE group. One patient receiving risankizumab reported a serious infection (influenza, which required hospitalization). There were no malignancies, tuberculosis or opportunistic infections in either treatment arm.

Conclusions

Risankizumab was found to be superior to FAEs, providing earlier and greater improvement in psoriasis outcomes that persisted with continued treatment, and more favourable safety results, which is consistent with the known safety profile. No new safety signals for risankizumab or FAEs were observed.

What is already known about this topic?

Risankizumab (Skyrizi^®) is approved as treatment for patients with moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy.

Risankizumab is a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody that specifically binds to the p19 subunit of interleukin 23.

Fumaric acid esters (FAEs) are the most frequently prescribed first‐line systemic treatment for moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis in Germany.

What does this study add?

In patients with psoriasis who were naïve to systemic treatment, risankizumab treatment was superior to FAEs, providing earlier and greater improvement in psoriasis outcomes that persisted to week 24.

Risankizumab showed more favourable safety results than FAEs and no new safety signals.

The results support risankizumab treatment for patients with moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis who are naïve to systemic treatment.

Linked Comment: P. Fleming. Br J Dermatol 2022; 186:4–5.

Plain language summary available online

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

For this living systematic review we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to September 2020: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers to the same date. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to eligible RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse events). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons, according to CINeMA, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer on treatment hierarchy: 0% (treatment is the worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (treatment is the best for effectiveness or safety).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 158 studies (18 new studies for the update) in our review (57,831 randomised participants, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (58%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 20 treatments. In all, 133 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (53/158) as being at high risk of bias; 25 were at an unclear risk, and 80 at low risk. Most studies (123/158) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report their source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in reaching PASI 90. At class level, in reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the non-biological systemic agents. At drug level, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, risankizumab and guselkumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab, and etanercept. Ustekinumab and adalimumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than etanercept; ustekinumab was more effective than certolizumab, and the clinical effectiveness of ustekinumab and adalimumab was similar. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and three non-biological drugs: fumaric acid esters (FAEs), ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab, and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar, except for ixekizumab which had a better chance of reaching PASI 90 compared with secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab. The clinical effectiveness of these seven drugs was: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 50.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 20.96 to 120.67, SUCRA = 93.6; high-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 32.48, 95% CI 27.13 to 38.87; SUCRA = 90.5; high-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.76, 95% CI 23.96 to 34.54; SUCRA = 84.6; high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86; SUCRA = 81.4; high-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 25.79, 95% CI 21.61 to 30.78; SUCRA = 76.2; high-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.52, 95% CI 21.25 to 30.64; SUCRA = 75; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 23.55, 95% CI 19.48 to 28.48; SUCRA = 68.4; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as mirikizumab, tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to moderate certainty for all the comparisons. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the evidence for all the interventions was of low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials directly comparing active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between non-biological systemic agents and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Position statement for a pragmatic approach to immunotherapeutics in patients with inflammatory skin diseases during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and beyond

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by SARS-CoV-2, a novel RNA virus that was declared a global pandemic on 11 March 2020. The efficiency of infection with SARS-CoV-2 is reflected by its rapid global spread. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has implications for patients with inflammatory skin diseases on systemic immunotherapy who may be at increased risk of infection or more severe infection. This position paper is a focused examination of current evidence considering the mechanisms of action of immunotherapeutic drugs in relation to immune response to SARS-CoV-2. We aim to provide practical guidance for dermatologists managing patients with inflammatory skin conditions on systemic therapies during the current pandemic and beyond. Considering the limited and rapidly evolving evidence, mechanisms of action of therapies, and current knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 infection, we propose that systemic immunotherapy can be continued, with special considerations for at risk patients or those presenting with symptoms.

Current and novel therapeutic targets in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a multifactorial disease characterized by synovitis, cartilage destruction, bone erosion, and periarticular decalcification, finally results in impairment of joint function. Both genetic and environmental factors are risk factors in the development of RA. Unwanted side effects accompany most of the current treatment strategies, and around 20-40% of patients with RA do not clinically benefit from these treatments. The unmet need for new treatment options for RA has prompted research in the development of novel agents acting through physiologically and pharmacologically relevant targets. Here we discuss in detail three critical pathways, Janus kinase/signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK/STAT), Th17, and hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF), and their roles as unique therapeutic targets in the field of RA. Some of the less developed but potential targets like nucleotide-binding and oligomerization domain-like receptor containing protein 3 (NLRP3) inflammasome and histone deacetylase 1 (HDAC1) are also discussed.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. This is the baseline update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2017, in preparation for this Cochrane Review becoming a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our research using the following databases to January 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and the conference proceedings of a number of dermatology meetings. We also searched five trials registers and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) reports (until June 2019). We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse effects (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse effects). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes, according to GRADE, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 140 studies (31 new studies for the update) in our review (51,749 randomised participants, 68% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (59%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 19 treatments. In all, 117 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (57/140) as being at high risk of bias; 42 were at an unclear risk, and 41 at low risk. Most studies (107/140) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report the source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90. At class level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents. At drug level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, infliximab, all of the anti-IL17 drugs (ixekizumab, secukinumab, bimekizumab and brodalumab) and the anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab, but not tildrakizumab) were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and 3 anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept. Adalimumab and ustekinumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than certolizumab and etanercept. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and between two conventional drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness for these seven drugs was similar: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 29.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 19.94 to 43.70, Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) = 88.5; moderate-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.12, 95% CI 23.17 to 34.12, SUCRA = 88.3, moderate-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 27.67, 95% CI 22.86 to 33.49, SUCRA = 87.5, high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86, SUCRA = 83.5, low-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.84, 95% CI 20.90 to 31.95; SUCRA = 81; moderate-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 23.97, 95% CI 20.03 to 28.70, SUCRA = 75.4; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 21.96, 95% CI 18.17 to 26.53, SUCRA = 68.7; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to very low certainty for just under half of the treatment estimates in total, and moderate for the others. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were very similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab were the best choices for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence (low-certainty evidence for bimekizumab). This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. Indeed, we found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, but the evidence for all the interventions was of very low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials comparing directly active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between conventional systemic and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Psoriasis treat to target: defining outcomes in psoriasis using data from a real-world, population-based cohort study (the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register, BADBIR)

Background

The ‘treat to target’ paradigm improves outcomes and reduces costs in chronic disease management but is not yet established in psoriasis.

Objectives

To identify treatment targets in psoriasis using two common measures of disease activity: Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and Physician's Global Assessment (PGA).

Methods

Data from a multicentre longitudinal U.K. cohort of patients with psoriasis receiving systemic or biologic therapies (British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register, BADBIR) were used to identify absolute PASI thresholds for 90% (PASI 90) and 75% (PASI 75) improvements in baseline disease activity, using receiver operating characteristic curves. The relationship between PGA (clear, almost clear, mild, moderate, moderate–severe, severe) and PASI (range 0–72) was described, and the concordance between absolute and relative definitions of response was determined. The same approach was used to establish treatment response and eligibility definitions based on PGA.

Results

Data from 13 422 patients were available (58% male, 91% white ethnicity, mean age 44·9 years), including over 23 000 longitudinal PASI and PGA scores. An absolute PASI ≤ 2 was concordant with PASI 90 and an absolute PASI ≤ 4 was concordant with PASI 75 in 90% and 88% of cases, respectively. These findings were robust to subgroups of timing of assessment, baseline disease severity and treatment modality. PASI and PGA were strongly correlated (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient 0·92). The median PASI increased from 0 (interquartile range 0–0, range 0–23) to 19 (interquartile range 15–25, range 0–64) for PGA clear to severe, respectively. PGA clear/almost clear was concordant with PASI ≤ 2 in 90% of cases, and PGA moderate–severe severe was concordant with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence PASI eligibility criteria for biologics in 81% of cases.

Conclusions

An absolute PASI ≤ 2 and PGA clear/almost clear represent relevant disease end points to inform treat‐to‐target management strategies in psoriasis.

What's already known about this topic?

The most commonly used relative disease activity measure in psoriasis is ≥ 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 90); however, it has several limitations including dependency on a baseline severity assessment.

Defining an absolute target disease activity end point in psoriasis has the potential to improve patient outcomes and reduce costs, as demonstrated by treat‐to‐target approaches in other chronic diseases such as hypertension and diabetes.

The Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) is a popular alternative measure of psoriasis severity in daily practice; however, its utility has not been formally assessed with respect to PASI.

What does this study add?

An absolute PASI ≤ 2 corresponds with PASI 90 response and is a relevant disease end point for treat‐to‐target approaches in psoriasis.

There is a strong correlation between PASI and PGA.

PGA moderate–severe/severe may serve as an alternative eligibility criterion for biologics to PASI‐based definitions, and PGA clear/almost clear is an appropriate alternative absolute treatment end point.

What are the clinical implications of this work?

Absolute PASI ≤ 2 and PGA clear/almost clear represent relevant disease end points to inform treat‐to‐target management strategies in psoriasis.

Linked Editorial: Takeshita. Br J Dermatol 2020; 182:1075–1076.

A safety review of recent advancements in the treatment of psoriasis: analysis of clinical trial safety data

INTRODUCTION

The management of psoriasis can include oral medications and injectable biologics. Safety data of these various treatment options are important to consider when choosing the right treatment for the patient.

AREAS COVERED

This review evaluates the safety of newer treatments approved for psoriasis, including interleukin-(IL)-17 inhibitors, IL-23/p19 inhibitors, ustekinumab, certolizumab pegol and apremilast, using phases III and IV clinical trial data.

EXPERT OPINION

Even as treatment of psoriasis becomes safer, it is important to recognize both common and uncommon adverse effects of treatment. Common adverse effects are similar across treatment options, including upper respiratory infection and injection-site reaction. Serious adverse effects occur less frequently and specific to the psoriasis treatment option, such as inflammatory bowel disease and candida infections with IL-17 inhibitors, tuberculosis with certolizumab pegol, and psychiatric events with apremilast. While IL-23/p19 inhibitors may have a slightly better safety profile than other biologics, long-term data are limited. The conclusions that can be drawn from clinical trial safety data are limited given that many clinical trials are not large enough to detect rare safety events. Data from registries provide important complementary information on long-term safety but there are limitations including a lack of randomized assignment between drug treatments.

Joint AAD-NPF guidelines of care for the management and treatment of psoriasis with biologics

Psoriasis is a chronic, inflammatory multisystem disease that affects up to 3.2% of the US population. This guideline addresses important clinical questions that arise in psoriasis management and care, providing recommendations based on the available evidence. The treatment of psoriasis with biologic agents will be reviewed, emphasizing treatment recommendations and the role of the dermatologist in monitoring and educating patients regarding benefits as well as associated risks.

A Review of Switching Biologic Agents in the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated polygenic inherited skin disease. Many biologic agents have been approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. The most commonly utilized biologics include TNF-α antagonists (etanercept, infliximab, and adalimumab), IL-12/23P40 antagonist (ustekinumab), IL-23P19 antagonist (guselkumab), IL-17A antagonist (secukinumab and ixekizumab), and IL-17RA antagonist (brodalumab). However, some patients may fail to respond well to their first biologic agent. Reasons for failure include primary failure (lack of initial efficacy), secondary failure (loss of efficacy over time) or the development of adverse effects. For patients desiring maximum skin clearance and better quality of life, switching to a second biologic agent might be a worthwhile option. This review discusses recent clinical studies on switching therapies in treating psoriasis, and found that switching biologic agents can significantly improve outcomes for patients. Some clinical guidelines are also discussed. This research provides some advice on establishing individualized treatment regimens based on clinical needs and pharmacologic characteristics.

Monoclonal antibodies inhibiting IL-12, -23, and -17 for the treatment of psoriasis

Psoriasis is a chronic, inflammatory, immune-mediated skin condition that affects 3 to 4% of the adult US population, characterized by well-demarcated, erythematous plaques with silver scale. Psoriasis is associated with many comorbidities including cardiometabolic disease and can have a negative impact on quality of life. The current armamentarium of psoriasis treatment includes topical therapies, phototherapy, oral immunosuppressive therapies, and biologic agents. Over the past 2 decades, there has been rapid development of novel biologic therapies for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. This article will review the role of IL-12, IL-23, and IL-17 in the pathogenesis of psoriasis and the monoclonal antibodies (ustekinumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, tildrakizumab, and risankizumab) that target these cytokines in the treatment of this disease.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head to head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional systemic agents (acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, methotrexate), small molecules (apremilast, tofacitinib, ponesimod), anti-TNF alpha (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab), anti-IL12/23 (ustekinumab), anti-IL17 (secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab), anti-IL23 (guselkumab, tildrakizumab), and other biologics (alefacept, itolizumab) for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to December 2016: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) reports. We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant RCTs. We searched the trial results databases of a number of pharmaceutical companies and handsearched the conference proceedings of a number of dermatology meetings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic and biological treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate to severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI) 90) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse effects). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes, according to GRADE; we evaluated evidence as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 109 studies in our review (39,882 randomised participants, 68% men, all recruited from a hospital). The overall average age was 44 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo controlled (67%), 23% were head-to-head studies, and 10% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and placebo. We have assessed all treatments listed in the objectives (19 in total). In all, 86 trials were multicentric trials (two to 231 centres). All of the trials included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment at less than 24 weeks after randomisation); in fact, all trials included in the network meta-analysis were measured between 12 and 16 weeks after randomisation. We assessed the majority of studies (48/109) as being at high risk of bias; 38 were assessed as at an unclear risk, and 23, low risk.Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90.In terms of reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents. Small molecules were associated with a higher chance of reaching PASI 90 compared to conventional systemic agents.At drug level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, all of the anti-IL17 agents and guselkumab (an anti-IL23 drug) were significantly more effective than the anti-TNF alpha agents infliximab, adalimumab, and etanercept, but not certolizumab. Ustekinumab was superior to etanercept. No clear difference was shown between infliximab, adalimumab, and etanercept. Only one trial assessed the efficacy of infliximab in this network; thus, these results have to be interpreted with caution. Tofacitinib was significantly superior to methotrexate, and no clear difference was shown between any of the other small molecules versus conventional treatments.Network meta-analysis also showed that ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, certolizumab, and ustekinumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90: the most effective drug was ixekizumab (risk ratio (RR) 32.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 23.61 to 44.60; Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) = 94.3; high-certainty evidence), followed by secukinumab (RR 26.55, 95% CI 20.32 to 34.69; SUCRA = 86.5; high-certainty evidence), brodalumab (RR 25.45, 95% CI 18.74 to 34.57; SUCRA = 84.3; moderate-certainty evidence), guselkumab (RR 21.03, 95% CI 14.56 to 30.38; SUCRA = 77; moderate-certainty evidence), certolizumab (RR 24.58, 95% CI 3.46 to 174.73; SUCRA = 75.7; moderate-certainty evidence), and ustekinumab (RR 19.91, 95% CI 15.11 to 26.23; SUCRA = 72.6; high-certainty evidence).We found no significant difference between all of the interventions and the placebo regarding the risk of serious adverse effects (SAEs): the relative ranking strongly suggested that methotrexate was associated with the best safety profile regarding all of the SAEs (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.99; SUCRA = 90.7; moderate-certainty evidence), followed by ciclosporin (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.01 to 5.10; SUCRA = 78.2; very low-certainty evidence), certolizumab (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.36; SUCRA = 70.9; moderate-certainty evidence), infliximab (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.00; SUCRA = 64.4; very low-certainty evidence), alefacept (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.55; SUCRA = 62.6; low-certainty evidence), and fumaric acid esters (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.99; SUCRA = 57.7; very low-certainty evidence). Major adverse cardiac events, serious infections, or malignancies were reported in both the placebo and intervention groups. Nevertheless, the SAEs analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to very low certainty for just over half of the treatment estimates in total, moderate for the others. Thus, the results have to be considered with caution.Considering both efficacy (PASI 90 outcome) and acceptability (SAEs outcome), highly effective treatments also had more SAEs compared to the other treatments, and ustekinumab, infliximab, and certolizumab appeared to have the better trade-off between efficacy and acceptability.Regarding the other efficacy outcomes, PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1, the results were very similar to the results for PASI 90.Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for a third of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, certolizumab, and ustekinumab are the best choices for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate to severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. At class level, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents, too. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured between 12 to 16 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficiently relevant for a chronic disease. Moreover, low numbers of studies were found for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 44 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice.Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. Indeed, we found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs. Methotrexate appeared to have the best safety profile, but as the evidence was of very low to moderate quality, we cannot be sure of the ranking. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies as well.In terms of future research, randomised trials comparing directly active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between conventional systemic and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve patients, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents.

Redefining the therapeutic objective in psoriatic patients candidates for biological therapy

The advances in psoriasis management currently allow achieving a good control of the disease. In particular, with the latest developed molecules, available evidence suggests that it is possible to pose an ambitious therapeutic goal, such as a Dermatology Life Quality Index 0/1, a Physician Global Assessment 0/1, or a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 90/100 response. However, patients often fail to achieve the complete clearance of their cutaneous lesions or the improvement of disease factors that impair their quality of life. To optimize the treatment of psoriasis, it is not enough to define precisely the therapeutic objective, but also to adapt the therapeutic strategy to make the necessary modifications in case of not achieving it at the time point (at the end of the induction phase, or every 3-6 months) to be agreed with the patient (the so-called treat-to-target approach). In the present report, based on the Delphi methodology, 11 dermatologists from the Spanish Psoriasis Group addressed key issues that could be involved in the achievement and maintenance of the therapeutic goals of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. The document provides 27 consensus statements intended to support clinical decision-making by healthcare professionals for patients who might be candidates to receive biologic therapy.

Drug survival of biologic treatments in psoriasis: a systematic review

Drug survival measures the length of time until discontinuation of a drug. The length of time a patient remains on a biologic drug is impacted by several factors such as tolerability, side effects, safety profile and effectiveness. To evaluate the long-term drug survival, data of the most commonly prescribed biologic medications used in the treatment of psoriasis, a systematic review was conducted. A literature search using PubMed, the Cochrane Library and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from January 1 2010 to October 28 2016 identified 3734 abstracts. Of which, 36 publications with over 40,000 patients met the inclusion criteria. The median overall drug survival for ustekinumab, adalimumab, infliximab and etanercept was 38.0, 36.5, 26.6 and 24.7 months, respectively. The mean annual drug survival rate of TNF inhibitors was 70%, 57%, 51%, 45% and 41% at years-1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively. The 5-year mean annual drug survival rate of ustekinumab was 87%, 78%, 70%, 71% and 51%, respectively. Based on our findings, ustekinumab appears to have a longer drug survival with lower rates of discontinuation compared to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

Sustained Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, Dermatology Life Quality Index and EuroQol-5D response of biological treatment in psoriasis: 10 years of real-world data in the Swedish National Psoriasis Register

BACKGROUND

Few studies have analysed the long-term effects of biological treatment in psoriasis. PsoReg, the Swedish national register for systemic psoriasis treatment, started in 2006 and now includes 10 years of real-world data on the effectiveness of biological treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To analyse the long-term real-world outcome data of patients who are biologically naïve with moderate-to-severe psoriasis after switching to biological treatment.

METHODS

An observational study of patients who are biologically naïve with at least one registration of outcome before switching to biological treatment while included in PsoReg and at least one follow-up visit. Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) values were analysed at 3-5 months, 6-11 months and at least once after ≥ 1 year, up to 9 years after the switch to biological treatment.

RESULTS

In total, 583 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these, 399, 395 and 373 patients had observed outcome data beyond 1 year on the PASI, DLQI and EQ-5D, respectively, and 164, 168 and 152, respectively, were observed in at least three time periods after the switch. Significant (P < 0·01) improvement in PASI, DLQI and EQ-5D scores was observed 3-5 months after the switch and sustained under the whole observation period. The mean PASI, DLQI and EQ-5D changed from 13·5 ± 9·1, 9·0 ± 8·1 and 0·74 ± 0·22, respectively, before the switch, to 4·0 ± 3·5, 3·7 ± 4·7 and 0·79 ± 0·21, respectively, 1-5 years after the switch.

CONCLUSIONS

Biological treatment, as used in clinical practice, shows a stable long-term effectiveness in all the measured dimensions, PASI, DLQI and EQ-5D.

Efficacy and safety of ustekinumab in adolescents

The biologic agent ustekinumab is a human monoclonal antibody that binds to the p40 subunit shared by interleukins (ILs) 12 and 23. The antibody is able to prevent binding of cytokines to the IL-12Rβ1 cell surface receptor and therefore may prevent IL-23 driven activation of the IL-23/Th 17 axis of inflammation. The anti-inflammatory activity has been beneficial in adult psoriasis. Ustekinumab has been approved in the United States for the treatment of adults with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Approval in children and adolescents has not been granted by the US Food and Drug Administration. Subcutaneous injections of ustekinumab are administered at baseline, week 4 and every 12 weeks thereafter, a regimen that is particularly appealing to young patients who do not like more frequent injections at home. The product is attractive because, although it works through an immune system mechanism, the selective activity is such that the drug has not been associated with many of the side effects attributed to other immunosuppressive medications. Case reports of ustekinumab for pediatric psoriasis have shown promising results, and the recent Phase III CADMUS trial tested the agent in adolescents aged 12-17 years with psoriasis, using standard dose 0.75 mg/kg (≤60 kg), 45 mg (>60-≤100 kg), and 90 mg (>100 kg) or half-standard dosing 0.375 mg/kg (≤60 kg), 22.5 mg (>60-≤100 kg), and 45 mg (>100 kg) with a loading dosage at week 0 and week 4. Psoriasis area and severity index-75 was achieved in more than three-quarters of patients in full and half dosing by 12 weeks, and psoriasis area and severity index-90 in 54.1% and 61.1% of half and full dosage by 12 weeks, respectively. Ustekinumab was generally well tolerated in adolescents, with some patients developing antibodies, and nasopharyngitis being the major adverse event. Ustekinumab is a promising agent in adolescent psoriasis that appears to be well tolerated. The best monitoring plan and usage in younger patients still remain to be defined.

Quality of life and patient benefit following transition from methotrexate to ustekinumab in psoriasis

BACKGROUND

TRANSIT (NCT01059773) compared immediate and gradual transition from methotrexate to ustekinumab in psoriasis patients via multiple measures, including patient-reported outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate patient perception of treatment benefits in TRANSIT.

METHODS

A total of 489 psoriasis patients received ustekinumab, with immediate cessation of methotrexate (Arm 1) or 4 weeks' overlap with decreasing methotrexate dose (Arm 2). Ustekinumab was administered at weeks 0, 4, 16, 28 and 40. Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), EuroQol 5-item (EQ-5D), visual analogue scale (VAS) valuation technique and patient benefit index (PBI) were employed. Mean global PBI and sub-scores were calculated from the sum of the benefit items weighted by their respective relevance at baseline. Patient-relevant benefit was defined as PBI ≥1 (scale: 0 [no benefit] to 4 [maximum benefit]). Correlations of global PBI with Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and DLQI were examined.

RESULTS

Relationships between PBI and clinical data were evaluable in 340 patients. The most important treatment goals at baseline included: 'be healed of all skin defects', 'have confidence in therapy', 'get better skin quickly' and 'regain control of the disease'. Benefit in PBI global score was achieved at week 4 by 93% of patients in Arm 1 and 91% in Arm 2. Global PBI scores increased in both Arms between weeks 4 and 52. Global PBI correlated weakly with PASI change from baseline (correlation coefficient range: -0.22 to -0.40), and moderately with DLQI (-0.29 to -0.54). Overall DLQI score was lower than baseline at all times; and the percentage of patients with an overall score of 0 or 1 increased with time. Correspondingly, EQ VAS scores increased with time. DLQI and EQ VAS results were similar between arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of the strategy for transitioning from methotrexate, ustekinumab was associated with rapid and sustained improvement in patient-reported outcomes. PBI appears a suitable tool for assessing patient-relevant treatment benefits in psoriasis patients.

The cost-effectiveness of ustekinumab for moderate-to-severe psoriasis

Given its chronicity and impact on quality of life, psoriasis is a costly disease. As new and better treatments are developed, the cost of treating psoriasis has risen. In this drug profile, the authors discuss ustekinumab, its pharmacokinetics, safety profile, and direct and indirect costs to determine its cost-efficacy. The authors searched PubMed with specific search phrases for clinical trials investigating this issue over 5 years. Eleven articles analyzed cost-effectiveness of ustekinumab, and the references of these articles were included. Studies limited to 12 weeks reported that ustekinumab may not be cost-effective as it has high cost per injection and is costly when loading doses are required. Studies that went beyond 12 weeks documented that, with ustekinumab's infrequent dosing, it is cost-effective during the maintenance period.

Recommendations for managing a suboptimal response to biologics for moderate-to-severe psoriasis: A Belgian perspective

Over the past decade, biologics have become the gold standard in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis for patients who have failed or who have contraindications to traditional systemic treatments. However, although practical recommendations on how to treat a suboptimal response to biologics exist in other chronic inflammatory diseases, they are only just beginning to emerge for psoriasis. This article aims to formulate recommendations in the case of a suboptimal response of psoriasis to biologics in the Belgian setting. A Belgian taskforce of psoriasis experts was convened to review the results of a literature search and formulate recommendations based on the available evidence and provide expert opinion to address gaps in the evidence. The taskforce has proposed a treatment algorithm for patients with a primary non-response or a secondary loss of response to help address an unmet need. Expert recommendations have been developed to address treatment strategies in case of a primary or secondary suboptimal response to biologics in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis in Belgium.

Multifaceted roles of adiponectin in rheumatoid arthritis

Adiponectin is a circulating hormone with pleiotropic functions in lipid and glucose metabolism secreted by adipocytes. It plays a beneficial role in cardiovascular functions and metabolic complications. Recently, growing researches have elucidated that increased adiponectin plasma levels correlate with severity of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and it is speculative that adiponectin may link to RA. The association of adiponectin with potential inflammatory functions in RA has raised significant interests in exploring this adipokine as a target for RA-diagnostic and therapeutic applications. Despite significant advances in understanding adiponectin functions and signaling mechanisms, its roles in RA remain multifaceted and subject to controversy. This review highlights the evidences linking adiponectin to either anti-inflammatory or pro-inflammatory action in RA. The results of this review may provide important insight into adiponectin in the development of RA.

An evolution in switching therapy for psoriasis patients who fail to meet treatment goals

Switching psoriasis treatment is a common, accepted practice that is used to improve disease management and improve patient outcomes (e.g., when patients are experiencing suboptimal efficacy and/or tolerability with a given therapy). Historically, switching treatment was often performed to limit patients’ cumulative exposure to conventional systemic agents (e.g., methotrexate, cyclosporine) with the goal of reducing end‐organ toxicity. However, the practice of switching treatments has evolved in recent years with the availability of highly effective and tolerable biologic agents. In current practice, near‐complete skin clearance with minimal side effects should be a realistic treatment goal for most patients with moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis, and consideration for switching therapies has shifted to become more focused on achieving maximum possible skin clearance, enhanced quality of life, and improved patient satisfaction. This review provides a discussion of recent guidance on switching psoriasis therapies, including initial considerations for when switching therapy may be advisable and challenges associated with switching therapy, along with an overview of published clinical studies evaluating outcomes associated with switching therapy. The goal of this review is to empower dermatologists to optimally manage their patients’ psoriasis by providing the tools needed to develop rational strategies for switching treatments based on the pharmacologic characteristics of available treatments and each patient's clinical needs and treatment preferences.