Proof-of-concept study exploring the effect of spesolimab in patients with moderate-to-severe hidradenitis suppurativa: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory disease with a considerable disease burden. Existing treatment options are limited and often suboptimal; a high unmet need exists for effective targeted therapies.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the effects of spesolimab treatment in patients with HS.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, proof-of-clinical-concept study was conducted at 25 centers across 12 countries from May 3, 2021, to April 21, 2022. Patients had moderate-to-severe HS for ≥1 year before enrollment. Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive a loading dose of 3600 mg intravenous spesolimab (1200 mg at Weeks 0, 1, and 2) or matching placebo, followed by maintenance with either 1200 mg subcutaneous spesolimab every 2 weeks from Week 4-10 or matching placebo. The primary endpoint was the percentage change from baseline in total abscess and inflammatory nodule (AN) count at Week 12. Secondary endpoints were the absolute change from baseline in International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Score System (IHS4), percentage change from baseline in draining tunnel (dT) count, the proportion of patients achieving a dT count of zero, absolute change from baseline in revised Hidradenitis Suppurativa Area and Severity Index (HASI-R), the proportion of patients achieving Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR50), the proportion of patients with ≥1 flare (all at Week 12), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

RESULTS

In this completed trial, randomized patients (N=52) received spesolimab (n=35) or placebo (n=17). The difference (95% confidence interval) versus placebo in least squares mean are reported. At Week 12, the percentage change in total AN count was similar between treatment arms: -4.1% (-31.7, 23.4). There was greater numerical improvement in the spesolimab arm, as measured by IHS4: -13.9 (-25.6, -2.3); percentage change from baseline in dT count: -96.6% (-154.5, -38.8); and the proportion of patients achieving a dT count of zero: 18.3% (-7.9, 37.5). Spesolimab treatment also improved HASI-R and HiSCR50 versus placebo. Spesolimab demonstrated a favorable safety profile, similar to that observed in trials in other diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory proof-of-clinical-concept study supports the development of spesolimab as a new therapeutic option in HS. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04762277.

Efficacy and safety of TNF inhibitors in the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a systematic literature review

OBJECTIVE

A systematic literature review was conducted to summarize efficacy and safety data from studies that evaluated tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

METHODS

Relevant publications were identified via online searches (cutoff: March 16, 2021). After screening search results, outcome data were extracted if the treatment arm included ≥ 30 patients. Outcomes were described narratively, with efficacy assessed by JIA-American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria and safety assessed by the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) per 100 patient-years (100PY).

RESULTS

Among 87 relevant publications included in the qualitative synthesis, 19 publications described 13 clinical trials. Across the 13 trials, the percentages of patients who achieved JIA-ACR30/50/70/90 responses at Week 12 with adalimumab ranged 71-94%, 68-90%, 55-61%, and 39-42%, respectively; with etanercept (Week 12), 73-94%, 53-78%, 36-59%, and 28%; with golimumab (Week 16), 89%, 79%, 66%, and 36%; and with infliximab (Week 14), 64%, 50%, and 22% (JIA-ACR90 not reported). SAE incidence across all time points ranged 0-13.7 SAE/100PY for adalimumab, 0-20.0 SAE/100PY for etanercept, and 10.4-24.3 SAE/100PY for golimumab (1 study). SAE incidence could not be estimated from the 2 infliximab publications.

CONCLUSION

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors are effective and well tolerated in the treatment of JIA, but additional evidence from head-to-head studies and over longer periods of time, especially in the context of the transition from pediatric to adult care, would be useful.

Unmet Educational Needs and Clinical Practice Gaps in the Management of Generalized Pustular Psoriasis: Global Perspectives from the Front Line

INTRODUCTION

Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a rare, potentially life-threatening, neutrophilic, autoinflammatory skin disease characterised by recurrent flares of generalised sterile pustules and associated systemic features. Inconsistent diagnostic criteria and a lack of approved therapies pose serious challenges to GPP management. Our objectives were to discuss the challenges encountered in the care of patients with GPP and identify healthcare provider (HCP) educational needs and clinical practice gaps in GPP management.

METHODS

On 24 July 2020, 13 dermatologists from 10 countries (Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Japan, Malaysia, the UK and the USA) attended a workshop to share experiences in managing patients with GPP. Educational needs and clinical practice gaps grouped according to healthcare system level were discussed and ranked using interactive polling.

RESULTS

Lack of experience of GPP among HCPs was identified as an important individual HCP-level clinical practice gap. Limited understanding of the presentation and pathogenesis of GPP among non-specialists means misdiagnosis is common, delaying referral and treatment. In countries where patients may present to general practitioners or emergency department HCPs, GPP is often mistaken for an infection. Among dermatologists who can accurately diagnose GPP, limited knowledge of treatments may necessitate referral to a colleague with more experience in GPP. At the organisational level, important needs identified were educating emergency department HCPs to recognise GPP as an autoinflammatory disease and improving communication, cooperation and definitions of roles within multidisciplinary teams supporting patients with GPP. At the regulatory level, robust clinical trial data, clear and consistent treatment guidelines and approved therapies were identified as high priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

The educational imperative most consistently identified across the participating countries is for HCPs to understand that GPP can be life-threatening if appropriate treatment initiation is delayed, and to recognise when to refer patients to a colleague with more experience of GPP management.