Patient-reported symptoms and signs of moderate-to-severe psoriasis treated with guselkumab or adalimumab: results from the randomized VOYAGE 1 trial

Speed of clinical improvement in the real-world setting from patient-reported Psoriasis Symptoms and Signs Diary: Secondary outcomes from the Psoriasis Study of Health Outcomes through 12 weeks

BACKGROUND

Rapid skin improvement is a key treatment goal of patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis (PsO).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the speed of clinical improvement of approved biologics on the symptoms and signs of psoriasis assessed by patients using the validated Psoriasis Symptoms and Signs Diary (PSSD) through 12 weeks.

METHODS

Psoriasis Study of Health Outcomes (PSoHO) is an international, prospective, non-interventional study that compares the effectiveness of anti-interleukin (IL)-17A biologics versus other biologics, together with pairwise comparisons of ixekizumab versus five individual biologics in patients with PsO. Using the PSSD 7-day recall period, patients assessed the symptoms (itch, skin tightness, burning, stinging and pain) and signs (dryness, cracking, scaling, shedding/flaking, redness and bleeding) of their psoriasis (0-10). Symptom and sign summary scores (0-100) are derived from the average of individual scores. Percentage change in summary scores and proportion of patients with clinically meaningful improvements (CMI) in PSSD summary and individual scores are evaluated weekly. Longitudinal PSSD data are reported as observed with treatment comparisons analysed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) and generalized linear mixed models (GLMM).

RESULTS

Across cohorts and treatments, eligible patients (n = 1654) had comparable baseline PSSD scores. From Week 1, the anti-IL-17A cohort achieved significantly larger score improvements in PSSD summary scores and a higher proportion of patients showed CMIs compared to the other biologics cohort through 12 weeks. Lower PSSD scores were associated with a greater proportion of patients reporting their psoriasis as no longer impacting their quality-of-life (DLQI 0,1) and a high level of clinical response (PASI100). Results also indicate a relationship between an early CMI in PSSD score at Week 2 and PASI100 score at Week 12.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with anti-IL-17A biologics, particularly ixekizumab, resulted in rapid and sustained patient-reported improvements in psoriasis symptoms and signs compared with other biologics in a real-world setting.

Super-Responders in Moderate–Severe Psoriasis under Guselkumab Treatment: Myths, Realities and Future Perspectives

A fast skin clearance is the main goal to achieve in psoriasis treatment. Patients that present a fast and exceptional improvement with treatment are called super-responders (SR). There is no consensus on the definition of SR with respect to psoriasis. Included herein is a retrospective analysis of a multicenter, observational study of real clinical practices including patients with moderate-to-severe plaque PSO undergoing treatment with Guselkumab (GUS). This cross-sectional analysis includes information on patients between February 2019 to February 2022. A SR is a patient that achieved a PASI = 0 at weeks 12 and 24. Analyses have been performed “as observed” using GraphPad Prism version 8.3.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA, At baseline, the PASI is significantly correlated with VAS_pruritus, BSA, and DLQI, while DLQI is significantly correlated with VAS_pruritus. Significant correlations increase in number and magnitude over the follow-up time. In relation to the univariate logistic models carried out, only three variables showed a significant association with the super-responder variable: depression, VAS_pruritus, and DLQI.SR patients, who show a faster evolution in PASI and BSA improvement than non-SRs. Based on the results obtained, it would be possible to also include DLQI and VAS_pruritus in the broader concept of the SR.

Super-Response to Guselkumab Treatment in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: Age, Body Weight, Baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, and Baseline Investigator's Global Assessment Scores Predict Complete Skin Clearance

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory skin disease that often leads to a diminished quality of life. Goals of treating patients with psoriasis have shifted with more focus on achieving near or complete clearance of the skin. Guselkumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-23, is effective in treating moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the baseline characteristics of patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis achieving super-response (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index [PASI] 100 response at Weeks 20 and 28) after commencing guselkumab treatment.

METHODS

Pooled data from VOYAGE-1 and VOYAGE-2 studies identified super-response; baseline demographic, disease, and pharmacokinetic characteristics were compared with non-super-response. A stepwise logistic regression analysis identified which factors were potentially predictive of super-response status, with significance level of 0.1.

RESULTS

A subset of patients randomized to guselkumab comprised this post hoc analysis (n=664); 271 patients achieved super-response vs 393 with non-super-response. Patient age at study entry and baseline body weight (≤90 kg vs >90 kg), PASI, and Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score were significant predictors of super-response status, with odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) of 0.98 (0.967-0.993; p=0.003), 1.42 (1.026-1.977; p=0.034), 0.97 (0.955-0.993; p=0.007), and 0.66 (0.433-0.997; p=0.048), respectively. More patients with super-response achieved an early response: Week 2 PASI 75 (5.5% vs 1.8%) and Week 8 PASI 100 (22.5% vs 3.3%) vs non-super-response. Median serum guselkumab concentrations through Week 28 were slightly greater in patients with super-response vs non-super-response.

CONCLUSION

Guselkumab was more likely to achieve early clinical responses (complete skin clearance) in younger patients, less obese patients, and patients with less severe psoriasis.

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.

IL-23 blockade with guselkumab potentially modifies psoriasis pathogenesis: rationale and study protocol of a phase 3b, randomised, double-blind, multicentre study in participants with moderate-to-severe plaque-type psoriasis (GUIDE)

BACKGROUND

Guselkumab is an interleukin (IL)-23 pathway blocker with proven efficacy in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Early intervention with guselkumab may result in changes to the clinical disease course versus later intervention.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Here we present the rationale and design of a phase 3b, randomised, double-blind, multicentre study (GUIDE), comparing treatment effects of guselkumab in patients with short (≤2 years) or longer (>2 years) duration of plaque-type psoriasis, measured from first appearance of psoriatic plaques. Participants achieving skin clearance (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI)=0) by week 20 and maintaining complete clearance at week 28 visit ('super-responders' (SRe)) will be randomised to continue approved maintenance dosing every 8 weeks (q8w) versus an investigational maintenance dosing interval of 16 weeks (q16w) until week 68. Primary endpoint: proportion of participants in the q8w vs q16w arms with absolute PASI <3 at week 68. Participants with PASI <3 at week 68 will be withdrawn from guselkumab treatment for up to 48 weeks. Participants not achieving SRe criteria (non-SRe) will remain in the study with q8w guselkumab dosing through week 68. Additional to serum samples obtained from all patients, skin biopsies and whole-blood samples will be taken from SRe and non-SRe participants at various time points in optional substudies. Analyses include: genetics; immunophenotyping (fluorescence-activated cell sorting); gene and protein expression profiling; immunohistology. By merging clinical endpoints with mechanistic findings, this study aims to elucidate how IL-23 blockade with guselkumab can modify the disease course by altering molecular and cellular drivers that cause relapse after treatment withdrawal, particularly among SRe.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Approval obtained from ethics committee Medical Council Hamburg, Germany (PVN5925). GUIDE is compliant with the Declaration of Helsinki.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03818035). All primary endpoint results (prespecified analyses) will be submitted to peer-reviewed, international journals within 18 months after primary completion date.

Real-world effectiveness of guselkumab in patients with psoriasis: Health-related quality of life and efficacy data from the noninterventional, prospective, German multicenter PERSIST trial

Psoriasis is a common, chronic inflammatory skin disorder negatively impacting health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Guselkumab, targeting interleukin-23 (IL-23), is an approved biologic therapy for psoriasis. PERSIST is an ongoing prospective, noninterventional, long-term, German multicenter study evaluating the effect of guselkumab on HRQoL, and its efficacy and safety in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis in a real-world setting. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients with a Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score ≤ 1 at week 28. Of 303 patients enrolled and treated with guselkumab, mean age and disease duration were 49.7 and 21.0 years, respectively, and 51.2% (n = 155) of patients had received ≥1 prior biologic therapy. Mean baseline DLQI score was 13.7, and mean symptom and sign scores in the Psoriasis Symptoms and Signs Diary (PSSD) were 51.9 and 60.8, respectively. Baseline Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) and body surface area (%) scores were 16.4 and 27.5. Following 28 weeks of guselkumab treatment, the mean DLQI score decreased to 2.8, and 56.8% of patients (n = 150) achieved DLQI ≤ 1. Mean PSSD symptom and sign scores also improved, decreasing to 12.5 and 15.9, respectively. At week 28, PASI 90 response was 55.3%; significant improvement was observed in patients with psoriasis in difficult-to-treat areas. Overall, analyses demonstrated that guselkumab was effective in the real-world setting, as measured by HRQoL and skin improvements, even in patients with a high burden of disease and those who have received multiple biologic therapies. No new safety signals were observed.

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.

Emerging Therapeutic Options for Chronic Pruritus

Chronic pruritus, defined as an unpleasant sensation resulting in a need to scratch that lasts more than 6 weeks, is a prevalent and bothersome symptom associated with both cutaneous and systemic conditions. Due to complex pathogenesis and profuse contributing factors, chronic pruritus therapy remains challenging. Regardless of the well-established antipruritic properties of classic pharmacotherapy (topical therapy, phototherapy and systemic therapy), these methods often provide insufficient relief for affected individuals. Owing to the growing interest in the field of pruritic research, further experimental and clinical data have emerged, continuously supporting the possibility of instigating novel therapeutic measures. This review covers the most relevant current modalities remaining under investigation that possess promising perspectives of approval in the near future, especially opioidergic drugs (mu-opioid antagonists and kappa-opioid agonists), neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, biologic drugs, Janus kinase inhibitors, ileal bile acid transporter inhibitors, aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonists and histamine H₄ receptor antagonists.

Development and validation of immunoassays for monitoring of guselkumab and anti-guselkumab antibodies in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis

Therapeutic drug monitoring, which is the measurement of drug concentrations in the blood, is a useful tool to guide clinical decision-making and treatment adjustments, on the condition that drug concentrations are correlated with treatment response. For guselkumab, an anti-IL-23 monoclonal antibody for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis, such a concentration-response relationship could not yet be determined as no commercial assays for the quantification of this drug or antibodies against this drug are available. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop and validate immunoassays for the quantification of guselkumab and anti-guselkumab antibodies according to the guidelines of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). A diverse panel of 20 highly specific anti-guselkumab monoclonal antibodies (MA-GUS) was generated of which eight revealed a neutralizing capacity of ≥65 %. At least seven different antibody clusters were identified based on their epitope binning profile. Using MA-GUS9F6 as the capture antibody and MA-GUS12G12 as the detection antibody, an ELISA was developed with a dose-response curve ranging from 0.08 to 5 ng/mL. The assay was specific, selective and could accurately and precisely quantify guselkumab concentrations in spiked healthy control serum and serum from guselkumab-treated psoriasis patients with a cut-off for quantification of 0.014 μg/mL. The presence of IL-23 in physiological concentrations or of non-neutralizing antibodies did not impact the quantification of guselkumab, while the presence of neutralizing antibodies did. Using MA-GUS12A9 as a calibrator, two anti-guselkumab antibody assays were developed to detect anti-guselkumab antibodies, which differ in the threshold for detection and quantification and the tolerance to the presence of guselkumab. Together, these validated immunoassays are essential to establish a concentration-response relationship and will allow the future implementation of therapeutic drug monitoring in moderate-to-severe psoriasis patients receiving guselkumab 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. 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.

Pruritus in Autoimmune and Inflammatory Dermatoses

Pruritus in autoimmune and inflammatory dermatoses is a common symptom that can be severe and affect the quality of life of patients. In some diseases, pruritus is related to disorders activity and severity or may occur independent of the disease. Despite the high prevalence, the symptom is still underrated and there are only a few trials investigating the efficacy of drugs for disease-specific pruritus. In this review, the characteristics and possible pathomechanisms of pruritus in various dermatoses like autoimmune bullous diseases, connective tissue diseases as well as autoimmune-associated dermatoses (atopic dermatitis, psoriasis vulgaris) is illustrated. Additionally, studies analyzing the antipruritic treatment are discussed. Summarizing, the prevalence of pruritus in these diseases demonstrates the importance for symptom recognition and the need for an efficient antipruritic therapy.

Correlation of Physician-Assessed Psoriasis Area and Severity Index Scores With Patient-Reported Psoriasis Symptoms and Signs Diary Scores Among Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: Results From VOYAGE 1 and VOYAGE 2 Studies

Background:

Patient-reported and clinician-determined outcomes do not always correlate in clinical trials for psoriasis, even among those with clear skin.

Objective:

To compare clinical responses with patient-reported outcomes among patients with psoriasis enrolled in 2 phase 3, double-blind, controlled trials of guselkumab (VOYAGE 1 and VOYAGE 2).

Methods:

Overall, 1432 patients randomized to guselkumab, placebo, or adalimumab at baseline were included in the pooled patient population; measures were assessed at baseline and week 16. End points included proportions of patients achieving 100% improvement in their Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 100) score and summary scores = 0 on the Psoriasis Symptoms and Signs Diary (PSSD). Proportions of patients with PSSD symptom/sign summary scores = 0 and mean PSSD summary scores were summarized by PASI 100 status. Association between PASI and PSSD scores were evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficients.

Results:

Among week-16 PASI 100 responders, 46.8% and 34.1% reported PSSD symptom and sign summary scores = 0, respectively, and 30.9% and 49.0% reported minimal symptoms/signs (scores = 1 to <10), respectively; mean scores (scale 0-100) were 6.4 for symptoms and 5.8 for signs. Among PASI 100 nonresponders, only 11.1% (symptoms) and 7.5% (signs) reported PSSD summary scores = 0; mean scores were 25.7 and 26.7, respectively. Correlation coefficients between overall PASI response and PSSD scores were 0.63 (symptoms) and 0.68 (signs; both P < .0001).

Conclusion:

While PASI and PSSD scores were highly correlated and most PASI 100 responders reported no/minimal symptoms or signs at week 16, substantial discrepancies were found between complete clearance from the clinician’s view versus symptom/sign-free status from patients’ perspectives.

Biologics and Small Molecule Agents in Allergic and Immunologic Skin Diseases

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Biologics and small molecules are key therapeutic options in the treatment of chronic immunologic and allergic skin conditions. By directly targeting innate and inflammatory responses within the skin, including pro-inflammatory cytokines and cellular signaling pathways, these new agents have the potential to counteract the inflammatory cascade responsible for various conditions, including psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. Over the past decade, groundbreaking research identifying key cytokines and receptors involved in the pathogenesis of these diseases has allowed for the development of highly efficacious biologics and small molecules that are associated with unprecedented rates of skin clearance and favorable adverse event profiles.

RECENT FINDINGS

This narrative review evaluates new and upcoming biologic and small molecule agents for the treatment of two allergic/immunologic skin diseases-atopic dermatitis and psoriasis. Numerous small molecules and biologics targeting TNF-α, IL-12/23, IL-17 and IL-17R, and IL-23 are commercially available for the treatment of psoriasis, and newer agents are in various stages of development. Currently, dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that blocks IL-4R∝, is the only approved biologic for atopic dermatitis. Antibodies targeting IL-13 and IL-31 and small molecules that inhibit Janus kinase and pruritus-mediating receptors are currently being studied in clinical trials. Further investigations into the pathophysiology of atopic dermatitis will likely yield additional therapeutic options in the future. This article reviews recent literature on small molecules and biologics for the treatment of atopic dermatitis and psoriasis.

[Treatment of chronic pruritus-what is new?]

Chronic pruritus is one of the most common and stressful symptoms in medicine. Therapy remains a great challenge because of the lack of approved therapies. In the recent past a greater understanding of the pathogenesis has enabled the results to be translated into new forms of therapy. The various therapies target a wide range of points in the pruritic cascade-from blockade of intracellular and intercellular signaling pathways in the skin to the modulation of neurotransmission. This article provides a summary of current therapeutic options based on the current S2K guideline and gives an overview about recent developments in antipruritic treatments.