Anakinra for palmoplantar pustulosis: results from a randomized, double-blind, multicentre, two-staged, adaptive placebo-controlled trial (APRICOT)

BACKGROUND

Palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) is a rare, debilitating, chronic inflammatory skin disease that affects the hands and feet. Clinical, immunological and genetic findings suggest a pathogenic role for interleukin (IL)-1.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether anakinra (an IL-1 receptor antagonist) delivers therapeutic benefit in PPP.

METHODS

This was a randomized (1 : 1), double-blind, two-staged, adaptive, UK multicentre, placebo-controlled trial [ISCRTN13127147 (registered 1 August 2016); EudraCT number: 2015-003600-23 (registered 1 April 2016)]. Participants had a diagnosis of PPP (> 6 months) requiring systemic therapy. Treatment was 8 weeks of anakinra or placebo via daily, self-administered subcutaneous injections. Primary outcome was the Palmoplantar Pustulosis Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PPPASI) at 8 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 374 patients were screened; 64 were enrolled (31 in the anakinra arm and 33 in the placebo arm) with a mean (SD) baseline PPPASI of 17·8 (10·5) and a PPP investigator's global assessment of severe (50%) or moderate (50%). The baseline adjusted mean difference in PPPASI favoured anakinra but did not demonstrate superiority in the intention-to-treat analysis [-1·65, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4·77 to 1·47; P = 0·30]. Similarly, secondary objective measures, including fresh pustule count (2·94, 95% CI -26·44 to 32·33; favouring anakinra), total pustule count (-30·08, 95% CI -83·20 to 23·05; favouring placebo) and patient-reported outcomes, did not show superiority of anakinra. When modelling the impact of adherence, the PPPASI complier average causal effect for an individual who received ≥ 90% of the total treatment (48% in the anakinra group) was -3·80 (95% CI -10·76 to 3·16; P = 0·285). No serious adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

No evidence for the superiority of anakinra was found. IL-1 blockade is not a useful intervention for the treatment of PPP.

Randomized controlled trial of topical corticosteroid and home-based narrowband ultraviolet B for active and limited vitiligo: results of the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial

BACKGROUND

Evidence for the effectiveness of vitiligo treatments is limited.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of (i) handheld narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) and (ii) a combination of potent topical corticosteroid (TCS) and NB-UVB, compared with TCS alone, for localized vitiligo.

METHODS

A pragmatic, three-arm, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial (9-month treatment, 12-month follow-up). Adults and children, recruited from secondary care and the community, aged ≥ 5 years and with active vitiligo affecting < 10% of skin, were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to receive TCS (mometasone furoate 0·1% ointment + dummy NB-UVB), NB-UVB (NB-UVB + placebo TCS) or a combination (TCS + NB-UVB). TCS was applied once daily on alternating weeks; NB-UVB was administered on alternate days in escalating doses, adjusted for erythema. The primary outcome was treatment success at 9 months at a target patch assessed using the participant-reported Vitiligo Noticeability Scale, with multiple imputation for missing data. The trial was registered with number ISRCTN17160087 on 8 January 2015.

RESULTS

In total 517 participants were randomized to TCS (n = 173), NB-UVB (n = 169) and combination (n = 175). Primary outcome data were available for 370 (72%) participants. The proportions with target patch treatment success were 17% (TCS), 22% (NB-UVB) and 27% (combination). Combination treatment was superior to TCS: adjusted between-group difference 10·9% (95% confidence interval 1·0%-20·9%; P = 0·032; number needed to treat = 10). NB-UVB alone was not superior to TCS: adjusted between-group difference 5·2% (95% CI - 4·4% to 14·9%; P = 0·29; number needed to treat = 19). Participants using interventions with ≥ 75% expected adherence were more likely to achieve treatment success, but the effects were lost once treatment stopped. Localized grade 3 or 4 erythema was reported in 62 (12%) participants (including three with dummy light). Skin thinning was reported in 13 (2·5%) participants (including one with placebo ointment).

CONCLUSIONS

Combination treatment with home-based handheld NB-UVB plus TCS is likely to be superior to TCS alone for treatment of localized vitiligo. Combination treatment was relatively safe and well tolerated but was successful in only around one-quarter of participants.

An economic evaluation of the randomized controlled trial of topical corticosteroid and home-based narrowband ultraviolet B for active and limited vitiligo (the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial)

BACKGROUND

Economic evidence for vitiligo treatments is absent.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the cost-effectiveness of (i) handheld narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) and (ii) a combination of topical corticosteroid (TCS) and NB-UVB compared with TCS alone for localized vitiligo.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a pragmatic, three-arm, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial with 9 months' treatment. In total 517 adults and children (aged ≥ 5 years) with active vitiligo affecting < 10% of skin were recruited from secondary care and the community and were randomized 1: 1: 1 to receive TCS, NB-UVB or both. Cost per successful treatment (measured on the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale) was estimated. Secondary cost-utility analyses measured quality-adjusted life-years using the EuroQol 5 Dimensions 5 Levels for those aged ≥ 11 years and the Child Health Utility 9D for those aged 5 to < 18 years. The trial was registered with number ISRCTN17160087 on 8 January 2015.

RESULTS

The mean ± SD cost per participant was £775 ± 83·7 for NB-UVB, £813 ± 111.4 for combination treatment and £600 ± 96·2 for TCS. In analyses adjusted for age and target patch location, the incremental difference in cost for combination treatment compared with TCS was £211 (95% confidence interval 188-235), corresponding to a risk difference of 10·9% (number needed to treat = 9). The incremental cost was £1932 per successful treatment. The incremental difference in cost for NB-UVB compared with TCS was £173 (95% confidence interval 151-196), with a risk difference of 5·2% (number needed to treat = 19). The incremental cost was £3336 per successful treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination treatment, compared with TCS alone, has a lower incremental cost per additional successful treatment than NB-UVB only. Combination treatment would be considered cost-effective if decision makers are willing to pay £1932 per additional treatment success.

8th Georg Rajka International Symposium on Atopic Dermatitis: meeting report

The 8th Georg Rajka International Symposium on Atopic Dermatitis was held in Nottingham in May 2014. The 3-day meeting featured a number of lectures by experts in the field of atopic dermatitis from around the world, as well as several original research presentations and a question and answer session. This paper aims to summarize the main oral presentations from the meeting, but is not meant to be a substitute for reading the conference proceedings and related references.