Efficacy and safety of adalimumab in patients with psoriasis previously treated with anti-tumour necrosis factor agents: subanalysis of BELIEVE

Prevalence and characterization of treatment-refractory psoriasis and super-responders to biologic treatment: a nationwide study

INTRODUCTION

Treatment with biologics often leads to clearance of psoriasis. However, some patients do repeatedly fail to respond and/or lose an achieved response (treatment refractory) to the biologic, whereas other patients achieve excellent response to one biologic and remain clear of psoriasis for several years (super-responders).

OBJECTIVE

To identify and characterize patients with treatment refractory psoriasis and patients who are super-responders to biologic treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients registered in DERMBIO between January 2007 and November 2019 were included. Patients were categorized as being treatment refractory if they had had treatment failure to ≥3 biologics targeting ≥2 different pathways. Super-responders were patients treated with their first biologic for minimum 5 years without an absolute psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) > 3 between 6 months and 5 years of treatment. All remaining patients from DERMBIO served as comparators.

RESULTS

In total, 3280 patients were included with a mean age of 45.0 years. 1221 (37%) of the patients were females. Of the included patients, 214 (6.5%) were categorized as treatment refractory and 207 (6.3%) were categorized as super-responders. Treatment refractory patients had higher mean body weight (100.6 kg vs. 90.6 kg, P < 0.0001) and higher mean BMI (32.2 vs. 29.4, P < 0.0001) compared with the rest of patients in DERMBIO. Super-responders had higher socioeconomic status and fewer comorbidities compared with the comparator group (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

A small proportion of patients with psoriasis treated with biologics are either super-responders or treatment refractory. Treatment refractory patients have higher body weight, whereas super-responders have fewer comorbidities and higher socioeconomic status.

Use of Biological Drugs for Psoriasis: A Drug-Utilization Study Using Tuscan Administrative Databanks

Our study aims at providing evidence on patterns of use of biologic drugs for psoriasis in Tuscany, Italy. We conducted a drug-utilization study based on administrative databanks of Tuscany (EUPAS45365) from 2011 to 2019. We selected new users of etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, ustekinumab, or secukinumab between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2016. We considered subjects with psoriasis and followed subjects until the end of the study period (three years after the first dispensation of biologic drug for psoriasis) or the patient’s death, whichever came first. We censored subjects for pregnancy or neoplasia. For each subject, we defined the state as the weekly coverage of one of the biologic drugs of interest. We then defined the switch as the change from a state to another one. A total of 7062 subjects with a first dispensation of a PSObio drug in the inclusion period was identified, and 1839 (52.9% female, 51.6 mean age) patients were included in the analysis. Among new users of adalimumab (N = 770, 41.9%), one third showed a continuous behaviour whereas the others moved to etanercept and ustekinumab. New users of etanercept (N = 758, 41.2%), had the highest proportion of switchers, with adalimumab most often being the second choice. New users of infliximab (N = 159, 8.6%) experienced the highest proportion of treatment discontinuation. The present study suggests that the majority of patients treated with PSObio drugs do not switch from one active ingredient to another. However, patients who started biological therapy with etanercept had the highest frequency of switching to other PSObio drugs, whereas those who started with secukinumab or ustekinumab had the lowest.

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.

Clinical efficacy and safety of using calcipotriol-betamethasone compounding agent for psoriasis treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The main objective is to evaluate clinical efficacy and safety of using calcipotriol-betamethasone compounding agent for psoriasis treatment through a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), and WanFang Data from inception till July 31, 2020. Efficacy was evaluated based on primary outcome indicators including skin lesion improvement and overall adverse reaction rate. Secondary outcome indicators included degree of life quality improvement, clinical effectiveness rate, and specific adverse reaction rates. RevMan5.3 was used to perform the meta-analysis. 22 studies finally met our inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. The results indicated that for short-term treatment, a sequential therapy that uses calcipotriol betamethasone compounding agent and calcipotriol improves PASI score (MD = -0.94, 95% CI - 1.38 ~ - 0.49, P < 0.0001, I² = 49%), comparing with using only calcipotriol. From a drug safety perspective, the difference in overall adverse reaction rate is not significant between the calcipotriol group and the sequential treatment group (RR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 ~ 1.14, P = 0.10, I² = 33%). Calcipotriol betamethasone compounding agent may be more effective in plaque psoriasis treatment compared to use only calcipotriol, with no significant difference in adverse reaction rate between the two groups. Although the data were collected from 13 comparison groups, each group may not have sufficient data for a thorough and comprehensive analysis. Further research may be necessary for a more detailed evaluation of effectiveness of using calcipotriol betamethasone compounding agent for plaque psoriasis treatment.

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.

Retrospective analysis of patients with psoriasis receiving biological therapy: Real-life data

The aim of this study is to investigate the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients receiving biological therapy for psoriasis. All patients who received biological treatment for psoriasis were included in the study. Characteristics of patients and PASI responses' rates were evaluated at 6, 12, 16, 24, 36, and 52 weeks. One hundred and three patients enrolled. Of all, 28 patients were using adalimumab (27.2%), 26 were using secukinumab (25.2%), 22 were using infliximab (21.4%), 22 were using ustekinumab (21.4%), 5 were using ixekizumab (4.9%). PASI75 response rates at sixth and 52nd weeks; were 68.1% and 95% for infliximab, 64.3% and 100% for adalimumab, 77.3% and 100% for ustekinumab, 76.9% and 81.3% for secukinumab, respectively. The most common reason for biologic switching was secondary failure. Treatment failure was the main reason of switching therapies. In our study, no statistically significant difference was found between efficacies of biological drugs. It remains unclear in what order and how exactly biological agent switching should be done. There is a need for large-scale studies on the treatment response rates, and survival times of different biologics.

Biologics switch in psoriasis

Aim: No guidelines exist for biologic switch in psoriasis after treatment failure. Although, switching between TNF-α antagonists has been reviewed, switching information about newer biologics is limited. Materials & methods: We did a thorough systematic review from 'PubMed' and 'Embase', which includes new biologics such as IL-12/IL-23 antagonists, IL-17A antagonists and IL-23 antagonists. Results & conclusion: New biologics such as IL-17 antagonist or IL-23 antagonist show greater responses in bio-experienced patients and could even be used for patients in whom previous treatments failed.

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.

Switching Biologics in the Treatment of Psoriasis: A Multicenter Experience

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to provide evidence on the treatment choices, reasons, and results of switching between biologic agents in treating patients with psoriasis.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective database search of six tertiary referral centers for pso-riasis patients between January 2007 and May 2019. We analyzed patient and treatment characteristics of all patients in the registry.

RESULTS

We enrolled 427 psoriatic patients treated with biologics, and 145 (34%) required a switch to another biologic. The reasons for discontinuing the first biologic agent were inefficacy (n = 106, 62.4%), adverse events (n = 28, 16.5%), and others (n = 36, 21.2%). At week 12, there was a 67.7% reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score of patients treated with their first biologic, and 51.4% reduction for the second. A drug survival analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the drug survival of first-line biologic agents, but ustekinumab had the highest survival rate among second-line biologics (log-rank p = 0.010). Multivariate analyses for overall drug discontinuation showed that the occurrence of psoriatic arthritis (OR: 1.883, 95% CI: 1.274-2.782, p = 0.001), nail involvement (OR: 2.334, 95% CI: 1.534-3.552, p < 0.001), and use of concomitant treatment (OR: 2.303, 95% CI: 1.403 -3.780, p = 0.001) are predictors for discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

Discontinuation of treatment was most commonly due to inefficacy. Patients who switched to a different biologic agent showed a similar improvement in PASI scores compared to biologic-naive patients. Switching to a second biologic therapy due to inefficacy or adverse events caused by the first one may improve psoriasis.

Diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for plaque psoriasis - Brazilian Society of Dermatology

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects 1.3% of the Brazilian population. The most common clinical manifestations are erythematous, scaling lesions that affect both genders and can occur on any anatomical site, preferentially involving the knees, elbows, scalp and genitals. Besides the impact on the quality of life, the systemic nature of the disease makes psoriasis an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, especially in young patients with severe disease. By an initiative of the Brazilian Society of Dermatology, dermatologists with renowned clinical experience in the management of psoriasis were invited to form a work group that, in a partnership with the Brazilian Medical Association, dedicated themselves to create the Plaque Psoriasis Diagnostic and Treatment Guidelines. The relevant issues for the diagnosis (evaluation of severity and comorbidities) and treatment of plaque psoriasis were defined. The issues generated a search strategy in the Medline-PubMed database up to July 2018. Subsequently, the answers to the questions of the recommendations were devised, and each reference selected presented the respective level of recommendation and strength of scientific evidence. The final recommendations for making up the final text were worded by the coordinators.

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.

No need to change the drug class: ixekizumab- following secukinumab-therapy in psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Regarding treatment of psoriasis, dermatologists now use new, highly effective targeted therapies. Among such, biologic therapies have become a mainstay in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis; yet, a substantial proportion of patients show insufficient or no treatment response. Current literature has insufficient evidence for successful treatment when switching biologics after multiple failures, in particular when the biologics share a common mechanism of action.

OBJECTIVES

To compile a case series of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis who had primary or secondary loss of response to multiple previous systemic treatments. We specifically focused on patients recently treated with the anti-IL-17A antibody secukinumab, who further received the anti-IL-17A antibody ixekizumab as subsequent therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort analysis. Inclusion criteria were patients with moderate to severe psoriasis vulgaris (as defined by European consensus and the German guidelines), who have previously been treated with systemic therapies including three or more biological therapies. All patients treated with anti-IL-17A antibody secukinumab experienced a primary and/or secondary treatment failure and subsequently received the anti-IL-17A antibody ixekizumab. The primary outcome was treatment response to ixekizumab using PASI score; the secondary outcome was incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

Twelve patients were included. At week 6 of ixekizumab treatment, PASI 75 was achieved in 91.7%, PASI 90 in 66.7%, PASI 100 in 8.3% of patients. At week 12, PASI 75 was achieved in 100%, PASI 90 in 100%, PASI 100 in 58.3% of the cohort. Throughout the observation period, no severe adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Ixekizumab proved to be an effective and safe therapeutic option for patients with prior systemic therapies, including biological treatments with the same mechanism of action. Thus, failure of secukinumab does not preclude future therapy success with a second IL-17A-directed therapy.

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.

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.

Differential Drug Survival of Second-Line Biologic Therapies in Patients with Psoriasis: Observational Cohort Study from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic Interventions Register (BADBIR)

Little is known about the drug survival of second-line biologic therapies for psoriasis in routine clinical practice. We assessed drug survival of second-line biologic therapies and estimated the risk of recurrent discontinuation due to adverse events or ineffectiveness in patients with psoriasis who had failed a first biologic therapy and switched to a second in a large, multicenter pharmacovigilance registry (n = 1,239; adalimumab, n = 538; etanercept, n = 104; ustekinumab, n = 597). The overall drug survival rate in the first year after switching was 77% (95% confidence interval = 74–79%), falling to 58% (55–61%) in the third year. Female sex, multiple comorbidities, concomitant therapy with cyclosporine, and a high Psoriasis Area and Severity Index at switching to the second-line biologic therapy were predictors of overall discontinuation (multivariable Cox proportional hazard model). Compared to adalimumab, patients receiving etanercept were more likely to discontinue therapy (hazard ratio = 1.87, 95% confidence interval = 1.24–2.83), whereas patients receiving ustekinumab were more likely to persist (hazard ratio = 0.46; 95% confidence interval = 0.33–0.64). Discontinuation of the first biologic therapy because of adverse events was associated with an increased rate of second drug discontinuation because of adverse events (hazard ratio = 2.55; 95% confidence interval = 1.50–4.32). In conclusion, drug survival rates differed among biologic therapies and decreased over time; second-line discontinuation because of adverse events was more common among those who discontinued first-line treatment for this reason. The results of this study should support clinical decision making when choosing second-line biologic therapy for patients with psoriasis.

Switching of biologics in psoriasis: Reasons and results

Efficacy and safety profiles of biologics have been established for moderate to severe psoriasis. However, inefficacy or adverse events sometimes require changing the treatment to other biologics. Here, we examine the effectiveness of this strategy. We retrospectively investigated cases requiring switching biologics. We enrolled 275 psoriatic patients treated with biologics between January 2010 and December 2014 in our hospital. Of these, 51 required a switch to another biologic. First-line therapies were infliximab (IFX, n = 26), adalimumab (ADA, n = 18) and ustekinumab (UST, n = 7), and second-line therapies were IFX (n = 5), ADA (n = 21) and UST (n = 25). Reasons for switching were inefficacy (n = 38), adverse events (n = 11) and others (n = 2). The details were primary failure (n = 15), secondary failure (n = 23) and infusion reactions (n = 8). In 49 patients who switched biologics due to inefficacy and adverse events, the mean Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score at week 16 was 4.3 for first-line therapies and 2.9 for second-line therapies (P < 0.05). Switching to a second biologic therapy to address the first's inefficacy or adverse events often results in significant improvement in moderate to severe psoriasis.

Systematic review of efficacy of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy in patients with psoriasis previously treated with a different anti-TNF agent

BACKGROUND

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists have improved outcomes for patients with psoriasis, but some patients are unresponsive to treatment (primary failure) or lose an initially effective response (secondary failure).

OBJECTIVE

We sought to systematically investigate the efficacy and safety of a second TNF antagonist after failure of a first TNF antagonist.

METHODS

Published primary studies evaluating the efficacy of switching TNF antagonists after failure were systematically extracted.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were included. Although response rates to a second TNF antagonist were lower than for a first, a substantial proportion of patients in every study achieved treatment success. Week-24 response rates for a second antagonist were 30% to 74% for a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score and 20% to 70% for achieving a Physician Global Assessment score of 0/1; mean improvements in Dermatology Life Quality Index ranged from -3.5 to -13. In general, patients who experienced secondary failure achieved better responses than patients with primary failure. Adverse event incidences ranged from 20% to 71%, without unexpected adverse events; 0% to 11% of patients experienced serious adverse events.

LIMITATIONS

There was no common definition of treatment failure across these studies of varied design.

CONCLUSIONS

Some patients benefit from switching to a second TNF antagonist after failure of a first TNF antagonist, with improved quality of life.

Adalimumab Efficacy in Patients with Psoriasis Who Received or Did Not Respond to Prior Systemic Therapy: A Pooled Post Hoc Analysis of Results from Three Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials

Introduction

There are limited data from randomized controlled clinical trials on the outcomes of biologics after discontinuation of a different systemic therapy. To determine the efficacy of adalimumab in patients who previously received systemic therapy (including failed therapy), we performed a pooled post hoc analysis of Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response data from three double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.

Methods

Patients from the M02-528, REVEAL, and CHAMPION studies who were previously exposed to systemic treatment were categorized based on their response. The efficacy of adalimumab compared with placebo was analyzed at the end of the double-blind treatment period for the overall pooled intent-to-treat population (N = 1469) and subgroups that received (n = 780) or did not respond to (n = 229) previous systemic pretreatments.

Results

Rates for an improvement of ≥75 % from baseline in the PASI score (PASI75 response) were significantly greater (p < 0.001) at week 16 in patients treated with adalimumab compared with patients who received placebo in the overall (72.1 vs. 8.0 %, respectively), previously treated (72.7 vs. 8.5 %), and previously failed treatment (70.4 vs. 8.1 %) groups. PASI75 response rates were similar in the overall group and in patients who did not respond to methotrexate, cyclosporine, or psoralen plus ultraviolet A therapy. Improvements of ≥90 or ≥100 % from baseline PASI score were also higher with adalimumab vs. placebo in previously treated patients. Adverse events were similar among subgroups.

Conclusions

Adalimumab was efficacious for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis regardless of prior exposure to systemic therapies or failure of those prior therapies.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers

NCT00645814, NCT00237887, NCT00235820.

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.

Adalimumab in the treatment of moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis in patients switching from other biologics

BACKGROUND

Ample evidence shows that switching from one biological agent to another may prove effective when response to the first one is inadequate. Nevertheless, there are little data so far showing the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in patients with plaque psoriasis who previously received another biologic agent.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the 1-year effectiveness, safety and quality-of-life outcomes patients with psoriasis who had switched to adalimumab from other biologic therapies.

METHODS

Forty-two patients who participated in this Austrian multicenter study were treated with adalimumab over a 1-year period, after switching from efalizumab, infliximab or etanercept. Effectiveness was assessed using standardized tools for measurement of disease severity [Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI)] and quality of life [Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI)]. The study endpoints were evaluated using the all-treated population.

RESULTS

The mean percentage of improvement at the end of the study was 74.3% for PASI, 81.6% for DLQI and 83.6% for NAPSI, demonstrating a considerable benefit of treatment with adalimumab. The safety profile observed was consistent with previous clinical trials for adalimumab, and no new safety signals were observed.

CONCLUSION

Adalimumab therapy in patients with plaque psoriasis previously treated with other biologic agents demonstrates effectiveness, safety and improvement in quality of life.

'Happy' drug survival of adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab in psoriasis in daily practice care: results from the BioCAPTURE network

BACKGROUND

Drug survival is a marker for treatment success. To date, no analyses relating dermatological quality-of-life measures to drug survival have been published.

OBJECTIVES

(i) To describe 1-year drug survival for adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab in a daily practice psoriasis cohort, and (ii) to introduce the concept of 'happy' drug survival, defined as Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) ≤ 5 combined with being 'on drug' at a specific time point.

METHODS

Data were extracted from a prospective registry. Drug survival was analysed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. 'Happy' drug survival was calculated, with data split into 'happy' (DLQI ≤ 5) vs. 'unhappy' (DLQI > 5) at baseline and months 3, 6, 9 and 12.

RESULTS

249 treatment episodes were included (101 adalimumab, 82 etanercept, 66 ustekinumab). The 1-year drug survival rates for ustekinumab, adalimumab and etanercept were 85%, 74% and 68%, respectively. Ustekinumab showed a better confounder-corrected drug survival vs. etanercept [hazard ratio (HR) 3·8, P = 0·02] and a trend towards better survival vs. adalimumab (HR 2·3, P = 0·1). At baseline, the majority (n = 115, 73%) was considered 'unhappy' and a minority 'happy' (n = 42, 27%) (ratio 'happy':'unhappy' was 1 : 2.7). The percentage of treatment episodes with 'happy' on-drug patients increased to 79% after 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

Ustekinumab showed a better overall drug survival than etanercept, and a trend towards a better overall drug survival than adalimumab. After 1 year, patients reported to be 'happy' in 79% of episodes and 'unhappy' in 21%. We introduced the new concept of 'happy' drug survival because the proportion of on-drug patients with good quality of life is an important indicator for treatment success.

Baseline anti-dsDNA concentrations and previous treatments predict response to Adalimumab and Etanercept: a retrospective investigation of 146 psoriasis patients

BACKGROUND

Adalimumab and Etanercept are TNF-α antagonists commonly used for treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis and psoriatic-arthritis. Reliable instruments to assist the selection of patients for a specific treatment in a real-world scenario are unavailable.

OBJECTIVE

To identify patient characteristics and baseline laboratory parameters predicting response to Adalimumab- and Etanercept-treatment.

METHODS

We report a retrospective observational study including 116 and 64 psoriasis-patients treated with Adalimumab and Etanercept, respectively, at a dermatological outpatient clinic of a university hospital. Thirty four patients contributed data to both biologics. First occurrence of either loss-of-response or serious-side-effects (LOR/SSE) was chosen as clinical endpoint and predictors were identified using Cox-regression.

RESULTS

Baseline anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) concentrations, number of previous treatments with TNF-α antagonists in general and previous treatment with Etanercept in particular significantly predicted LOR/SSE to Adalimumab. The predictive effect of baseline anti-dsDNA was conserved in TNF-α antagonist naïve patients. Number of previous systemic treatments other than TNF-α antagonists significantly predicted LOR/SSE to Etanercept. Age and baseline psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) did not predict response to either biologic in a clinically significant manner.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggests that treatment with Adalimumab may promise best results in psoriasis-patients with (A) low baseline anti-dsDNA concentrations, and (B) no previous TNF-α antagonist treatment. A clinically significant predictive effect of age and baseline PASI on response to Adalimumab and Etanercept is unlikely.

Saudi practical guidelines on biologic treatment of psoriasis

The current treatment of psoriasis patients with biologic agents in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is mainly based on clinical experience. Although there are published international guidelines for treatment with biologics, such as the European S3 guidelines (a joint project of the European Dermatology Forum, the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, and the International Psoriasis Council), many nations have found it beneficial to develop country-based guidelines that incorporate specific regional aspects of therapy (legal and practical). With the expanded role of biologic agents in the treatment of psoriasis in Saudi Arabia, a need for local Saudi guidelines has become evident. Here we present a practical approach to the evidence-based clinical administration of biologics for professionals who treat patients with psoriasis.

Efficacy and safety of adalimumab in psoriatic patients previously treated with etanercept in a real-world setting

INTRODUCTION

Knowledge on the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in psoriasis patients switching from etanercept is scarce, especially on the influence that causes of etanercept discontinuation may have on adalimumab response.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the response, adverse effects and factors that may influence the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in psoriasis patients who failed on etanercept therapy in a real-world setting.

METHODS

Data from all moderate to severe plaque psoriasis patients who switched from etanercept to adalimumab were extracted from a registry of biological therapies of our department. Primary endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving PASI 50 at weeks 12, 24, and 52. Secondary endpoints were the percentages of patients achieving PASI 75 and PASI 90, patients who maintained PASI values <5 and <3, and the safety of adalimumab.

RESULTS

Of 35 patients who fulfilled the study criteria, 82.9% achieved PASI 50 at week 12, 74.3% at week 24, and 74.3% at week 52 on adalimumab treatment. Eleven of 16 primary and 11 of 17 secondary nonresponders to etanercept responded to adalimumab. There were no treatment discontinuations due to side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Previous etanercept failure seems not influence the success and safety of adalimumab treatment in moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

Efficacy of switching between tumor necrosis factor-alfa inhibitors in psoriasis: results from the Italian Psocare registry

BACKGROUND

Some studies have shown that switching patients from one tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alfa inhibitor to another may be beneficial when they have an inadequate response or an adverse event.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the variables predicting the efficacy of the second TNF-alfa inhibitor in patients discontinuing the first TNF-alfa inhibitor.

METHODS

Data from all 5423 consecutive patients starting TNF-alfa inhibitor therapy for psoriasis between September 2005 and September 2010 who were included in the Italian Psocare registry were analyzed.

RESULTS

In 105 patients who switched to a second TNF-alfa inhibitor who had complete follow-up data, 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area Severity Index score (PASI 75) was reached by 29% after 16 weeks and by 45.6% after 24 weeks. Patients who switched because of secondary loss of efficacy (loss of initial PASI 75 response) or adverse events/intolerance were more likely to reach PASI 75 than those who switched as a result of primary inefficacy (PASI 75 never achieved) (hazard ratio 2.7, 95% confidence interval 1.3-5.5 vs hazard ratio 2.0, 95% confidence interval 1.0-3.9 and 1, respectively).

LIMITATIONS

There was a small number of patients with complete follow-up data.

CONCLUSION

PASI 75 response in patients who switched from one anti-TNF-alfa agent to another was significantly reduced in patients who showed primary inefficacy of the first anti-TNF-alfa.

Biological therapies for psoriasis

INTRODUCTION

Biological therapies have revolutionized moderate-to-severe psoriasis treatment. Increased understanding of disease pathogenesis has yielded multiple therapeutic targets involving the IL-23/Th17 pathway, while current therapies continue to be monitored for long-term efficacy and safety.

AREAS COVERED

This review details current understanding of psoriasis immunopathogenesis specifically related to therapeutic targets. Approved and emerging biological psoriasis therapies targeting TNF-α, IL-12/23p40, IL-17 and IL-23p19 are covered. Biological agent uses in special circumstances are reviewed together with the emerging debate on biosimilar therapies and their potential future role in psoriasis and other inflammatory diseases.

EXPERT OPINION

Psoriasis treatment has expanded and has become more effective due to increased understanding of disease pathogenesis. However, lack of efficacy in select psoriasis patients, safety concerns and limited treatment efficacy in psoriasis variants (e.g., pustular) are areas which still need improvement. As such, pharmacogenomics will be of vital importance in future for individualized psoriasis care. Further, a better understanding of the multiple psoriasis comorbidities, especially cardiovascular disease, continues to be of significant interest in the psoriasis community. Last, the emergence of biosimilar agents has the potential to change psoriasis treatment, especially as it relates to better access for the psoriasis community worldwide.

Clinical predictors of non-response to any tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α therapies represent a significant innovation in therapy for psoriasis. However, a significant number of psoriasis patients do not respond well to TNF blockers or show an insufficient control of disease activity on a long-term basis.

OBJECTIVE/AIM

The aim of this study was to recognize specific clinical factors that could be associated with a non-response to any available TNF blockers in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors reviewed the medical records of all patients who had started etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab and had achieved a minimum of 24 months follow-up. The authors identified subjects who were not responsive to all available anti-TNF agents, whatever the chronology of their use.

RESULTS

A total of 110 patients were retrospectively examined. Thirteen patients were identified as "non-responders" to all available TNF-α blockers. Current smoking at the start of anti-TNF therapy was associated with non-response to TNF blockers. The group of "non-responders" presented a high mean body mass index and a high baseline PASI score with respect to the group of responders.

CONCLUSIONS

The data showed that the majority of non-responder patients were smokers, overweight or obese and had a high baseline PASI score. Concomitant arthritis was not significantly associated with non-response.

Sequential use of biologics in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis

A number of biologic agents, including the tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists etanercept, adalimumab and infliximab, and the interleukin (IL)-12/IL-23 antagonist ustekinumab, are available for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the U.K. Currently, the selection of the first biologic, and the choice of sequential biologics in the event of efficacy/tolerability concerns, is made using a limited evidence base. The efficacy of biologics, the potential mechanisms of primary and secondary failure and the evidence for sequencing therapy among TNF antagonists and between TNF antagonists and IL-12/IL-23 blockade are reviewed. As psoriasis biologics registers begin to produce long-term safety and efficacy data, therapy decisions in plaque psoriasis may become more objective, and it may be possible to individualize treatment based on clinical or pharmacogenetic information.

The efficacy and safety of infliximab in patients with plaque psoriasis who had an inadequate response to etanercept: results of a prospective, multicenter, open-label study

BACKGROUND

In patients with psoriasis and inadequate response (IR) to tumor necrosis factor-α antagonist treatment, the incremental benefit of switching to another tumor necrosis factor-α antagonist is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the clinical response to an etanercept-to-infliximab switch in patients with psoriasis and IR to etanercept.

METHODS

Adults with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and IR to etanercept (≥ 4 months) were eligible for this open-label study (called PSUNRISE). Patients had a Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score of at least 2 (mild) on a 5-point scale with etanercept, with or without concomitant oral systemic methotrexate or cyclosporine at baseline and during the study. Patients received intravenous infusions of infliximab 5 mg/kg at weeks 0, 2, 6, 14, and 22. PGA was used to evaluate efficacy at week 10 (primary end point) and week 26 (durability). Safety was evaluated through the end of the study.

RESULTS

Of 215 patients, only 10 received concomitant immunomodulators. At week 10, 65.4% of patients (138 of 211; 95% confidence interval 58.6%-71.8%) achieved a PGA score of clear (0) or minimal (1) (primary end point). This response was durable through week 26, at which time 61.3% (122 of 199; 95% confidence interval 54.2%-68.1%) achieved a PGA score of clear (0) or minimal (1). There were no unexpected side effects or safety concerns.

LIMITATIONS

This was an open-label, 26-week study; an incremental change of 1 PGA point, even mild to minimal, was considered clinically significant, as most psoriasis practitioners seek to achieve minimal psoriasis or clear skin.

CONCLUSION

After switching to infliximab, a substantial proportion of patients with psoriasis and IR to etanercept experienced rapid and durable improvement.