Alternative treatment with calcipotriol plus betamethasone dipropionate gel in psoriasis vulgaris using a short-contact approach

Calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate formulations for psoriasis: an overview of the options and efficacy data

INTRODUCTION

Psoriasis is a very common chronic inflammatory skin disease affecting up to 3% of the general population with 75% of the psoriasis subjects being affected by a mild form of disease. Hence, topical therapy is the most frequent employed treatment in psoriasis also because it can be easily combined with systemic therapy. In this context, calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate (Cal/BD) fixed-dose association represents the first-line treatment due to its efficacy and once-daily application. Different Cal/BD formulations, such as ointment, gel (topical suspension), and aerosol foam, are approved by US Food and Drug Administration.

AREAS COVERED

For this review, relevant English literature (trials, real-life studies, case series, and reviews) regarding Cal/BD different formulations efficacy in psoriasis was searched for through to 28 January 2020. The following database were consulted: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, EBSCO, and clinicaltrials.gov.

EXPERT OPINION

Cal/BD formulations are efficacious treatment for psoriasis. Cal/BD aerosol foam shows a higher efficacy compared to Cal/BD ointment or gel formulations, appearing as a game-changer in psoriasis therapy not only for mild disease but also for moderate psoriasis as well as in selected severe cases in combination with systemic treatments.

Comparison of Occlusive and Open Application in a Psoriasis Plaque Test Design, Exemplarily Using Investigations of Mapracorat 0.1% Ointment versus Vehicle and Reference Drugs

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Psoriasis plaque tests (PPTs) are important tools in the early phases of antipsoriatic drug development. Two distinct PPT design variants (open vs. occluded drug application) are commonly used, but no previous work has aimed to directly compare and contrast their performance.

METHODS

We compared the antipsoriatic efficacy of mapracorat 0.1% ointment and reference drugs reported in 2 separate studies, representing open and occluded PPT designs. The drug effect size was measured by sonography (mean change in echo-poor band thickness), chromametry, and standardized clinical assessment.

RESULTS

Antipsoriatic effects were detectable for the study drugs in both occluded and open PPTs. Differences between the potency of antipsoriatic drugs and vehicle were observable. The total antipsoriatic effect size appeared to be higher in the occluded PPT than the open PPT, despite the shorter treatment duration (2 vs. 4 weeks). Effect dynamics over time revealed greater differences between some study drugs in the open PPT compared to the occluded PPT.

CONCLUSION

Taking the higher technical challenges for the open PPT into account, we recommend the occluded PPT as a standard screening setting in early drug development. In special cases, considering certain drug aspects or study objectives that would require procedural adaptations, an open PPT could be the better-suited design. Finally, both PPT models show clear advantages: classification as phase I studies, small number of psoriatic subjects, relatively short study duration, excellent discrimination between compounds and concentrations, parallel measurement of treatment response, and go/no go decisions very early in clinical development.