Risk of adverse events in psoriasis patients receiving classic systemic drugs and biologics in a 5-year observational study of clinical practice: 2008-2013 results of the Biobadaderm registry

Risk of Cutaneous T Cell Lymphoma with Psoriasis Biologic Therapies

BACKGROUND

The risk of developing cutaneous T cell lymphoma (CTCL) in patients using psoriasis biologics has not been well characterized. The goals of this review were to investigate the incidence of CTCL in patients with psoriasis receiving biologic therapy in clinical trials and psoriasis registries, and to review cases of CTCL and biologic use reported in scientific publications.

METHODS

The US National Library of Medicine clinical trials database (clinicaltrials.gov) was queried to identify phase 3 and 4 clinical trials of the 12 biologic agents currently FDA approved for psoriatic disease. The incidence of CTCL in these trials was examined and summarized. To examine the incidence of CTCL in psoriasis registries, a Medline search was conducted. Finally, we performed a systematic review of CTCL cases reported in the literature.

RESULTS

Only two cases of CTCL were reported in 35,801 subjects with psoriasis receiving a biologic agent in the active arm of 108 psoriasis phase 3 clinical trials. One of these CTCL cases was determined by the investigator to be CTCL misdiagnosed as psoriasis prior to randomization. No cases of CTCL were reported in 5440 subjects with psoriasis in 34 phase 4 clinical trials. Only one case of CTCL was identified in 34,111 registry subjects. In the literature, tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors had the highest number of reported cases of CTCL (34 cases), followed by interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitors (7 cases), and IL-12/23 inhibitors (6 cases). No cases of CTCL were found to be reported with IL-23 inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that the development of CTCL is rare in the setting of psoriasis biologic use. Of the limited number of cases of CTCL found, most were in the setting of TNF inhibitor use and no cases of CTCL were reported in the setting of IL-23 inhibitor use.

[Translated article] Practical Update of the Guidelines Published by the Psoriasis Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (GPs) on the Treatment of Psoriasis With Biologic Agents: Part 2-Management of Special Populations, Patients With Comorbid Conditions, and Risk

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Since its inception, the Psoriasis Group (GPs) of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (AEDV) has worked to continuously update recommendations for the treatment of psoriasis based on the best available evidence and incorporating proposals arising from and aimed at clinical practice. An updated GPs consensus document on the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis was needed because of changes in the treatment paradigm and the approval in recent years of a large number of new biologic agents.

METHODOLOGY

The consensus document was developed using the nominal group technique complemented by a scoping review. First, a designated coordinator selected a group of GPs members for the panel based on their experience and knowledge of psoriasis. The coordinator defined the objectives and key points for the document and, with the help of a documentalist, conducted a scoping review of articles in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to January 2021. The review included systematic reviews and meta-analyses as well as clinical trials not included in those studies and high-quality real-world studies. National and international clinical practice guidelines and consensus documents on the management of moderate to severe psoriasis were also reviewed. The coordinator then drew up a set of proposed recommendations, which were discussed and modified in a nominal group meeting. After several review processes, including external review by other GPs members, the final document was drafted.

RESULTS

The present guidelines include updated recommendations on assessing the severity of psoriasis and criteria for the indication of systemic treatment. They also include general principles for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and define treatment goals for these patients as well as criteria for the indication and selection of initial and subsequent therapies Practical issues, such as treatment failure and maintenance of response, are also addressed.

The safety profile of biologic agents in comparison with non-biologic systemic agents, and topical compounds in the management of psoriasis-A 30-month prospective, observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although biologic agents (BAs) are very effective, solid data proving they are safer than other therapies in psoriasis are still lacking.

METHODS

A total of 289 psoriatic patients were followed for 30 months; of which number 118 were treated with topical agents alone, 112 received BAs, and the remaining 59 patients were on non-biologic systemic agents (NBSAs). The rates of adverse events in these groups were recorded and statistically analysed.

RESULTS

Patients treated with BAs had higher rates of adverse events (P = .017), including overall infections (P = .003), respiratory infections (P < .001), renal, urinary (P < .001), musculoskeletal, connective tissue (P < .001, and P = .021) and oral cavity-related (P = .046) disorders. Except for the incidence of infections, all the above adverse events occurred more often in our study than in clinical trials. The occurrence of serious adverse events was P = .066, with the incidence of serious infections being P = .164. Unlike patients on topical therapy and NBSAs, patients treated with BAs were forced to discontinue their therapies (P = .001). The Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) and body surface area (BSA) scores were the lowest among patients on BAs.

CONCLUSION

While BAs were the most effective therapies, they were associated with higher rates of treatment discontinuation and adverse events in comparison with other forms of therapy.

Cost-utility and budget impact analysis of adding-on apremilast to biologic therapy in the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, an Iranian payer perspective

Background and purpose:

Plaque psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease with skin manifestations that affect the patients’ quality of life negatively. The prevalence of psoriasis is approximately 2-3% worldwide and appears to be still on the increase. Due to the stigma problems, psoriasis has a significant effect on one’s life that is often overlooked. The current study aimed to conduct the cost-utility evaluation and budget impact analysis of adding-on apremilast ahead of biologic therapy in the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. The psoriatic patients who did not undergo the conventional systemic therapy were eligible to enter the defined sequences.

Experimental approach:

An excel-based Markov model with 40 cycles of 3 months, each of which was adopted to compare the outcomes of each exclusively administered sequence in the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Two exclusive therapeutic sequences were considered. In the first sequence, apremilast was followed by biologics and in the second one, biologics were administered initially without apremilast. The results were extrapolated up to 10 years. The designed Markov model was also used in budget impact analysis. The cost-saving potential of the new treatment was accounted for the next 5 years.

Findings/Results:

Incremental cost and incremental effect were reported in the base case scenario. Using the sequence consisting apremilast provided an additional 0.10 quality-adjusted life years and decreased total costs by about 11,100 USD per patient. These results were in line with the findings from sensitivity analysis. The cost-saving over 5 years is estimated to be around 30 million dollars for the Iran market following the use of the new treatment.

Conclusion and implications:

In the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, apremilast supplementation prior to biological treatments is more cost-effective than biological treatment alone.

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.

Demographic data, comorbidities, quality of life, and survival probability of biologic therapy associated with sex-specific differences in psoriasis in the Czech Republic

BIOREP is a Czech registry of patients with psoriasis undergoing biological treatment. The objective of the study was to compare differences in demographic data, previous therapy, comorbidities, severity of psoriasis, quality of life, drug survival rates, and reasons for discontinuation between men and women. We analyzed a cohort of patients from the registry treated between May 2005 and January 2020. The total study population of 2472 patients (4051 treatment series) included 913 females and 1559 males. Women were significantly older than men at the onset of the biological treatment (47.8 vs 45.4 years, P < .0012) and the mean durations of psoriasis and that from its diagnosis until initiation of biological therapy, were longer in women (29.6 vs 27.2 years and 23.2 vs 20.6 years, P < .0012). Women as compared with men were also more often diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis (43.5% vs 33.0%, P < .0012). The prevalence rate of comorbidities was equivalent for both sexes except for that of depression (11.4% females vs 3.7% males, P < .0012). Both the DLQI and PASI scores were significantly different at baseline (DLQI = 16.0 and PASI = 19.5 for men vs DLQI 17.6 = and PASI = 17.7 for women, P < .0012). The survival probability with biological therapy was significantly lower in women for both biologically naïve and non-naïve patients, and there was more evidence of adverse effects in women. Our research demonstrates significant differences relative to multiple factors associated with psoriasis between men and women.

Safety profile of biologic drugs for psoriasis in clinical practice: An Italian prospective pharmacovigilance study

Psoriasis is an inflammatory and chronic skin disorder associated with physical and psychological burden impairing patients’ quality of life. In the last decade, biologic drugs have widely changed treatment of moderate-severe psoriasis and their number is increasing overtime. To early identify expected/unexpected adverse events (AEs) with biologic treatments, pharmacovigilance programs are needed. We designed a post-marketing active pharmacovigilance program to monitor and analyse AEs and/or serious adverse events (SAEs) reports. All consecutive patients treated with one biologic drug during a two-years period and satisfying inclusion criteria have been enrolled in five Dermatology tertiary units. Demographic and clinical features of patients, type of treatment used, therapy discontinuation, failures, switch/swap to another biologic, and possible onset of AEs were collected. Overall, 512 patients with a diagnosis of psoriasis (286; 55.9%) or arthropathic psoriasis (226; 44.1%) have been enrolled. Eighty-two (16%) patients with AEs and 5 (1%) with SAEs have been identified. Further, 59 (11.5%) had a primary/secondary failure (mainly on infliximab and etanercept). The adverse events and SAEs were reported with golimumab (4/12), adalimumab (32/167), infliximab (9/48), etanercept (31/175) and ustekinumab (11/73), no adverse events have occurred with secukinumab (0/37). Infliximab and etanercept were significantly associated with primary/secondary failures, whereas no differences have been highlighted for AEs insurgence. On the other hand, ustekinumab seems to be associated with a low rate of AEs (p = 0.01) and no adverse events or failures have been reported with secukinumab (p = 0.04 and 0.03, respectively). Our study, even though limited by a small sample size and a brief follow-up period, provide useful data on widely used biologic drugs and their tolerability, discontinuation rate and the incurrence of severe adverse events. Further studies are necessary to include the recently approved biologic drugs and to increase the sample size for more detailed analysis.

Treatment modalities and risk of adverse events associated with biologic therapy: A 10-year observational review of the Australasian Psoriasis Registry

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease affecting ~2-3% of the Australasian population. Therapeutic options include topical agents, phototherapy, systemic immunomodulators and biologic agents. Biologics present an acceptable short- and medium-term safety profile, derived mainly from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and, however, may not represent real-world rates of adverse events (AEs).

METHODS

A retrospective, observational study of patients enrolled in The Australasian Psoriasis Registry from April 2008 to October 2018 was conducted. Data were collected from 104 sites in Australia and New Zealand. Patient characteristics, treatments and AE data were collected. AEs were classified by MedDRA System events.

RESULTS

2094 patients were included (3765 patient-treatments), comprising; 1110 phototherapy, 1280 systemic and 1375 biologic therapy patient-treatments. Treatment arms were not mutually exclusive. The mean ± SD from date of diagnosis of psoriasis to commencement of biologic therapy was 8.9 ± 12.3 years. Methotrexate had the longest exposure time (3740.3 patient-years), and ustekinumab had the longest median (95% CI) time on treatment, 4.3 years (2.2, 6.6). AE differences on biologic treatment were present between patients who would have been eligible or ineligible for RCTs. Approximately 29% of registry patients would have been excluded from clinical trials enrolment. Patients ineligible for RCTs had increased adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) of: infections and infestations (2.3, 1.7-3.1; P < 0.001), cardiac (8.2, 3.5-25.6; P < 0.001), gastrointestinal (3.5, 1.52-8.0; P < 0.001), hepatobiliary (5.6 1.7-19.1; P < 0.001), psychiatric (4.7, 1.5-14.1; P = 0.006) and eye disorders (4.8 1.5-15.6; P = 0.008), compared to those eligible for RCTs. Incidence rates in the trial eligible patients were similar to those reported from RCT rates.

CONCLUSIONS

This study establishes treatment modalities in use for severe psoriasis and the clinical rates of AEs associated with biologic therapy.

Predictors of drug survival of biologic therapies in psoriasis patients

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to investigate the clinical, immunological, and genetic factors affecting the response to anti-TNFα (tumor necrosis factor-α) and interleukin-12/23 therapies and drug survivals.

METHODS

A total of 180 patients were divided into two groups: 89 patients who used at least two biologic agents, with the initial biologic agent used less than 12 months (group A), and 91 biologic-naive patients who have been receiving a single biologic agent for more than 12 months (group B). ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) was used to analyze anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) in blood samples. Clinical data of the patients were retrospectively analyzed. HLA-SSO (sequence-specific oligonucleotide) Typing Kits were used for HLA-C typing. IBM SPSS v.21 was used for statistical analysis.Results: Infliximab had the longest drug survival as the first biologic agent in group A (p = .015). Etanercept had the lowest ADA count compared to the other anti-TNF agents (p = .001). HLA-Cw6 negativity, late-onset psoriasis, smoking and alcohol use were determined to be risk factors for treatment failure in group A. HLA-Cw6 was found to be associated with type I psoriasis (p = .000).

CONCLUSIONS

Although our study is retrospective of a relatively low number of patients, this is a preliminary study focusing on two different patient populations based on therapy response.

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.

Apremilast: A Novel Oral Treatment for Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis

Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated disease associated with several co-morbidities and negative impacts on a patient's quality of life. Despite the advances in biologic therapy, there are still unmet needs in the treatment of psoriasis, as current treatments are limited in terms of long-term efficacy, tolerability, safety, route of administration, and cost. Apremilast is an oral, small-molecule phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor that works intracellularly by blocking the degradation of cyclic adenosine 3',5'-monophosphate, resulting in increased intracellular cyclic adenosine 3',5'-monophosphate levels in phosphodiesterase 4-expressing cells. This inhibition results in the reduced expression of proinflammatory mediators, and an increased expression of anti-inflammatory mediators, providing apremilast with an anti-inflammatory rather than immunosuppressive mode of action. Apremilast offers a novel therapeutic option for patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis and may fulfill some of the unmet needs in patients with psoriasis. Potential advantages of apremilast include moderate activity for both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis and efficacy in difficult-to-treat forms of psoriasis, a good safety profile, no need of laboratory prescreening or ongoing monitoring for laboratory parameters, owing to the absence of organ toxicity, a potentially advantageous weight loss effect, and a convenient oral administration and dosing. Cost effectiveness and health economics considerations will be decisive in determining the ultimate place of apremilast in the therapeutic armamentarium for psoriasis.

Risk of malignancy with systemic psoriasis treatment in the Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment Registry

BACKGROUND

The effect of systemic therapy on malignancy risk among patients with psoriasis is not fully understood.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the impact of systemic treatment on malignancy risk among patients with psoriasis in the Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR).

METHODS

Nested case-control analyses were performed among patients with no history of malignancy. Cases were defined as first malignancy (other than nonmelanoma skin cancer) in the Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry, and controls were matched by age, sex, geographic region, and time on registry. Study therapies included methotrexate, ustekinumab, and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) inhibitors. Exposure was defined as 1 or more doses of study therapy within 12 months of malignancy onset and further stratified by duration of therapy. Multivariate conditional logistic regression, adjusted for potential confounders, was used to estimate odds ratios of malignancies associated with therapy.

RESULTS

Among 12,090 patients, 252 malignancy cases were identified and 1008 controls were matched. Treatment with methotrexate or ustekinumab for more than 0 months to less than 3 months, 3 months to less than 12 months, or 12 months or longer was not associated with increased malignancy risk versus no exposure. Longer-term (≥12 months) (odds ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-2.15; P = .01), but not shorter-term treatment, with a TNF-α inhibitor was associated with increased malignancy risk.

LIMITATIONS

Cases and controls could belong to 1 or more therapy categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term (≥12 months) treatment with a TNF-α inhibitor, but not methotrexate and ustekinumab, may increase risk for malignancy in patients with psoriasis.

Biologics and dermatology life quality index (DLQI) in the Australasian psoriasis population

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Psoriasis is a chronic condition that may require long-term treatment for disease control. This analysis utilizes data from the Australasian Psoriasis Registry with particular attention to the impact of biologic therapy on DLQI, and the differences between the biologics in terms of DLQI score change.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients enrolled in the Australasian Psoriasis Registry from April 2008 to August 2016 was conducted. All subjects from the registry that had DLQI and Psoriasis Assessment Severity Index (PASI) scores recorded at a baseline time point of treatment commencement, in addition to week 12 and 24 post commencement were included in the study. A window of ±3 weeks was permitted at these time points. Multivariate linear regression analysis was undertaken to identify significant predictors associated with change in DLQI.

RESULTS

Significant predictors of reduction in DLQI and PASI score from baseline to week 24 include use of adalimumab, infliximab, secukinumab and ustekinumab. Other therapies, including etanercept and oral systemic agents did not show significant change. Each class of biologic showed significant reductions in DLQI score, with IL-12/23 blockade showing the greatest reduction. Significant predictors of lack of reduction in DLQI score include a baseline PASI score <16, and history of diabetes, alcoholism or uveitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis who are treated with biologics show the greatest reduction in DLQI score, compared with other treatments. Australian dermatologists are prescribing biologics when patients qualify for them in keeping with current guidelines.

Characteristics and risk profile of psoriasis patients included in the Czech national registry BIOREP and a comparison with other registries

BACKGROUND

BIOREP is a Czech registry of psoriatic patients on biological treatment in a clinical setting. We describe the characteristics of patients with psoriasis at the time of enrollment and present comparisons with published data from other national registries.

METHODS

We analyzed the cohort of patients treated with biologics between May 2005 and May 2015. Demographic data, previous therapies, comorbidities, and severity of psoriasis were compared with data from other registries - DERMBIO, BIOBADADERM, BADBIR, and PSOBEST.

RESULTS

A total of 1412 psoriatic patients initiating biological treatment were included with a predominance of males (63.4%). The mean patient age was 50.2 years, and approximately 70.5% of patients were either overweight or obese. The mean baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index was 19.8, and the Dermatology Life Quality Index was 16.6. More than one-third of patients (41.0%) reported a history of psoriatic arthritis, and a high proportion of patients (49.5%) with cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension [35.2%], hyperlipidemia [27.7%], diabetes mellitus [11.4%], coronary heart disease [4.9%], and obesity [15.2%]) were observed. Most of the patients had been previously treated with phototherapy (85.4%), acitretin (74.0%), methotrexate (65.7%), or cyclosporine (53.1%).

CONCLUSION

BIOREP is one of the first registries of patients with psoriasis treated with biologics in Central and Eastern Europe. Our results found a similar or higher prevalence of comorbidities, long disease duration, and high impact on the quality of life among patients included in Western European registries.

A new therapeutic for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: apremilast

Psoriasis is a common, chronic, inflammatory skin disease. Being a life-long condition, a prolonged and safe control of the disease is needed. Current anti-psoriatic treatments show some limits in terms of tolerability and route of administration. Recently, a new oral small molecule, apremilast, has been approved for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Apremilast is a phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor that regulates the transduction of intracellular signals, including pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory pathways. Because of the favorable safety profile and the oral route of administration, apremilast may represent a promising therapeutic target for moderate-to-severe psoriasis. In this review, we report an updated overview about clinical trials testing apremilast in the treatment of psoriasis and seek to provide comprehensive information about this anti-psoriatic drug and a future perspective of the therapeutic algorithm for psoriasis.

Risk of serious infections, cutaneous bacterial infections, and granulomatous infections in patients with psoriasis treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor agents versus classic therapies: Prospective meta-analysis of Psonet registries

BACKGROUND

Anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy in psoriasis has been associated with an increased risk of serious infections compared with nonbiologic systemic therapies.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to quantify the risk of: (1) serious infections (leading to hospitalization, sequelae, or death); and (2) "any infection," bacterial cutaneous infections, and granulomatous infections among patients receiving anti-TNF therapy compared with nonbiologics (acitretin, methotrexate, cyclosporine).

METHODS

We used prospective meta-analysis to combine data from the Psocare registry (Italy), Biobadaderm registry (Spain), and Clalit Health Services database (Israel), including 17,739 patients and 23,357.5 person-years of follow-up.

RESULTS

For serious infections, age, gender, and Charlson morbidity index adjusted hazard ratio of exposure to anti-TNFs compared with nonbiologics was 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.80-1.19), for bacterial cutaneous infections it was 1.00 (95% confidence interval 0.62-1.61), and for granulomatous infections it was 1.23 (95% confidence interval 0.82-1.84). Using methotrexate as comparator and comparing first year of exposure with later exposure did not modify the results. For any infectious episode, risks and relative risks were heterogeneous among registries, probably because of different definitions of outcome.

LIMITATIONS

There was lack of power to describe risk of single drugs.

CONCLUSION

In current clinical practice, treatment with anti-TNF drugs was not associated with a higher risk of serious infections than treatment with nonbiologic systemic therapy.

Cancer Recurrence Following Immune-Suppressive Therapies in Patients With Immune-Mediated Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Physicians frequently encounter patients with immune-mediated diseases and a history of malignancy. There are limited data on the safety of immunosuppressive therapy for these patients. Published studies have been small with few events, precluding robust estimates of risk.

METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE, and conference proceedings for terms related to immune-mediated disease, immune-suppressive therapy, and cancer recurrence from inception to April 2015. We included 16 studies (9 of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, 8 of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, and 1 of patients with psoriasis) and stratified studies by type of immune-suppressive therapy (monoclonal antibodies to tumor necrosis factor [anti-TNF], conventional immune-modulatory agents, or no immune suppression). A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate the pooled incidence rates as well as risk differences between the various treatments.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 11,702 persons contributing 31,258 person-years (p-y) of follow-up evaluation after a prior diagnosis of cancer. Rates of cancer recurrence were similar among individuals receiving anti-TNF therapy (33.8 per 1000 p-y), immune-modulator therapy (36.2 per 1000 p-y), or no immunosuppression (37.5 per 1000 p-y), but were numerically higher among patients receiving combination immune suppression (54.5 per 1000 p-y) (P > .1 for all). Subgroup analysis of new and recurrent cancers separately, type of immune-modulator therapy, or immune-mediated disease showed similar results, with no increase in risk. We found similar pooled incidence values for new or primary cancers when immunosuppression was initiated within 6 years (33.6 per 1000 p-y for immune-modulatory agents and 43.7 per 1000 p-y for anti-TNF agents) vs more than 6 years after the index cancer (32.9 per 1000 p-y for immune-modulatory agents, P = .86; and 21.0 per 1000 p-y for anti-TNF agents, P = .43).

CONCLUSIONS

In a meta-analysis of 16 studies, we observed similar rates of cancer recurrence among individuals with prior cancer who received no immunosuppression, anti-TNF therapy, immune-modulator therapy, or combination treatments. Prospective studies are needed to ascertain optimal intervals for re-initiation of immune-suppressive therapies for individuals with specific cancers.

Development of clinical prediction models for good or bad response to classic systemic drugs, anti-TNFs, and ustekinumab in psoriasis, based on the BIOBADADERM cohort

BACKGROUND

Identifying patients likely to have very good or bad results from systemic psoriasis therapy could improve efficiency of therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To develop prognostic models for good or bad response to classic systemic drugs, anti-TNFs, and ustekinumab in psoriasis.

METHODS

Multivariable logistic regression of a prospective multicenter cohort of psoriatic patients in clinical practice (6449 person-years of follow-up). We used as possible predictors demographic characteristics, comorbidities, characteristics of the psoriasis (type, PASI, arthritis), history of past therapy at entry in the cohort, and history of response to previous cycles while in the cohort. We defined good response to a treatment cycle as either cycle end due to disease remission or a cycle longer than 2 years that does not end later due to inefficacy in the follow-up period. Bad response to a treatment cycle was defined as a cycle that is finished due to inefficacy, based on the physician judgment, after more than 3 months of treatment.

RESULTS

Patients with fewer previous therapies, lower body mass index, older at start of therapy, and with previous history of good responses to therapy are more likely to have positive results of therapy. However, the predictive characteristics of models are poor.

CONCLUSION

Predictive models of clinical response to systemic drugs in psoriasis with the studied variables do not seem to outperform drug selection by a dermatologist.

Drug safety of systemic treatments for psoriasis: results from The German Psoriasis Registry PsoBest

The German Psoriasis Registry PsoBest was conducted in 2008 in order to investigate the long-term outcomes and safety of systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Safety analysis of antipsoriatic drugs with special focus on serious adverse events (SAE) for infections, malignancies and major cardiac events (MACE) was done. Nationwide non-interventional patient treatment registry conducted in 251 active dermatology centers. Until June 2012, n = 2444 patients [40 % female; mean age 47.3 (SD 14.1) years; mean duration of disease 18.2 (SD 14.7) years] were recruited, including n = 1791 patients (3842 patient years) with conventional systemic drugs and n = 908 (3442 patient years) with biological drugs. Mean PASI (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) at inclusion was 14.7, mean DLQI (Dermatology Life Quality Index) 11.1, mean BMI (Body Mass Index) 28.2. The overall rate of SAE per 100 patient years were 1.3 (SD 0.9) per 100 patient years in conventional systemic and 1.5 (SD 1.2) in biologics (p > 0.5, no significant difference). The rates per 100 patient years for single severe adverse events were as follows (systemic/biologics): serious infections, 0.33/0.65 [CI (confidence interval) 0.13-0.54/0.35-0.98]; MACE, 0.56/0.77 (CI 0.29-0.97/0.41-1.31); malignancies (except non-melanoma skin cancer), 0.46/0.49 (CI 0.22-0.84/0.21-0.97). There were no significant differences between single drugs in any of the safety parameters. The conventional systemic and biologic drugs for psoriasis show satisfying safety under routine psoriasis care in Germany with respect to infections, MACE and malignancies.

Tofacitinib for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis

Because of the increased knowledge about the underlying cytokine network in psoriasis, selective systemic agents for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis have been developed during the past decade. The marked upregulation of JAK/STAT pathways in psoriasis and the identification of multiple key mediators in psoriasis pathogenesis that signal through JAK/STAT pathways led to investigation of JAK proteins as potential therapeutic targets for psoriasis treatment. A novel JAK-STAT inhibitor, tofacitinib, has been tested in preclinical studies for the treatment of psoriasis. Considering the satisfactory safety profile and the encouraging efficacy observed in the Phase II and Phase III trials, tofacitinib may represent an important therapeutic to be included into the psoriasis paradigm.