Drug survival and safety of biosimilars and originator adalimumab in the treatment of psoriasis: a multinational cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease. Adalimumab is an effective but previously expensive biological treatment for psoriasis. The introduction of biosimilars following the patent expiry of the originator adalimumab Humira has reduced the unit cost of treatment. However, the long-term effectiveness and safety of adalimumab biosimilars for treating psoriasis in real-world settings are uncertain and may be a barrier to widespread usage.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study aims to compare the drug survival and safety of adalimumab biosimilars to adalimumab originator for the treatment of psoriasis. We will use both routinely collected healthcare databases and dedicated pharmacovigilance registries from the PsoNet initiative, including data from the UK, France and Spain. We will conduct a cohort study using a prevalent new user design. We will match patients on previous adalimumab exposure time to create two equal-sized cohorts of biosimilar and originator users. The coprimary outcomes are drug survival, defined by the time from cohort entry to discontinuation of the drug of interest; and risk of serious adverse events, defined by adverse events leading to hospitalisation or death. Cox proportional hazards models will be fitted to calculate HRs as the effect estimate for the outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The participating registries agree with the Declaration of Helsinki and received approval from local ethics committees. The results of the study will be published in scientific journals and presented at international dermatology conferences by the end of 2023.

LB0001 BIMEKIZUMAB IN BDMARD-NAIVE PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: 24-WEEK EFFICACY & SAFETY FROM BE OPTIMAL, A PHASE 3, MULTICENTRE, RANDOMISED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, ACTIVE REFERENCE STUDY

Background

Bimekizumab (BKZ) is a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17F in addition to IL-17A.

Objectives

Assess BKZ efficacy and safety vs PBO in bDMARD-naïve pts with active PsA to Wk 24 of BE OPTIMAL.

Methods

BE OPTIMAL (NCT03895203) comprises 16 wks double-blind PBO-controlled and 36 wks treatment-blind. Pts were ≥18 yrs, bDMARD-naïve, with adult-onset, active PsA, ≥3 tender and ≥3 swollen joints. Pts randomised 3:2:1, subcutaneous BKZ 160 mg Q4W:PBO:adalimumab (ADA; reference arm) 40 mg Q2W. From Wk 16, PBO pts received BKZ 160 mg Q4W. Primary endpoint: ACR50 at Wk 16.

Results

821/852 (96.4%) pts completed Wk 16 and 806 (94.6%) Wk 24. Mean age 48.7 yrs, BMI 29.2 kg/m2; since diagnosis: 5.9 yrs; 46.8% male. BL characteristics comparable across arms. Primary endpoint met (Wk 16 ACR50: 43.9% BKZ vs 10.0% PBO, p<0.001; ADA: 45.7%; Figure 1). All ranked secondary endpoints met at Wk 16 (Table 1). As early as Wk 2, ACR20 was higher in BKZ vs PBO (27.1% vs 7.8%, nominal p<0.001; ADA: 33.6%). Outcomes continued to improve at Wk 24 (Table 1). To Wk 16, pts with ≥1 TEAE, BKZ: 59.9%; PBO: 49.5%; ADA: 59.3%. SAE rate low (1.6%; 1.1%; 1.4%). Most frequent (≥5%) AEs for all arms: nasopharyngitis (9.3%; 4.6%; 5.0%), URTI (4.9%; 6.4%; 2.1%), increased ALT (0.7%; 0.7%; 5.0%). Candida infections: 2.6%, 0.7%, 0%; no systemic candidiasis. 2 malignancies (BKZ: basal cell carcinoma; PBO: breast cancer stage 1); no MACE, uveitis, IBD or deaths.

Table 1.

Wk 16 and 24 efficacy

BLWk 16Wk 24PBO N=281BKZ 160 mg Q4W N=431ADA 40 mg Q2W N=140†PBO N=281BKZ 160 mg Q4W N=431ADA 40 mg Q2W N=140†p value (BKZ vs PBO)PBO→ BKZ 160 mg Q4WaN=281BKZ 160 mg Q4W N=431ADA 40 mg Q2W N=140†Ranked endpointsbACR50 [NRI],–––28189 (43.9)64<0.00110119666n (%)-10-45.7(35.9)(45.5)-47.1HAQ-DI CfB [MI],0.890.820.86−0.09 (0.03)−0.26 (0.02)−0.33<0.001c−0.28−0.30−0.34mean (SE)-0.04-0.03-0.05(0.04)(0.03)(0.02)(0.05)PASI90d [NRI],–––4133 (61.3)f28<0.00186 (61.4)e158 (72.8)f32n (%)(2.9)e(41.2)g(47.1)gSF-36 PCS CfB [MI],36.938.137.62.36.36.8<0.001c6.27.37.3mean (SE)-0.6-0.5-0.7-0.5-0.4-0.8-0.5-0.4-0.8MDA [NRI],51413719463<0.00110620967n (%)-1.8-3.2-0.7-13.2(45.0)-45(37.7)(48.5)-47.9vdHmTSS CfB (subgroup)h [MI], mean (SE)15.67 (1.80)i15.56 (1.69)j17.39 (2.89)k0.36 (0.10)i−0.01 (0.04)j−0.06 (0.08)k<0.001c–––vdHmTSS CfB [MI],mean (SE)13.31 (1.56)l13.44 (1.47)m14.55 (2.44)n0.31 (0.09)l0(0.04)m−0.03 (0.07)n0.001c–––Other endpointsACR20 [NRI],–––6726896<0.001o17528299n (%)-23.8(62.2)-68.6(62.3)(65.4)-70.7ACR70 [NRI],–––1210539<0.001o5312642n (%)-4.3(24.4)-27.9-18.9(29.2)-30PASI100d [NRI],–––3103f14<0.001o6012226n (%)(2.1)e(47.5)(20.6)g(42.9)e (56.2)f(38.2)gTJC CfB [MI],17.116.817.5−3.2−10.0−10.9<0.001o−9.4−11.5−11.8mean (SE)-0.7-0.6-1.1(0.7) (0.5)-1(0.7)(0.5)-0.9SJC CfB [MI],9.599.6−3.0 (0.5)−6.6 (0.3)−7.5<0.001o−6.8 (0.4)−7.2 (0.3)−7.9mean (SE)-0.4-0.3-0.6-0.6-0.6

Randomised set. Interim results.

†Reference arm; study not powered for statistical comparisons of ADA to BKZ or PBO.

aPBO→BKZ pts received PBO to Wk 16, switched to BKZ 160 mg Q4W through Wk 24 (8 wks BKZ);

bResolution of enthesitis/dactylitis in pts with LEI>0/LDI>0 at BL pooled with BE COMPLETE (Wk 16 LEI=0 BKZ: 124/249 [49.8%], PBO: 37/106 [34.9%], p=0.008; LDI=0 BKZ: 68/90 [75.6%], PBO: 24/47 [51.1%], p=0.002);

cContinuous outcome p values calculated with RBMI data;

dPts with PSO and ≥3% BSA at BL;

en=140;

fn=217;

gn=68;

hPts with hs-CRP ≥6 mg/L and/or bone erosion at BL;

in=221;

jn=357;

kn=108;

ln=261;

mn=416;

nn=131;

oNominal, not powered for multiplicity.

Conclusion

Dual inhibition of IL-17A and IL-17F with BKZ in bDMARD-naïve pts with active PsA resulted in rapid, clinically relevant improvements in musculoskeletal and skin outcomes vs PBO. No new safety signals observed.1,2

References

[1]Ritchlin CT Lancet 2020;395(10222):427–40; 2. Coates LC Ann Rheum Dis 2021;80:779–80(POS1022).

Disclosure of Interests

Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen, UCB Pharma, Laura Coates Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Celgene, Domain, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Robert B.M. Landewé Consultant of: Abbott, Ablynx, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Centocor, GSK, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, UCB Pharma, and Wyeth, Speakers bureau: Abbott, Amgen, BMS, Centocor, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, UCB Pharma, and Wyeth, Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, Centocor, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, UCB Pharma, and Wyeth, Philip J Mease Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma and UCB Pharma, Christopher T. Ritchlin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen and UCB Pharma, Yoshiya Tanaka Consultant of: AbbVie, Ayumi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GSK, Sanofi, and Taisho, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and YL Biologics, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Asahi-Kasei, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Corrona, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Kowa, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and Takeda, Akihiko Asahina Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Maruho, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, Taiho Pharma, Torii Pharmaceutical, and UCB Pharma, Laure Gossec Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz and UCB Pharma, Alice B Gottlieb Consultant of: Amgen, AnaptsysBio, Avotres Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma, and XBiotech, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Novartis, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma, and XBiotech: all funds go to Mount Sinai Medical School, Richard B. Warren Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arena, Astellas, Avillion, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB Pharma, Paid instructor for: Astellas, DiCE, GSK, and Union, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Almirall, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, and UCB Pharma, Barbara Ink Shareholder of: GSK, UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Deepak Assudani Shareholder of: UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Jason Coarse Shareholder of: UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Rajan Bajracharya Shareholder of: UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Paid instructor for: Amgen, Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma

AB0890 Deucravacitinib, an Oral, Selective Tyrosine Kinase 2 Inhibitor, in Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis: 52-Week Efficacy Results From the Phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2 Trials

Background

Tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) is an intracellular kinase that mediates signaling of key cytokines (eg, interleukin [IL]-23 and Type I interferons) involved in the pathogenesis of immune-mediated diseases including plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Deucravacitinib is a novel, oral, selective, allosteric inhibitor of TYK2 that achieves high selectivity by uniquely binding to the regulatory domain of the enzyme, rather than to the more conserved active domain. Deucravacitinib showed superior efficacy compared with placebo at 16 weeks in a Phase 2 trial in patients with PsA (NCT03881059). Results from the 16-week, placebo-controlled periods of two 52-week, Phase 3 trials in psoriasis (POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2) previously showed that deucravacitinib was significantly more efficacious than placebo and apremilast based on the coprimary endpoints of ≥75% reduction from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) and a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) at Week 16.

Objectives

To evaluate the efficacy of deucravacitinib over 52 weeks in the POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2 trials.

Methods

POETYK PSO-1 (NCT03624127) and PSO-2 (NCT03611751) were double-blinded trials that randomised patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (body surface area involvement ≥10%, PASI ≥12, sPGA score ≥3) 2:1:1 to deucravacitinib 6 mg once daily, placebo, or apremilast 30 mg twice daily. Patients receiving placebo were switched to deucravacitinib at Week 16 in both trials. Patients randomised to deucravacitinib in PSO-1 received deucravacitinib continuously through Week 52. PSO-2 included a randomised withdrawal phase in which patients originally randomised to deucravacitinib who had achieved PASI 75 response at Week 24 were rerandomised 1:1 to placebo or deucravacitinib, whereas those who did not achieve PASI 75 response at Week 24 continued receiving deucravacitinib. The proportions of patients achieving PASI 75 and sPGA 0/1 responses were evaluated up to Week 52. Secondary efficacy endpoints evaluated over this period included PASI 90, PASI 100, percentage change from baseline in PASI, sPGA 0 (clear), change from baseline in the Psoriasis Symptoms and Signs Diary (PSSD) symptom score, and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) 0/1 (no impact on patient’s life).

Results

A total of 666 and 1020 patients were randomised in PSO-1 and PSO-2, respectively. Demographic and baseline disease characteristics were balanced across treatment groups; mean age was 46.6 years, mean disease duration was 18.6 years, 18.4% of patients had PsA, and 34.8% had previously used biologic therapy. PASI 75, PASI 90, and PASI 100 responses were maintained from Week 16 to Week 52 in PSO-1 (Figure 1). Additionally, sPGA responses were maintained during this period (sPGA 0/1: 53.6% to 52.7%; sPGA 0: 17.5% to 23.5%, respectively). Patients who switched from placebo to deucravacitinib at Week 16 demonstrated PASI 75 and sPGA 0/1 responses at Week 52 (68.3% and 53.8%, respectively) comparable to those observed in patients who received continuous deucravacitinib treatment from Day 1 (65.1% and 52.7%, respectively). In PSO-2, among deucravacitinib-treated patients who achieved PASI 75 at Week 24 and were rerandomised to continue treatment, responses were maintained at Week 52 in the majority of patients (PASI 75, 80.4% [119/148]; sPGA 0/1, 70.3% [83/118]). Results for percentage change from baseline in PASI, change from baseline in the PSSD symptom score, and DLQI 0/1 were consistent with those reported for PASI and sPGA responses.

Conclusion

Results from the Phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 and PSO-2 trials demonstrated that deucravacitinib was efficacious through 52 weeks in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Clinical responses were maintained in patients who received continuous deucravacitinib treatment and were improved in patients who switched from placebo at Week 16 to deucravacitinib treatment.

Acknowledgements

This study was sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb. Professional medical writing assistance was provided by Julianne Hatfield, PhD at Peloton Advantage, LLC, an OPEN Health company, Parsippany, NJ, USA, and funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.

Disclosure of Interests

Richard B. Warren Consultant of: Consulting fees: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, DiCE, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, Biogen, and UNION., Grant/research support from: Research grants: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB;, April Armstrong Grant/research support from: Grants and personal fees: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, and Novartis; Personal fees: Boehringer Ingelheim/Parexel, Celgene, Dermavant, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Menlo Therapeutics, Merck, Modernizing Medicine, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Science 37, Sun Pharma, and Valeant; Grants: Dermira, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, and UCB, outside the submitted work., Melinda Gooderham Consultant of: Advisory board, principal investigator, and lecture fees: Arcutis, Galderma, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, and Regeneron; Principal investigator and consulting fees: Akros Pharma and Kyowa Kirin; Advisory board, principal investigator, lecture fees, and consulting fees: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and Valeant; Principal investigator: Aslan, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Dermira, GlaxoSmithKline, MedImmune, Merck, Roche Laboratories, and UCB., Bruce Strober Consultant of: Consultant (honoraria): AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Arena, Aristea, Asana, Boehringer Ingelheim, Immunic Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Connect Biopharma, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Equillium, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Maruho, Meiji Seika Pharma, Mindera, Novartis, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Ortho Dermatologics, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, UCB, Ventyxbio, and vTv Therapeutics; Speaker: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Sanofi Genzyme; Co-Scientific Director (consulting fee): CorEvitas’ Psoriasis Registry; Investigator: AbbVie, Cara, CorEvitas’ Psoriasis Registry, Dermavant, Dermira, and Novartis., Diamant Thaçi Speakers bureau: Advisory board, principal investigator, and lecture fees: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, DS Pharma, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche-Posay, Samsung, Sandoz-Hexal, Sanofi, and UCB., Shinichi Imafuku Grant/research support from: Grants and personal fees: AbbVie, Eisai, Kyowa Kirin, Taiho, Maruho, Tanabe Mitsubishi, Leo Pharma, Janssen, Sun Pharma, Torii, and Yakuhin; Personal fees: Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB., Howard Sofen Consultant of: Clinical Investigator: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, and Sun Pharma., Lynda Spelman Consultant of: Consultant, paid investigator, and/or speaker: AbbVie, Amgen, Anacor, Ascend, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Blaze Bioscience, Boehringer Ingelheim, Botanix, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Hexima, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Mayne, Medimmune, Merck, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer, Phosphagenics, Photon MD, Regeneron, Roche, Samumed, Sanofi Genzyme, SHR, Sun Pharma, Trius, UCB, and Zai Lab., Neil J Korman Speakers bureau: Advisory board, consulting fees: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Principia, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, and UCB; Speaker: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme., Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Principia, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Grant support/principal investigator: AbbVie, Amgen, Argenx, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chemocentryx, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Leo Pharma, Menlo, Principia, Prothena, Rhizen, Syntimmune, Trevi, and Xbiotech., Min Zheng Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly China, Leo Pharma China, Novartis China, Pfizer, Sanofi China, and Xian-Janssen., Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly China, Leo Pharma China, Novartis China, Pfizer, Sanofi China, and Xian-Janssen., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly China, Leo Pharma China, Novartis China, Pfizer, Sanofi China, and Xian-Janssen., Elizabeth Colston Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, John Throup Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Sudeep Kundu Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Renata Kisa Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Subhashis Banerjee Shareholder of: Employees and shareholders: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Employees and shareholders: Bristol Myers Squibb, Andrew Blauvelt Consultant of: Scientific advisor and/or clinical study investigator: AbbVie, Abcentra, Aligos, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Arena, Aslan, Athenex, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, EcoR1, Eli Lilly, Evommune, Forte, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, Landos, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Rapt, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, UCB, and Vibliome. 

OP0255 BIMEKIZUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS AND AN INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO TUMOUR NECROSIS FACTOR INHIBITORS: 16-WEEK EFFICACY & SAFETY FROM BE COMPLETE, A PHASE 3, MULTICENTRE, RANDOMISED PLACEBO-CONTROLLED STUDY

Background

Bimekizumab (BKZ) is a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17F in addition to IL-17A. BKZ has shown sustained efficacy and tolerability up to 152 wks in a phase 2b study in patients (pts) with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).1,2

Objectives

To assess efficacy and safety of BKZ vs placebo (PBO) in pts with active PsA and prior inadequate tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) response in the 16-wk pivotal phase 3 study, BE COMPLETE.

Methods

BE COMPLETE (NCT03896581) comprises a 16-wk double-blind, PBO-controlled period. Pts were aged ≥18 yrs, had a diagnosis of adult-onset, active PsA with ≥3 tender joints and ≥3 swollen joints, and inadequate response or intolerance to treatment with 1 or 2 TNFi. Pts were randomised 2:1 to BKZ 160 mg Q4W or PBO. From Wk 16, pts were eligible to enter an open-label extension, receiving BKZ 160 mg Q4W. The primary endpoint was a ≥50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at Wk 16. Primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were assessed at Wk 16.

Results

Of 400 randomised pts (BKZ: 267; PBO: 133), 388 (97.0%) completed Wk 16 (BKZ: 263 [98.5%]; PBO: 125 [94.0%]). Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups: mean age 50.5 yrs, weight 86.0 kg, BMI 29.8 kg/m2, time since diagnosis 9.5 yrs; 47.5% pts were male.

At Wk 16, the primary endpoint (ACR50: 43.4% BKZ vs 6.8% PBO; p<0.001; Figure 1) and all ranked secondary endpoints (HAQ-DI CfB, PASI90, SF-36 PCS CfB and MDA response) were met (all p<0.001; Table 1). The ACR50 response was rapid with separation from PBO observed from Wk 4 (nominal p<0.001). Additional outcomes, including ACR20/70, TJC and SJC CfB, and PASI75/100, demonstrated numerical improvement with BKZ compared to PBO at Wk 16 (all nominal p<0.001; Table 1).

Table 1.

Disease characteristics at baseline and efficacy at Wk 16

PBO N=133BKZ 160 mg Q4W N=267p valueBaseline characteristicsTJCmean (SD)19.3 (14.2)18.4 (13.5)-SJCmean (SD)10.3 (8.2)9.7 (7.5)-PtGA-PsAmean (SD)63.0 (22.0)60.5 (22.5)-PtAAPmean (SD)61.7 (24.6)58.3 (24.2)-Psoriasis BSAn (%)<3%45 (33.8)91 (34.1)-≥3 to ≤10%63 (47.4)109 (40.8)->10%25 (18.8)67 (25.1)-PASIamean (SD)8.5 (6.6)b10.1 (9.1)c-Prior TNFin (%)Inadequate response to 1 TNFi103 (77.4)204 (76.4)-Inadequate response to 2 TNFi15 (11.3)29 (10.9)-Intolerance to TNFi15 (11.3)34 (12.7)-Current cDMARDsn (%)63 (47.4)139 (52.1)-Ranked endpoints in hierarchical orderACR50* [NRI] n (%)9 (6.8)116 (43.4)<0.001HAQ-DI CfB† [RBMI] mean (SE)–0.1 (0.0)–0.4 (0.0)<0.001PASI90†a [NRI]n (%)6 (6.8)b121 (68.8)c<0.001SF-36 PCS CfB† [RBMI]mean (SE)1.4 (0.7)7.3 (0.5)<0.001MDA Response† [NRI]n (%)8 (6.0)118 (44.2)<0.001Other endpointsACR20† [NRI]n (%)21 (15.8)179 (67.0)<0.001‡ACR70† [NRI] n (%)1 (0.8)71 (26.6)<0.001‡TJC CfB [MI] mean (SE)–2.4 (0.9)–10.9 (0.8)<0.001‡SJC CfB [MI] mean (SE)–2.0 (0.5)–7.0 (0.4)<0.001‡PASI75a [NRI]n (%)9 (10.2)b145 (82.4)c<0.001‡PASI100a [NRI]n (%)4 (4.5)b103 (58.5)c<0.001‡

Randomised set (N=400). *Primary endpoint; †Secondary endpoint; ‡Nominal p value. aIn patients with ≥3% BSA with PSO at BL; bn=88; cn=176.

Over 16 wks, 107/267 (40.1%) pts on BKZ had ≥1 TEAE vs 44/132 (33.3%) pts on PBO; the three most frequent TEAEs on BKZ were nasopharyngitis (BKZ: 3.7%; PBO: 0.8%), oral candidiasis (BKZ: 2.6%; PBO: 0%) and upper respiratory tract infection (BKZ: 2.2%; PBO: 1.5%). Incidence of SAEs was low (BKZ: 1.9%; PBO: 0%); none led to discontinuation. 2 pts on BKZ discontinued due to a TEAE (BKZ: 0.7%; PBO: 0%). No systemic candidiasis, cases of IBD, MACE, uveitis, VTE or deaths were reported.

Conclusion

Dual inhibition of IL-17A and IL-17F with BKZ in pts with active PsA and prior inadequate TNFi response resulted in rapid, clinically relevant and statistically significant improvements in efficacy outcomes vs PBO. No new safety signals were observed.1,2

References

[1]Ritchlin C.T. Lancet 2020;395(10222):427–40; 2. Coates L.C. Ann Rheum Dis 2021;80:779–80(POS1022).

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by UCB Pharma. Editorial services were provided by Costello Medical.

Disclosure of Interests

Joseph F. Merola Paid instructor for: Amgen, Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: Amgen, Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma and UCB Pharma, Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen, UCB Pharma, Christopher T. Ritchlin Consultant of: Amgen, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen and UCB Pharma, Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma and UCB Pharma, Robert B.M. Landewé Speakers bureau: Abbott, Amgen, BMS, Centocor, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, UCB Pharma, and Wyeth, Consultant of: Abbott, Ablynx, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Centocor, GSK, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, UCB Pharma, and Wyeth, Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, Centocor, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, UCB Pharma, and Wyeth, Akihiko Asahina Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Maruho, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, Taiho Pharma, Torii Pharmaceutical, and UCB Pharma, Yoshiya Tanaka Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and YL Biologics, Consultant of: AbbVie, Ayumi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GSK, Sanofi, and Taisho, Grant/research support from: Asahi-Kasei, AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Corrona, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Kowa, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and Takeda, Richard B. Warren Paid instructor for: Astellas, DiCE, GSK, and Union, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arena, Astellas, Avillion, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Almirall, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, and UCB Pharma, Laure Gossec Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, and Sandoz, Dafna D Gladman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Frank Behrens Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Genzyme, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi, Barbara Ink Shareholder of: GSK, UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Deepak Assudani Shareholder of: UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Rajan Bajracharya Shareholder of: UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Jason Coarse Shareholder of: UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Laura Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma

Three-year efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol for the treatment of plaque psoriasis: results from the randomized phase 3 CIMPACT trial

Background

Certolizumab pegol (CZP) is an Fc‐free, PEGylated anti‐tumor necrosis factor biologic.

Objectives

To report 3‐year outcomes from the CIMPACT (NCT02346240) phase 3, CZP in moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, randomized controlled trial.

Methods

Adults were randomized 3:3:3:1 to CZP 200 mg every other week (Q2W), CZP 400 mg Q2W, etanercept biweekly or placebo. At Week 16, CZP‐ and etanercept‐treated PASI 75 responders were re‐randomized to CZP 200 mg Q2W, CZP 400 mg Q4W, CZP 400 mg Q2W or placebo for maintenance treatment; PASI 75 non‐responders entered an open‐label escape CZP 400 mg Q2W arm. Patients entering the open‐label extension (OLE; Weeks 48–144) from blinded treatment received CZP 200 mg Q2W.

Results

Double‐blinded results have been reported previously. 261 patients received 200 mg Q2W upon OLE entry. PASI 75 response was maintained in patients continuing 200 mg Q2W treatment through Weeks 16–144 (Week 144: 96.2%). In patients dosed down at Week 48 (double‐blinded 400 mg to 200 mg Q2W), PASI 75 decreased (Week 48: 98.7%; Week 144: 85.9%). In patients who received placebo through Weeks 16–48, PASI 75 response decreased (Week 48: 60.4%), then increased following Week 48 switch to 200 mg Q2W (Week 144: 95.1%). 48 and 36 patients initially randomized to 200 and 400 mg Q2W, respectively, were Week 16 PASI 75 non‐responders and entered the escape arm; at Week 144, 71.8% and 78.2% achieved PASI 75. No new safety signals were identified.

Conclusions

Response to CZP was durable over three years; no new safety signals were identified.

Complete clearance and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index response for brodalumab and ustekinumab by previous treatment history in AMAGINE-2 and AMAGINE-3

BACKGROUND

The pathway for treatment of psoriasis is partly dependent upon disease severity, and patients may experience inadequate response at any point along the treatment pathway. Patients who repeatedly fail therapy represent a population in whom effective and well-tolerated treatment options are limited.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate and describe patients achieving Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 100 and cumulative treatment benefit over time in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis receiving brodalumab or ustekinumab by prior treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a post hoc analysis of data from two phase 3, randomized, controlled, 52-week AMAGINE trials of brodalumab to describe patients who achieved complete clearance as measured by PASI 100 by prior treatment subgroup (naïve to systemic and biologic treatment, systemic-treated but biologic-naïve, biologic-treated without failure, and biologic-treated with failure). A competing risk model was used to assess cumulative incidence over a 52-week period with outcomes of PASI 100 or inadequate response. Cumulative clinical benefit of treatment was determined with an area under the curve analysis.

RESULTS

The 52-week cumulative incidence of patients achieving PASI 100 was consistently higher for brodalumab vs. ustekinumab across treatment pathway subgroups (76% vs. 58% in systemic/biologic-naïve patients, 78% vs. 55% in systemic-treated/biologic-naïve patients, 75% vs. 41% in biologic-treated patients without failure, and 70% vs. 30% in biologic-treated patients with failure). Rates of inadequate response were lower with brodalumab compared with ustekinumab across all subgroups. Cumulative treatment benefit was also higher for all subgroups treated with brodalumab compared with those treated with ustekinumab.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with brodalumab was associated with higher levels of complete clearance and greater cumulative benefit over time compared with ustekinumab, in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, regardless of prior treatment experience.

POS1022 BIMEKIZUMAB SAFETY AND EFFICACY IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: 3-YEAR RESULTS FROM A PHASE 2b OPEN-LABEL EXTENSION STUDY

Background:

Bimekizumab (BKZ), a monoclonal antibody inhibitor of interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F, demonstrated clinical improvements in joint and skin outcomes up to 108 weeks (wks) in patients (pts) with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).1,2

Objectives:

To report up to 3-year safety and efficacy of BKZ in pts with active PsA from a 48-week phase 2b dose-ranging study (BE ACTIVE; NCT02969525) and its open-label extension (OLE; NCT03347110).

Methods:

BE ACTIVE and OLE study design has been described previously.1 All OLE pts received BKZ 160 mg Q4W, irrespective of prior dosing regimen. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are reported for the safety set (SS; pts who received ≥1 dose BKZ in the dose-ranging study). Data are presented from dose-ranging study baseline (BL) to Wk 152. Efficacy outcomes are reported for the full analysis set (FAS): ACR50, minimal or very low disease activity (MDA/VLDA), Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90/100, body surface area affected by psoriasis (BSA) 0% and dactylitis/enthesitis resolution.

Results:

Over 152 wks, the exposure-adjusted incidence rate (EAIR) per 100 patient-years (PY) was 126.4 for all TEAEs, 4.1 for serious TEAEs, 0.7 for serious infections and 4.6 for Candida infections (Table 1). One event was adjudicated by an independent committee as inflammatory bowel disease (microscopic colitis). All Candida infections were localised, mild/moderate, and resolved with appropriate anti-fungal therapy. Overall, the proportions of patients with ACR50 response were sustained through Wk 152 (52.9%, non-responder imputation [NRI]; Figure 1). Response rates were also sustained through Wk 152 for MDA (51.5%), VLDA (30.1%), PASI90 (64.2%), PASI100 (57.7%) and resolution of dactylitis (71.2%) and enthesitis (62.6%) (NRI; Table 1).

Table 1.

Safety and efficacy outcomes up to 3 years

Safety (SS)n (%) [EAIR/100 PY]BKZ160 mg [a](n=126)BKZ320 mg [b](n=78)Total(N=206)Any TEAE114 (90.5) [136.1]70 (89.7) [113.3]184 (89.3) [126.4]Serious TEAEs17 (13.5) [5.2]5 (6.4) [2.3]22 (10.7) [4.1]Key TEAEs of special monitoringSerious infections3 (2.4) [0.9]1 (1.3) [0.5]4 (1.9) [0.7]Candida infections15 (11.9) [4.7]9 (11.5) [4.4]24 (11.7) [4.6]Inflammatory bowel disease [c]1 (0.8) [0.3]01 (0.5) [0.2]Malignancies [d]1 (0.8) [0.3]01 (0.5) [0.2]Injection site reactions03 (3.8) [1.4]3 (1.5) [0.5]Suicidal ideation1 (0.8) [0.3]01 (0.5) [0.2]Liver function analyses13 (10.3) [4.1]11 (14.1) [5.3]24 (11.7) [4.6]Study discontinuation due to TEAEs12 (9.5) [3.5]4 (5.1) [1.8]16 (7.8) [2.8]Efficacy (FAS)n (%)BKZ160 mg [a](n=124)BKZ320 mg [b](n=82)Total(N=206)OCNRI, %OCNRI, %OCNRI, %MDA, Wk 15264/95 (67.4)51.642/62 (67.7)51.2106/157 (67.5)51.5VLDA, Wk 15241/95 (43.2)33.121/62 (33.9)25.662/157 (39.5)30.1PASI90 [e] Wk 15251/61 (83.6)64.637/46 (80.4)63.888/107 (82.2)64.2PASI100 [e] Wk 15247/61 (77.0)59.532/46 (69.6)55.279/107 (73.8)57.7BSA 0% [e] Wk 4848/72 (66.7)60.838/55 (69.1)65.586/127 (67.7)62.8Wk 15246/61 (75.4)58.231/45 (68.9)53.477/106 (72.6)56.2Dactylitis [f]/Enthesitis [g] resolution, Wk 48–70.6/56.9–84.0/57.1–76.3/57.0Wk 152–67.6/63.1–76.0/61.9–71.2/62.6

No anaphylactic reactions or major adverse cardiac events were reported. [a] Includes pts within the indicated analysis set originally assigned to all arms who were subsequently re-randomized to 160 mg, or [b] 320 mg, after double-blind period; [c] Microscopic colitis; [d] Malignant melanoma in situ; [e] Pts with BL BSA ≥3%, NRI: n=79, 58, 137 respectively; [f] Pts with BL LDI >0, NRI: n=34, 25, 59 respectively; [g] Pts with BL MASES >0, NRI: n=65, 42, 107 respectively. LDI: Leeds Dactylitis Index; MASES: Maastricht AS Enthesitis Score; OC: observed case.

Conclusion:

The safety profile of BKZ in pts with PsA reflects previous observations1,2 for up to 3 years. High threshold disease control was achieved by >50% of BKZ-treated pts up to 3 years, reflected in long-term improvements in joint and skin outcomes.

References:

[1]Ritchlin CT. Lancet 2020;395:427–40;

[2]McInnes I. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79:1153–4.

Acknowledgements:

This study was funded by UCB Pharma. Editorial services were provided by Costello Medical.

Disclosure of Interests:

Laura C Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Domain, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Richard B. Warren Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arena, Avillion, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Christopher T. Ritchlin Consultant of: Amgen, AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Gilead, Janssen, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, UCB Pharma, Laure Gossec Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Principal investigator for Dermavant, LEO Pharma, UCB Pharma, Deepak Assudani Employee of: UCB Pharma, Jason Coarse Employee of: UCB Pharma, Jason Eells Shareholder of: UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Barbara Ink Shareholder of: GSK, UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen, UCB Pharma.

POS1042 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF DEUCRAVACITINIB, AN ORAL, SELECTIVE TYROSINE KINASE 2 (TYK2) INHIBITOR, COMPARED WITH PLACEBO AND APREMILAST IN MODERATE TO SEVERE PLAQUE PSORIASIS: RESULTS FROM THE PHASE 3 POETYK PSO-1 STUDY

Background:

Tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) is an intracellular kinase that mediates interleukin (IL)-23, IL-12, and interferon (IFN)α/β signaling. Deucravacitinib is a novel, oral, selective inhibitor of TYK2 acting via binding to the TYK2 regulatory domain.1 Phase 2 results showed deucravacitinib was efficacious and well tolerated versus placebo in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis or active psoriatic arthritis.2,3 No herpes zoster infections, opportunistic infections, thromboembolic events, or hematologic or lipid abnormalities characteristic of Janus kinase (JAK) 1−3 inhibitors were reported in the Phase 2 trials.2,3

Objectives:

To compare the efficacy and safety of deucravacitinib versus placebo and apremilast in plaque psoriasis.

Methods:

This Phase 3, double-blinded, 52-week study (NCT03624127) randomized patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (BSA ≥10%, PASI ≥12, sPGA ≥3) to deucravacitinib 6 mg once daily, placebo, or apremilast 30 mg twice daily (2:1:1). Patients receiving placebo were switched to deucravacitinib at Week 16; apremilast-treated patients not achieving PASI 50 at Week 24 were switched to deucravacitinib. Coprimary endpoints were PASI 75 and sPGA 0/1 response versus placebo at Week 16. Key secondary endpoints included superiority versus apremilast, assessed via multiple measures.

Results:

666 patients were randomized. Demographic and baseline disease characteristics were balanced across groups; mean age was 46.1 years, mean disease duration was 17.3 years, 18.2% of patients had psoriatic arthritis at baseline, and 38.9% had previously used biologic therapy. Mean BSA involvement at baseline was 26.3%, mean PASI was 21.4, and the percentage with severe sPGA (score=4) at baseline was 21.2%. Significantly greater proportions of patients in the deucravacitinib versus placebo and apremilast arms achieved PASI 75 (58.7% vs 12.7% vs 35.1%, respectively; P<0.0001) and sPGA 0/1 (53.6% vs 7.2% vs 32.1%, respectively; P<0.0001) response at Week 16 (Figure 1). Deucravacitinib was also superior to apremilast at Week 24, with 69.0% versus 38.1% of patients achieving PASI 75 and 58.4% versus 31.0% achieving sPGA 0/1 (P<0.0001 for both). In addition, DLQI 0/1 responses at Week 16 were significantly higher with deucravacitinib versus placebo and apremilast, demonstrating improved quality of life (40.7% vs 10.6% vs 28.6%, respectively; Figure 1). During the 16-week, placebo-controlled period, the most common AEs (≥5% in any arm) were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, diarrhea, and nausea (Table 1). Frequencies of SAEs and treatment discontinuations due to AEs were low (Table 1).

Table 1.

Summary of adverse events (AEs) through Week 16

Patients, n (%)Deucravacitinibn=332Placebon=165Apremilastn=168Any AEs176 (53.0)70 (42.4)93 (55.4)Severe AEs5 (1.5)7 (4.2)5 (3.0)Serious AEs7 (2.1)9 (5.5)4 (2.4)AEs leading to treatment discontinuation6 (1.8)7 (4.2)10 (6.0)Most common AEs (≥5% in any arm) Nasopharyngitis21 (6.3)7 (4.2)14 (8.3) Upper respiratory tract infection21 (6.3)6 (3.6)3 (1.8) Headache16 (4.8)5 (3.0)17 (10.1) Diarrhea13 (3.9)6 (3.6)17 (10.1) Nausea7 (2.1)4 (2.4)19 (11.3)

Conclusion:

Deucravacitinib demonstrated superiority versus placebo and apremilast across multiple efficacy endpoints in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and was generally well tolerated. Overall, the efficacy and safety profile of deucravacitinib was consistent with that observed in the Phase 2 plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis trials.2,3

References:

[1]Burke JR et al. Sci Transl Med. 2019;11:1-16.

[2]Papp K et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1313-21.

[3]Mease PJ et al. Presented at: Annual Scientific Meeting of the American College of Rheumatology; November 5-9, 2020; Virtual meeting.

Acknowledgements:

This study was sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb. Professional medical writing assistance was provided by Peloton Advantage, LLC, an OPEN Health company, and funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.

Disclosure of Interests:

April Armstrong Consultant of: Grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis; Personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim/Parexel, Celgene, Dermavant, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Menlo Therapeutics, Merck, Modernizing Medicine, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Science 37, Sun Pharma, Valeant, Grant/research support from: Grants: Dermira, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, and UCB, outside the submitted work; Grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Melinda Gooderham Shareholder of: Speakers bureau, consultant, investigator/advisor: AbbVie, Akros, Amgen, Arcutis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Leo Pharma, Merck, MedImmune, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda, UCB, Valeant, Richard B. Warren Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Xenoport, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Kim Papp Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Leo Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Valeant, Consultant of: Scientific officer/steering committee/advisory board: AbbVie, Akros, Amgen, Anacor, Astellas, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dow Pharma, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis/Genzyme, Valeant, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Akros, Allergan, Amgen, Anacor, Arcutis, AstraZeneca, Baxalta, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Coherus, Dermira, Dow Pharma, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Leo Pharma, MedImmune, Meiji Seika Pharma, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis/Genzyme, Takeda, UCB, Valeant;

Consultant: AbbVie, Akros, Amgen, Arcutis, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Baxalta, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CanFite, Celgene, Coherus, Dermira, Dow Pharma, Eli Lilly, Forward Pharma, Galderma, Genentech, Janssen, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Leo Pharma, Meiji Seika Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Mitsubishi Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis/Genzyme, Takeda, UCB, Valeant; Honoraria: AbbVie, Akros, Amgen, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Coherus, Eli Lilly, Forward Pharma, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB, Valeant, Bruce Strober Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Ortho Dermatologics, Consultant of: Honoraria or consultation fees: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Leo Pharma, Medac, Meiji Seika Pharma, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Sun Pharma, UCB; Scientific Director (consulting fee): Corrona Psoriasis Registry; Investigator: AbbVie, Corrona Psoriasis Registry, Dermavant, Dermira., Diamant Thaçi Paid instructor for: Lectures: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, DS-Pharma, Janssen, Leo Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Posay, Sandoz-Hexal, Sanofi, Target-Solution, UCB; Scientific advisory board: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, DS Pharma, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharma, Morphosis, MSD Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB., Consultant of: Consultant: AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Dignity, Galapagos, Leo Pharma, Maruho, Mitsubishi, Novartis, Pfizer, Xenoport, Grant/research support from: Research support/principal investigator (clinical trials): AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Dermira, DS-Pharma, Eli Lilly, Galderma, GSK, Janssen-Cilag, Leo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz-Hexal, Sanofi, UCB, Elizabeth Colston Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, John Throup Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Sudeep Kundu Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Subhashis Banerjee Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Andrew Blauvelt Consultant of: Scientific adviser and/or clinical study investigator for AbbVie, Aligos, Almirall, Arena, Athenex, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Evommune, Forte, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Rapt, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma.

Addressing challenges associated with long-term topical treatment and benefits of proactive management in patients with psoriasis

The majority of patients with psoriasis vulgaris (chronic plaque psoriasis) can be treated successfully with short‐term topical therapies. However, long‐term management of psoriasis with topicals is challenging and tends to take a reactive approach to disease relapse, rather than a proactive approach aimed at maintaining disease remission. Patients are often dissatisfied with the delay in treatment response and inconvenience of applying topical treatments, and therefore frequently discontinue treatment leading to poor outcomes. Relapse is common, particularly with reactive management, as underlying residual disease can remain following initial skin clearance; some patients find that their disease at relapse may be worse than their initial symptoms. This can have a detrimental effect on patient quality of life (QoL) and increase the risk of psoriasis‐associated depression. A long‐term proactive management approach, with maintenance treatment following initial treatment success, could help sustain disease remission and improve clinical and QoL outcomes for patients. Treatment with fixed‐dose calcipotriol 50 µg/g betamethasone dipropionate 0.5 mg/g cutaneous foam (Cal/BD foam) is effective in the short term, providing a fast onset of action and improvements in disease at 4 weeks. Results from the Phase III PSO‐LONG study demonstrated that long‐term proactive management was superior to reactive management in prolonging time to first relapse, reducing number of relapses and increasing days in remission in adults with psoriasis vulgaris. Furthermore, Cal/BD foam was well tolerated in PSO‐LONG. No new safety concerns were identified over 52 weeks; the safety profile was consistent with that described previously. Given this, Cal/BD foam should be considered when prescribing topicals for the long‐term proactive management for patients with psoriasis.

Video abstract

Five-year efficacy and safety of tildrakizumab in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis who respond at week 28: pooled analyses of two randomized phase III clinical trials (reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2)

BACKGROUND

The phase III reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2 (NCT01722331/NCT01729754) trials of the anti-interleukin-23p19 monoclonal antibody tildrakizumab (TIL) for psoriasis treatment are complete.

OBJECTIVES

We present 5-year pooled data from reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2.

METHODS

reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2 were double-blind, randomized, controlled studies with optional long-term extensions. Adults with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis were randomized 2 : 2 : 1 to TIL 100 mg (TIL 100) or 200 mg (TIL 200) or placebo at weeks 0 and 4, and every 12 weeks thereafter [reSURFACE 2 included an etanercept (ETN) arm]. Efficacy outcomes included proportions of patients achieving absolute and relative improvement from baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score through week 244 in TIL responders (≥ 75% improvement from baseline PASI; PASI 75 response) continuously receiving the same dose and ETN partial responders and nonresponders (PASI < 75 response) switched to TIL 200 at week 28. Safety was assessed from adverse events (AEs) in all patients as treated.

RESULTS

Efficacy analyses included 329 and 227 week 28 responders to TIL 100 and TIL 200, respectively, and 121 ETN partial responders/nonresponders switched to TIL 200 at week 28. Of TIL 100 or TIL 200 responders and ETN partial responders/nonresponders entering the extensions, 235/302, 176/213 and 85/107, respectively, were evaluated at week 244, and 88·7%, 92·5% and 81·3%, respectively, achieved PASI 75 response. Exposure-adjusted rates of serious AEs were 6·3 and 6·0 patients with events per 100 patient-years of TIL 100 and TIL 200, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

TIL treatment provided sustained disease control over 5 years in week 28 TIL responders and ETN partial responders/nonresponders, with a reassuring safety profile.

Defining trajectories of response in patients with psoriasis treated with biologic therapies

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of biologic therapies for psoriasis are significantly compromised by variable treatment responses. Thus, more precise management of psoriasis is needed.

OBJECTIVES

To identify subgroups of patients with psoriasis treated with biologic therapies, based on changes in their disease activity over time, that may better inform patient management.

METHODS

We applied latent class mixed modelling to identify trajectory-based patient subgroups from longitudinal, routine clinical data on disease severity, as measured by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), from 3546 patients in the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register, as well as in an independent cohort of 2889 patients pooled across four clinical trials.

RESULTS

We discovered four discrete classes of global response trajectories, each characterized in terms of time to response, size of effect and relapse. Each class was associated with differing clinical characteristics, e.g. body mass index, baseline PASI and prevalence of different manifestations. The results were verified in a second cohort of clinical trial participants, where similar trajectories following the initiation of biologic therapy were identified. Further, we found differential associations of the genetic marker HLA-C*06:02 between our registry-identified trajectories.

CONCLUSIONS

These subgroups, defined by change in disease over time, may be indicative of distinct endotypes driven by different biological mechanisms and may help inform the management of patients with psoriasis. Future work will aim to further delineate these mechanisms by extensively characterizing the subgroups with additional molecular and pharmacological data.

Editorial: fixed-dose combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate foam in the treatment of patients with psoriasis

Video abstract

Risk of hospitalization and death due to infection in people with psoriasis: a population-based cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is associated with risk factors for serious infections, but the independent relationship between psoriasis and serious infection is as yet unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether people with psoriasis have a higher risk of hospitalization due to any infection, respiratory infections, soft-tissue and skin infections, or a higher risk of death due to infection.

METHODS

We conducted a cohort study of people (≥ 18 years) with psoriasis using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD GOLD) linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and Office for National Statistics (ONS) mortality records between 1 April 2003 and 31 December 2016, and matched with up to six comparators on age, sex and general practice. Hospitalization was ascertained from HES records; death was ascertained from ONS mortality records. Stratified Cox proportional hazard models were estimated, with stepwise adjustment in different models for potential confounders or mediators between psoriasis and serious infection.

RESULTS

There were 69 315 people with psoriasis and 338 620 comparators who were followed up for a median (interquartile range) of 4·9 (5·9) and 5·1 (6·3) years, respectively. People with psoriasis had a higher incidence rate of serious infection [20·5 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval (CI) 20·0-21·0, n = 7631] compared with those without psoriasis (16·1 per 1000 person-years, 95% CI 15·9-16·3, n = 30 761). The fully adjusted hazard ratio for the association between psoriasis and serious infection was 1·36 (95% CI 1·31-1·40), with similar results across the other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Psoriasis is associated with a small increase in the risk of serious infection. Further research is needed to understand how psoriasis predisposes to a higher risk of infection.

Time to relapse after tildrakizumab withdrawal in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis who were responders at week 28: post hoc analysis through 64 weeks from reSURFACE 1 trial

BACKGROUND

As treatment interruptions occur during psoriasis management in clinical practice, it is important to know the duration of clinical response after treatment withdrawal.

OBJECTIVES

To report time to and predictors of relapse in patients who were tildrakizumab 100 and 200 mg responders (≥75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, PASI 75) at week 28 re-randomized to placebo from reSURFACE 1 trial.

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of adult patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis from a 64-week phase 3 trial. Relapse was primarily defined as loss of PASI 75 response. Both relapses defined as loss of PASI 90 and loss of absolute PASI < 2 response were included as sensitivity analyses. PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI < 2 responders re-randomized to placebo at week 28 and followed up until week 64 were included. The Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates of the 64-week relapse rate were calculated. The log-rank test to compare KM curves from responders to tildrakizumab 100 and 200 mg was used. Independent predictors of relapse were explored.

RESULTS

Median time to loss of PASI 75/PASI 90/PASI < 2 response from week 28 was 142/111/112 days with tildrakizumab 100 mg and 172/140/113 days with tildrakizumab 200 mg, respectively (all not significant). Around 20% of patients did not relapse (either maintained a PASI 75 response or were lost to follow-up) during the 36-week period. Increase in body mass index (BMI) (hazard ratio, HR [95% confidence interval, CI] for loss of PASI 75 response: 1.0345 [1.0112-1.0582]) and increase in disease duration (HR [95% CI]: 1.0151 [1.0028-1.0275] for loss of PASI 75 response) were associated with an increased risk of relapse, regardless of the relapse definition.

CONCLUSIONS

When treatment is interrupted, tildrakizumab provides durable maintenance of efficacy with a median time to loss of PASI 75 response of 5-6 months, irrespective of the dose. Interventions on modifiable risk factors for relapse, such as BMI, may improve personalized long-term psoriasis management.

Efficacy and Safety of Bimekizumab in Patients with Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis: Results from BE VIVID, a 52-Week Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Ustekinumab- and Placebo-Controlled Study

Abstract not available.

Update on risankizumab for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis

INTRODUCTION

The therapeutic landscape for psoriasis is ever-changing. Risankizumab is the newest approved biologic and one of three currently licensed that targets the p19 subunit of interleukin-23 (IL-23). It is increasingly clear that different biologics vary in their efficacy, effectiveness, and safety profiles, highlighting that there is a need to understand for which patients and in which circumstances to use each drug.

AREAS COVERED

This article summarizes original clinical trial data, and reviews in more detail recent post-marketing studies and meta-analyses that differentiate risankizumab from other biologics. It also briefly explores the evidence for risankizumab in the treatment of other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

EXPERT OPINION

Risankizumab is a highly effective biologic for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Recent open-label extension data for risankizumab shows sustained treatment responses to week 136. Indirect comparisons suggest IL-17 inhibitors have a faster onset, though head-to-head comparison with secukinumab shows non-inferiority at week 16 and superiority of risankizumab at week 52. Risankizumab is very well tolerated and data from the IMMhance trial suggests that risankizumab can be used in patients with latent tuberculosis without risk of reactivation.

Long-term efficacy of certolizumab pegol for the treatment of plaque psoriasis: 3-year results from two randomized phase III trials (CIMPASI-1 and CIMPASI-2)

Background

Certolizumab pegol (CZP) is an Fc‐free, PEGylated anti‐tumour necrosis factor biologic.

Objectives

To report the 3‐year efficacy of CZP in plaque psoriasis, pooled from the CIMPASI‐1 (NCT02326298) and CIMPASI‐2 (NCT02326272) phase III trials.

Methods

Adults with moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis for ≥ 6 months were randomized 2 : 2 : 1 to CZP 200 mg, CZP 400 mg or placebo, every 2 weeks (Q2W) for up to 48 weeks. Patients entering the open‐label period (weeks 48–144) from double‐blinded CZP initially received CZP 200 mg Q2W. Patients not achieving ≥ 50% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 50) at week 16 entered an open‐label CZP 400 mg Q2W escape arm (weeks 16–144). Dose adjustments based on PASI response were permitted during open‐label treatment. Outcomes included PASI 75, PASI 90 and Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1 responder rates, based on a logistic regression model (missing data imputed using Markov Chain Monte Carlo methodology).

Results

In total, 186 patients were randomized to CZP 200 mg Q2W and 175 to CZP 400 mg Q2W. At week 48, PASI 75/90 was achieved by 72·7%/51·3% of patients randomized to CZP 200 mg and 84·4%/62·7% randomized to CZP 400 mg. Patients entering the open‐label period at week 48, from blinded treatment, received CZP 200 mg Q2W. At week 144, PASI 75/90 was achieved by 70·6%/48·7% patients randomized to CZP 200 mg and 72·9%/42·7% randomized to CZP 400 mg. At week 16, 72 placebo‐randomized patients entered the CZP 400 mg Q2W escape arm; 75.7%/58.5% achieved PASI 75/90 at week 144.

Conclusions

Both CZP 200 mg and 400 mg Q2W demonstrated sustained, durable efficacy, with numerically higher responses for some outcomes with 400 mg Q2W.

What is already known about this topic?

Certolizumab pegol is an Fc‐free, PEGylated, anti‐tumour necrosis factor biologic approved for adults with moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis.

Efficacy data from the first 48 weeks of phase III trials have shown significant improvements in the signs and symptoms of psoriasis with certolizumab pegol dosed at either 400 mg or 200 mg every 2 weeks.

Numerically greater improvements were observed for patients treated with the higher dose.

What does this study add?

Plaque psoriasis is a chronic, systemic disease that requires long‐term management and sustained efficacy of therapies.

Three‐year efficacy data pooled from the CIMPASI‐1 and CIMPASI‐2 phase III trials demonstrate a sustained and durable response to certolizumab pegol dosed at either 400 mg or 200 mg every 2 weeks.

Additional long‐term clinical benefits may be obtained from the higher dose.

Linked Comment: Johnson et al. Br J Dermatol 2021; 184:588–589.

Efficacy and safety of risankizumab vs. secukinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (IMMerge): results from a phase III, randomized, open-label, efficacy-assessor-blinded clinical trial

Background

Patients with plaque psoriasis treated with biologic therapies need more efficacious, safe and convenient treatments to improve quality of life. Risankizumab and secukinumab inhibit interleukin‐23 and interleukin‐17A, respectively, and are effective in adult patients with moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis but have different dosing regimens.

Objectives

To compare directly the efficacy and safety of risankizumab vs. secukinumab over 52 weeks.

Methods

IMMerge was an international, phase III, multicentre, open‐label, efficacy–assessor‐blinded, active‐comparator study, in which adult patients with chronic, moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis were randomized in a 1 : 1 ratio to treatment with risankizumab 150 mg or secukinumab 300 mg. Primary efficacy endpoints were the proportions of patients achieving ≥ 90% improvement from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 90) at week 16 (noninferiority comparison with margin of 12%) and week 52 (superiority comparison).

Results

In total 327 patients from nine countries were treated with risankizumab (n = 164) or secukinumab (n = 163). Risankizumab was noninferior to secukinumab in the proportion of patients achieving PASI 90 at week 16 [73·8% vs. 65·6%; difference of 8·2%, 96·25% confidence interval (CI)−2·2 to 18·6; within the 12% noninferiority margin] and superior to secukinumab at week 52 (86·6% vs. 57·1%; difference of 29·8%, 95% CI 20·8–38·8; P < 0·001), thus meeting both primary endpoints. All secondary endpoints (PASI 100, static Physician's Global Assessment 0 or 1, and PASI 75) at week 52 demonstrated superiority for risankizumab vs. secukinumab (P < 0·001). No new safety concerns were identified.

Conclusions

At week 52, risankizumab demonstrated superior efficacy and similar safety with less frequent dosing compared with secukinumab.

What is already known about this topic?

The need remains for treatments with sustained efficacy and a more convenient dosing schedule in moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis.

Risankizumab and secukinumab are indicated for the treatment of adults with moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis and target interleukin‐23 and interleukin‐17, respectively.

To date, risankizumab and secukinumab have not been directly compared.

What does this study add?

IMMerge directly compared the safety and efficacy of risankizumab and secukinumab in patients with moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis using ≥ 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index at weeks 16 (noninferiority) and 52 (superiority) as primary endpoints.

In terms of efficacy risankizumab was noninferior to secukinumab at week 16 and superior to secukinumab at week 52 of treatment based on primary endpoint analyses. The two medications had a similar safety profile.

Linked Comment:Schmitt-Egenolf. Br J Dermatol 2021; 184: 3–4.

Plain language summary available online

Long-term safety of certolizumab pegol in plaque psoriasis: pooled analysis over 3 years from three phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled studies

Background

Certolizumab pegol (CZP) is an Fc‐free, PEGylated anti‐tumour necrosis factor biologic.

Objectives

To report 3‐year safety data from three phase III trials of CZP in adults with plaque psoriasis.

Methods

Data were pooled from CIMPASI‐1 (NCT02326298), CIMPASI‐2 (NCT02326272) and CIMPACT (NCT02346240). Included patients had moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis of ≥ 6 months’ duration; had been randomized to CZP 200 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) (400 mg at weeks 0, 2 and 4) or CZP 400 mg Q2W; and had received at least one dose of CZP with up to 144 weeks of exposure. Treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were classified using MedDRA v18·1. Reported incidence rates (IRs) are incidence of new cases per 100 patient‐years (PY).

Results

Over 144 weeks, 995 patients received at least one dose of CZP (exposure: 2231·3 PY); 731 and 728 received at least one dose of CZP 200 mg Q2W (1211·4 PY) and/or 400 mg Q2W (1019·9 PY), respectively. The IR [95% confidence interval (CI)] of TEAEs was 144·9 (135·3–155·0) for all patients, 134·1 (123·2–145·7) for CZP 200 mg Q2W and 158·3 (145·5–171·9) for CZP 400 mg Q2W. The IR (95% CI) of serious TEAEs for all patients was 7·5 (6·4–8·8); the IRs were 6·7 (5·2–8·3) and 8·7 (6·9–10·8) for CZP 200 mg and 400 mg Q2W, respectively. Overall, 3·2% of patients reported serious infections (2·2% within each of the CZP 200 and 400 mg Q2W groups). Overall, there was one case of active tuberculosis, 16 malignancies in 14 patients and seven deaths (two considered treatment‐related). The cumulative IR of TEAEs did not increase over time.

Conclusions

No new safety signals were identified compared with previously reported data. Risk did not increase with longer or higher CZP exposure.

What is already known about this topic?

Certolizumab pegol is an Fc‐free, PEGylated, anti‐tumour necrosis factor biologic approved for adults with moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis.

Safety data from phase III trials in plaque psoriasis have found the incidence of adverse events to be generally similar over 16 weeks of treatment between the evaluated certolizumab pegol doses 200 mg and 400 mg every 2 weeks and placebo.

Additionally, the safety profile was in line with the class over 48 weeks.

What does this study add?

Plaque psoriasis is a chronic disease for which patients require lifetime management; long‐term safety data are important to understand the benefits and risks of prolonged treatment.

Here, 3‐year data from a pooled analysis of three phase III trials of certolizumab pegol in plaque psoriasis are presented, representing 2231·3 patient‐years of exposure.

No new safety signals were identified and the risk of treatment‐emergent adverse events did not increase with longer or higher certolizumab pegol exposure.

Risk of tuberculosis reactivation with interleukin (IL)-17 and IL-23 inhibitors in psoriasis - time for a paradigm change

Tuberculosis is an infectious disease with a major global impact, ranked in the top 10 mortality causes worldwide. In an immunocompetent individual, the host defence mechanisms control Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection and induce the latent form of the disease. However, in the presence of diseases or therapies, which exert an immunosuppressive effect, latent tuberculosis can be re-activated. Psoriasis is an immune-mediated, inflammatory disease, and its treatment has rapidly evolved over the last few years. It has long been recognized that the tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors are associated with increased risk of reactivation of latent tuberculosis infection. Thus, international guidelines have been suggesting tuberculosis screening before starting the treatment with all biological agents since then. In addition, the institution of chemoprophylaxis in the presence of latent tuberculosis and the annual screening for tuberculosis thereafter have also been indicated. However, anti-tuberculosis treatments can have significant side-effects and there are currently several contraindications to their use. The risk benefit of starting anti-tuberculous treatment should be carefully weighed up. The emergence of new biological drugs for the treatment of psoriasis, such as interleukin (IL)-17 and IL-23 inhibitors, has reignited the subject of tuberculosis reactivation as it is possible that IL-17 and 23 blockade do not carry the same risk of TB reactivation as TNF-α inhibitors. Although preclinical studies have shown that cytokines IL-17 and IL-23 have a possible role against infection with M. tuberculosis, data from clinical trials and post-marketing surveillance with drugs that inhibit these cytokines appear to suggest that they are not crucial to this response. In this article, we review the available data on tuberculosis reactivation after the treatment of psoriasis with IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors, and its possible impact on the way we currently manage latent tuberculosis infection before or after starting treatment with these new drugs.

Complete clearance and psoriasis area and severity index response for brodalumab and ustekinumab in AMAGINE-2 and -3

BACKGROUND

Modern biologics achieve complete skin clearance [100% improvement in psoriasis area and severity index (PASI 100)] in 30-45% of psoriasis patients. Cumulative benefit considering rapidity, frequency and sustainability of response has not been thoroughly investigated.

OBJECTIVES

Compare the frequency, rapidity and sustainability of PASI 90 and 100 response in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis treated with brodalumab or ustekinumab.

METHODS

Integrated analyses of the brodalumab Phase III AMAGINE-2 (NCT01708603) and -3 (NCT01708629) trials were performed to determine proportion of patients achieving PASI response per visit; corresponding odds ratios (OR) were calculated. Cumulative clinical benefit of treatment was determined with area-under-the-curve (AUC) analysis. Cumulative incidence of response was analysed using a competing risk model of PASI response or rescue. Sustained response was evaluated by time to inadequate response using Kaplan-Meier methods. Proportion of time spent in different response states was descriptively analysed. Association between PASI response and health-related quality of life [Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI)] was assessed using data from all treatment groups from AMAGINE-1, -2 and -3.

RESULTS

A significantly higher proportion of patients treated with brodalumab achieved PASI 100 vs. ustekinumab (Week 52: 51% vs. 28%; OR [95% CI] 2.8 [2.1, 3.7]; P < 0.0001), with significant differences observed from Week 4. Cumulative benefit through 52 weeks was 69% higher with brodalumab (AUC ratio: 1.69; P < 0.001). Brodalumab patients were also significantly more likely to achieve a PASI 100 at least once over 52 weeks vs. ustekinumab (76% vs. 52%; P < 0.0001). Once response was achieved, brodalumab patients had a low likelihood of failure or need for rescue. There was significant positive association between PASI response level and DLQI0/1 achievement (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Brodalumab treatment resulted in significantly higher levels of skin clearance, longer sustained response and greater cumulative treatment benefit vs. ustekinumab.

The role of the interleukin-23/Th17 pathway in cardiometabolic comorbidity associated with psoriasis

Alterations in the innate and adaptive immunity underpin psoriasis pathophysiology, with the Th17 cells subset now recognized as the fundamental cells in the key controlling pathway involved in its pathogenesis. Since psoriasis is a systemic disease with important comorbidity, further knowledge on the interleukin (IL)‐23/Th17 axis led to the hypothesis that there may be shared pathogenic pathways between primary skin disease and comorbidity. Psoriasis has been identified as a risk factor for cardiovascular and metabolic disease, and increasing evidence gives support to this epidemiological observation from the clinical‐pathologically field. As an example, increased levels of IL‐23 and IL‐23R have been found in human atherosclerotic plaque, and levels correlated with symptom duration and mortality. Also, upregulation of IL‐23/IL‐17 seems to play an important role in both myocardial damage and stroke, with interesting reports on deleterious effect neutralization after administration of related anti‐bodies in both associated conditions. In diabetic patients, increased levels of IL‐23/IL‐17 have also been observed and available data support a synergistic role of IL‐23/IL‐17 in β‐cells damage. In obesity, signs of an expansion of Th17 subset in adipose tissue have been reported, as well as elevated concentrations of IL‐23 in obese patients. In non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease, closely related to metabolic syndrome, but also in other mentioned cardiometabolic disorders, a predominance of IL‐23 and other related pro‐inflammatory factors has been identified as participating in their pathogenesis. Thus, the involvement of the IL‐23/Th17 axis in these shared psoriasis‐cardiometabolic pathogenic mechanisms is reviewed and discussed in the light of the existing preclinical and clinical evidence, including that from comorbid psoriasis patients.

Phenotypic switch to eczema in patients receiving biologics for plaque psoriasis: a systematic review

The use of biologic therapies for the treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis has been linked to the development of atopic eczema, amongst other cutaneous adverse events. This can cause diagnostic confusion and create difficulty in the management of patients with plaque psoriasis. The main objective of this systematic review was to review all cases of eczema, including atopic eczema, reported in patients treated with biologics for chronic plaque psoriasis. PubMed, Medline and Embase databases were used to identify studies reporting eczema in patients treated with biologic therapy for chronic plaque psoriasis. A total of 92 patients were identified from 24 studies, with patients treated with either: adalimumab; etanercept; infliximab; ixekizumab; secukinumab; or ustekinumab. Factors common to some reported cases include: a prior history of atopy; eosinophilia; raised serum immunoglobulin E. Twenty-three had documented treatment outcomes; 14 had biologic therapy discontinued or switched. Management strategies included topical or oral corticosteroids, and treatment with alternative systemic agents such as ciclosporin or apremilast. This adverse event occurred in 1.0-12.1% of patients within trial data and observational studies. This review demonstrates that there are consistent reports of a switch to an atopic eczema phenotype from psoriasis in patients taking biologics inhibiting tumour necrosis factor alpha and the interleukin (IL)-17/IL-23 axis. The majority stopped the implicated biologic, but conservative management was successful in some cases. Those with an atopic diathesis may be more at risk. Elucidation of mechanisms and risk factors would contribute to optimal therapy selection for individual patients.

Secukinumab for patients failing previous tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor therapy: results of a randomized open-label study (SIGNATURE)

BACKGROUND

Efficacy data on therapies for patients with psoriasis who have failed tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitor therapy is limited.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and tolerability of secukinumab, an interleukin (IL)-17A inhibitor, in patients with moderate/severe chronic plaque psoriasis with documented efficacy failure of TNF-α inhibitor therapy (SIGNATURE study).

METHODS

This was a randomized, open-label, noncomparator study in 53 dermatology centres in the U.K. and Republic of Ireland. Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to receive secukinumab 300 mg or 150 mg subcutaneously every week for 4 weeks, then 4-weekly thereafter. Patients were stratified by their prior efficacy failure with TNF-α inhibitors. Only patients who started and stayed on the same dose at each time point were included for efficacy assessments.

RESULTS

In total, 233 patients were analysed. The primary end point was met, with a statistically significant improvement in response rates [75% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75)] from baseline to week 16 in both secukinumab 300 mg and 150 mg dose groups [77 of 118 patients (65·3%) and 51 of 115 patients (44·3%), respectively; P < 0·0001]. After 72 weeks, in patients starting and remaining on 300 mg, 77% (54 of 70) achieved PASI 75. Improvements in Dermatology Life Quality Index from baseline to week 16 occurred and were maintained up to 72 weeks. The safety profile was generally consistent with previous secukinumab studies, although a higher incidence of some adverse events (e.g. candida infections) was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence of efficacy and safety of secukinumab for treatment of patients with psoriasis who failed prior TNF-α inhibitor therapy. This study represents a 'real-world' population, providing reassurance that secukinumab is a treatment option in this difficult-to-treat population. What's already known about this topic? Conventional systemic nonbiological and tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitor therapies for plaque psoriasis have not fully met patients' needs. There is a lack of data to support the treatment pathways for patients with psoriasis who have inadequate responses to TNF-α inhibitor therapy. Secukinumab, a recombinant high-affinity fully human monoclonal anti-human interleukin-17A antibody of the IgG1/κ-class, has shown excellent safety and efficacy in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. What does this study add? This is the first study evaluating treatment with biologics after prior efficacy failure of TNF-α inhibitor therapy as defined by the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria. Secukinumab is an effective treatment in this difficult-to-treat patient population. This study provides important practical information for clinicians managing psoriasis. Adverse events were consistent with the phase III programme for secukinumab, although some adverse events, e.g. candida, were increased.

Risk of major cardiovascular events in patients with psoriasis receiving biologic therapies: a prospective cohort study

Background

The cardiovascular safety profile of biologic therapies used for psoriasis is unclear.

Objectives

To compare the risk of major cardiovascular events (CVEs; acute coronary syndrome, unstable angina, myocardial infarction and stroke) in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis treated with adalimumab, etanercept or ustekinumab in a large prospective cohort.

Methods

Prospective cohort study examining the comparative risk of major CVEs was conducted using the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register. The main analysis compared adults with chronic plaque psoriasis receiving ustekinumab with tumour necrosis‐α inhibitors (TNFi: etanercept and adalimumab), whilst the secondary analyses compared ustekinumab, etanercept or methotrexate against adalimumab. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using overlap weights by propensity score to balance baseline covariates among comparison groups.

Results

We included 5468 biologic‐naïve patients subsequently exposed (951 ustekinumab; 1313 etanercept; and 3204 adalimumab) in the main analysis. The secondary analyses also included 2189 patients receiving methotrexate. The median (p25–p75) follow‐up times for patients using ustekinumab, TNFi, adalimumab, etanercept and methotrexate were as follows: 2.01 (1.16–3.21), 1.93 (1.05–3.34), 1.94 (1.09–3.32), 1.92 (0.93–3.45) and 1.43 (0.84–2.53) years, respectively. Ustekinumab, TNFi, adalimumab, etanercept and methotrexate groups had 7, 29, 23, 6 and 9 patients experiencing major CVEs, respectively. No differences in the risk of major CVEs were observed between biologic therapies [adjusted HR for ustekinumab vs. TNFi: 0.96 (95% CI 0.41–2.22); ustekinumab vs. adalimumab: 0.81 (0.30–2.17); etanercept vs. adalimumab: 0.81 (0.28–2.30)] and methotrexate against adalimumab [1.05 (0.34–3.28)].

Conclusions

In this large prospective cohort study, we found no significant differences in the risk of major CVEs between three different biologic therapies and methotrexate. Additional studies, with longer term follow‐up, are needed to investigate the potential effects of biologic therapies on incidence of major CVEs.

Linked Commentary: K. Kridin and A.D. Cohen. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2020; 34: 668–669. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.16345.

Psoriasis treat to target: defining outcomes in psoriasis using data from a real-world, population-based cohort study (the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register, BADBIR)

Background

The ‘treat to target’ paradigm improves outcomes and reduces costs in chronic disease management but is not yet established in psoriasis.

Objectives

To identify treatment targets in psoriasis using two common measures of disease activity: Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and Physician's Global Assessment (PGA).

Methods

Data from a multicentre longitudinal U.K. cohort of patients with psoriasis receiving systemic or biologic therapies (British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register, BADBIR) were used to identify absolute PASI thresholds for 90% (PASI 90) and 75% (PASI 75) improvements in baseline disease activity, using receiver operating characteristic curves. The relationship between PGA (clear, almost clear, mild, moderate, moderate–severe, severe) and PASI (range 0–72) was described, and the concordance between absolute and relative definitions of response was determined. The same approach was used to establish treatment response and eligibility definitions based on PGA.

Results

Data from 13 422 patients were available (58% male, 91% white ethnicity, mean age 44·9 years), including over 23 000 longitudinal PASI and PGA scores. An absolute PASI ≤ 2 was concordant with PASI 90 and an absolute PASI ≤ 4 was concordant with PASI 75 in 90% and 88% of cases, respectively. These findings were robust to subgroups of timing of assessment, baseline disease severity and treatment modality. PASI and PGA were strongly correlated (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient 0·92). The median PASI increased from 0 (interquartile range 0–0, range 0–23) to 19 (interquartile range 15–25, range 0–64) for PGA clear to severe, respectively. PGA clear/almost clear was concordant with PASI ≤ 2 in 90% of cases, and PGA moderate–severe severe was concordant with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence PASI eligibility criteria for biologics in 81% of cases.

Conclusions

An absolute PASI ≤ 2 and PGA clear/almost clear represent relevant disease end points to inform treat‐to‐target management strategies in psoriasis.

What's already known about this topic?

The most commonly used relative disease activity measure in psoriasis is ≥ 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 90); however, it has several limitations including dependency on a baseline severity assessment.

Defining an absolute target disease activity end point in psoriasis has the potential to improve patient outcomes and reduce costs, as demonstrated by treat‐to‐target approaches in other chronic diseases such as hypertension and diabetes.

The Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) is a popular alternative measure of psoriasis severity in daily practice; however, its utility has not been formally assessed with respect to PASI.

What does this study add?

An absolute PASI ≤ 2 corresponds with PASI 90 response and is a relevant disease end point for treat‐to‐target approaches in psoriasis.

There is a strong correlation between PASI and PGA.

PGA moderate–severe/severe may serve as an alternative eligibility criterion for biologics to PASI‐based definitions, and PGA clear/almost clear is an appropriate alternative absolute treatment end point.

What are the clinical implications of this work?

Absolute PASI ≤ 2 and PGA clear/almost clear represent relevant disease end points to inform treat‐to‐target management strategies in psoriasis.

Linked Editorial: Takeshita. Br J Dermatol 2020; 182:1075–1076.

Long-term efficacy and safety of tildrakizumab for moderate-to-severe psoriasis: pooled analyses of two randomized phase III clinical trials (reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2) through 148 weeks

Background

Tildrakizumab is a specific anti‐interleukin‐23p19 monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of plaque psoriasis.

Objectives

To evaluate the long‐term efficacy and safety of tildrakizumab treatment for patients with moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis for up to 148 weeks.

Methods

Pooled analysis from two double‐blind, randomized controlled trials: reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2. Efficacy was assessed for responders (≥ 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index; PASI 75) and partial responders (PASI 50–75) to tildrakizumab 100 mg and 200 mg at week 28 who were maintained on the same dose (administered every 12 weeks), and for partial responders or nonresponders (PASI < 50) to etanercept 50 mg at week 28 who, after a 4‐week washout, were switched to tildrakizumab 200 mg (administered at weeks 32 and 36, and every 12 weeks thereafter). Safety was assessed in the all‐patients‐as‐treated population. Three different methods of imputing missing data were used: nonresponder imputation (NRI), multiple imputation and observed cases. The Clinicaltrials.gov numbers are NCT01722331 (reSURFACE 1) and NCT01729754 (reSURFACE 2).

Results

At week 148 (NRI), 72·6%, 53·8% and 28·9% of tildrakizumab 100‐mg responders and 80·2%, 59·9% and 32·6% of tildrakizumab 200‐mg responders had PASI 75, 90 and 100 responses, respectively. For partial responders to tildrakizumab 100 mg and 200 mg, the proportions of patients achieving PASI 75, 90 and 100 responses were 32·5%, 25·0% and 10·0%; and 47·1%, 27·5% and 12·8%, respectively. For patients who were partial responders or nonresponders to etanercept, the proportions of patients achieving PASI 75, 90 and 100 responses were 66·9%, 43·8% and 14·9% at week 148. Rates of discontinuations due to adverse events [tildrakizumab 100 mg: 1·7 per 100 patient‐years (PYs); tildrakizumab 200 mg: 1·2 per 100 PYs] and exposure‐adjusted rates of serious adverse events (5·9 per 100 PYs; 5·5 per 100 PYs), severe infections (1·1 per 100 PYs; 1·1 per 100 PYs), malignancies (0·6 per 100 PYs; 0·4 per 100 PYs) and major adverse cardiovascular events (0·4 per 100 PYs; 0·5 per 100 PYs) were low.

Conclusions

Tildrakizumab was well tolerated and efficacy was well maintained in week 28 responders who continued tildrakizumab treatment through 3 years, or improved among etanercept partial responders or nonresponders who switched to tildrakizumab.

What's already known about this topic?

Tildrakizumab 100 mg and 200 mg are efficacious and well tolerated with short‐term use in the treatment of patients with moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis.

What does this study add?

High levels of efficacy are maintained for up to 3 years of psoriasis treatment with tildrakizumab.

There is a favourable long‐term safety profile with both tildrakizumab 100 mg and 200 mg, with a low incidence of adverse events of special interest through 3 years.

https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.18831 available online

https://www.bjdonline.com/article/

Safety of selective IL-23p19 inhibitors for the treatment of psoriasis

Psoriasis is a chronic disease that requires long‐term treatment. Consequently, understanding the safety and tolerability of any potential treatment over time is critical to effective prescribing. The biologic agents currently available for the treatment of psoriasis target a number of different inflammatory cytokines involved in psoriasis disease pathogenesis. The monoclonal antibodies tildrakizumab, guselkumab and risankizumab target the p19 subunit that is specific to interleukin (IL)‐23. This article reviews published data on the safety of these IL‐23p19 inhibitors in patients with psoriasis compared with other currently available biologic therapies. Data from randomized, placebo‐ and active‐controlled phase 3 clinical trials show tildrakizumab, guselkumab and risankizumab to have a favourable risk–benefit profile in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. No significant safety concerns have been observed for any of these IL‐23p19 inhibitors in the data published to date. The most commonly reported adverse events (AEs) associated with these agents in phase 3 studies were upper respiratory tract infections. No increase was seen in rates of serious infections, malignancies or major adverse cardiovascular events, with no signals suggestive of an elevated risk of opportunistic infections, active tuberculosis or reactivation of latent tuberculosis infection, mucocutaneous Candida infections, triggering or worsening of inflammatory bowel disease, demyelinating disorders or suicidal ideation. Selectively targeting IL‐23p19 may help avoid AEs that have been associated with biologic agents with other mechanisms of action. Data from long‐term extension studies and patient registries will further establish the safety profile of IL‐23p19 inhibitors for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis in routine practice.

Persistence and effectiveness of nonbiologic systemic therapies for moderate-to-severe psoriasis in adults: a systematic review

Background

The persistence and effectiveness of systemic therapies for moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis in current clinical practice are poorly characterized.

Objectives

To systematically review observational studies investigating the persistence and effectiveness of acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters (FAE) and methotrexate, involving at least 100 adult patients with moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis, exposed to therapy for ≥ 3 months.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and PubMed were searched from 1 January 2007 to 1 November 2017 for observational studies reporting on persistence (therapy duration or the proportion of patients discontinuing therapy during follow‐up) or effectiveness [improvements in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) or Physician's Global Assessment (PGA)]. This review was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018099771.

Results

Of 411 identified studies, eight involving 4624 patients with psoriasis were included. Variations in the definitions and analyses of persistence and effectiveness outcomes prevented a meta‐analysis from being conducted. One prospective multicentre study reported drug survival probabilities of 23% (ciclosporin), 42% (acitretin) and 50% (methotrexate) at 1 year. Effectiveness outcomes were not reported for either acitretin or ciclosporin. The persistence and effectiveness of FAE and methotrexate were better characterized, but mean discontinuation times ranged from 28 to 50 months for FAE and 7·7 to 22·3 months for methotrexate. At 12 months of follow‐up, three studies reported that 76% (FAE), 53% (methotrexate) and 59% (methotrexate) of patients achieved ≥ 75% reduction in PASI, and one reported that 76% of FAE‐exposed patients achieved a markedly improved or clear PGA.

Conclusions

The comparative persistence and effectiveness of acitretin, ciclosporin, FAE and methotrexate in real‐world clinical practice in the past decade cannot be well described due to the inconsistency of the methods used.

What's already known about this topic?

Research examining acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters (FAE) and methotrexate for the treatment of moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis has focused on safety and efficacy in randomized controlled trials.

The persistence and effectiveness of acitretin, ciclosporin, FAE and methotrexate since the introduction of biologic therapies in real‐world clinical practice are poorly understood.

What does this study add?

This systematic review examines the persistence and effectiveness of methotrexate, acitretin, ciclosporin and FAE for moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis.

Data on the persistence and effectiveness of systemic therapies are lacking, particularly for acitretin and ciclosporin.

The definitions of persistence and reporting of effectiveness are inconsistent.

Further good‐quality observational studies are needed to explore the real‐world persistence and effectiveness of systemic treatments used for psoriasis.

Linked Comment: Garcia-Doval and Sbidian. Br J Dermatol 2019; 181:237.

Plain language summary available online

Infliximab is associated with an increased risk of serious infection in patients with psoriasis in the U.K. and Republic of Ireland: results from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic Interventions Register (BADBIR)

Background

Patients with psoriasis and clinicians are concerned that infliximab may be associated with a risk of serious infections.

Objectives

To compare the risk of serious infections associated with infliximab in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis against a cohort on nonbiologic systemic therapies.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was performed using data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic Interventions Register (BADBIR). Infliximab was compared with nonbiologic systemic therapies, inclusive of any exposure to methotrexate, ciclosporin, acitretin, fumaric acid esters, psoralen‐ultraviolet A or hydroxycarbamide. Serious infections were those associated with hospitalization, the use of intravenous antimicrobial therapy and/or those that led to death. Propensity score inverse probability treatment weights were used to adjust for potential confounding from a priori identified covariates. Cox proportional hazards models were calculated to obtain hazard ratios (HRs).

Results

In total, 3843 participants were included for analysis up to October 2016. The incidence rates were significantly higher in the infliximab cohort (47·8 per 1000 person‐years) [95% confidence interval (CI) 35·7–64·0], compared with 14·2 per 1000 person‐years (95% CI 11·5–17·4) in the nonbiologic systemic cohort. Infliximab was associated with an overall increase in the risk of serious infection compared with nonbiologics [adjusted HR (adjHR) 1·95, 95% CI 1·01–3·75] and methotrexate only (adjHR 2·96, 95% CI 1·58–5·57) and a higher risk of serious infection in the first 6 months of therapy (adjHR 3·49, 95% CI 1·14–10·70).

Conclusions

Infliximab is associated with an increased risk of serious infections compared with nonbiologic systemic therapies in patients with psoriasis in the U.K. and the Republic of Ireland.

What's already known about this topic?

Randomized clinical trials are not sufficiently powered to investigate the risk of serious infection in patients with psoriasis who are undergoing treatment with infliximab.

Published observational studies have used different methods to adjust for confounding and different comparators.

Previous studies also lacked the adequate sample size to obtain a precise estimate of the risk of serious infection for infliximab.

What does this study add?

Using methods that better address bias and confounding, our study suggests that infliximab is associated with a higher risk of serious infections compared with nonbiologic systemic therapies in patients with psoriasis.

Patients should be counselled on the risk of serious infection before infliximab is prescribed.

Linked Comment: Puig. Br J Dermatol 2019; 180: 257–258.

Plain language summary available online

Respond to this article

Comprehensive long-term safety of adalimumab from 18 clinical trials in adult patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Adalimumab (Humira^® , AbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL, U.S.A.) is a fully human monoclonal antibody specific for tumour necrosis factor-α that is approved to treat adults with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess long-term safety for patients with psoriasis receiving adalimumab in clinical studies.

METHODS

Adalimumab safety data from adults with psoriasis who received at least one adalimumab dose in 18 clinical trials were evaluated. Adalimumab was delivered subcutaneously in all treatment regimens. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were collected from the first dose to 70 days after the last dose or cut-off date (31 December 2015). AE incidence rates were expressed as events per 100 patient-years (E/100 PYs) of adalimumab exposure. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for malignancies and standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Cumulative exposure was 5429·7 PYs in 3727 patients. Overall, there were 16 536 AEs (304·6 E/100 PYs). The most common AEs were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory infection and headache (23·7, 12·9 and 7·9 E/100 PYs, respectively). Incidence rates for serious infections, tuberculosis and opportunistic infections were 1·8, 0·3 and 0·02 E/100 PYs, respectively. Incidence of malignancy excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) was 0·8 E/100 PYs [SIR 0·86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·58-1·23]. Incidences of NMSC and melanoma were 0·6 and 0·2 E/100 PYs, respectively. The SIR was 1·55 (95% CI 1·10-2·13) for NMSC and 3·04 (95% CI 1·11-6·62) for melanoma. The SMR was 0·34 (95% CI 0·16-0·65).

CONCLUSIONS

AE rates remained stable in this analysis of patients with psoriasis receiving adalimumab; no new safety signals were identified compared with earlier analyses.

Identifying demographic, social and clinical predictors of biologic therapy effectiveness in psoriasis: a multicentre longitudinal cohort study

Background

Biologic therapies have revolutionized the treatment of moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis. However, for reasons largely unknown, many patients do not respond or lose response to these drugs.

Objectives

To evaluate demographic, social and clinical factors that could be used to predict effectiveness and stratify response to biologic therapies in psoriasis.

Methods

Using a multicentre, observational, prospective pharmacovigilance study (BADBIR), we identified biologic‐naive patients starting biologics with outcome data at 6 (n = 3079) and 12 (n = 3110) months. Associations between 31 putative predictors and outcomes were investigated in univariate and multivariable regression analyses. Potential stratifiers of treatment response were investigated with statistical interactions.

Results

Eight factors associated with reduced odds of achieving ≥ 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 90) at 6 months were identified (described as odds ratio and 95% confidence interval): demographic (female sex, 0·78, 0·66–0·93); social (unemployment, 0·67, 0·45–0·99); unemployment due to ill health (0·62, 0·48–0·82); ex‐ and current smoking (0·81, 0·66–0·99 and 0·79, 0·63–0·99, respectively); clinical factors (high weight, 0·99, 0·99–0·99); psoriasis of the palms and/or soles (0·75, 0·61–0·91); and presence of small plaques only compared with small and large plaques (0·78, 0·62–0·96). White ethnicity (1·48, 1·12–1·97) and higher baseline PASI (1·04, 1·03–1·04) were associated with increased odds of achieving PASI 90. The findings were largely consistent at 12 months. There was little evidence for predictors of differential treatment response.

Conclusions

Psoriasis phenotype and potentially modifiable factors are associated with poor outcomes with biologics, underscoring the need for lifestyle management. Effect sizes suggest that these factors alone cannot inform treatment selection.

What's already known about this topic?

Biologic therapy used in the treatment of moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis differs in its effectiveness across patients.

Previous research has indicated that patients with a higher body mass index, who smoke or who have smoked, and with a lower baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) are less likely to have a good outcome with biologic therapy for the treatment of moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis.

What does this study add?

This large‐scale study in a real‐world setting confirms that weight, smoking status and baseline PASI are associated with effectiveness of biologic therapy.

There is evidence that non‐white ethnicity, female sex, unemployment, psoriasis of the palms and soles and the presence of small chronic plaques are associated with poor outcomes with biologics.

There is some evidence that men have a comparatively worse response to etanercept, relative to adalimumab, than women. Otherwise, most factors do not appear to be predictors of differential treatment response.

Respond to this article

Patient perceptions of clear/almost clear skin in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: results of the Clear About Psoriasis worldwide survey

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic advances have made the achievement of clear/almost clear skin possible for many patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE

To determine patient perceptions of the impact of psoriasis and of attaining clear/almost clear skin.

METHODS

Global survey of patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

RESULTS

A total of 8338 patients from 31 countries participated. The majority (57%) had not achieved self-assessed clear/almost clear skin with their current therapy, and 56% of those who had not met this goal believed it would be impossible to do so. Among the patients who had clear/almost clear skin, 73% had not initiated their current treatment until >1 year after psoriasis diagnosis, and 28% had to wait >5 years. Eighty-four percent of all respondents experienced discrimination and/or humiliation due to psoriasis, and many reported negative effects on work, intimate relationships, sleep and mental health. Patients without clear/almost clear skin reported that such achievement would open new possibilities, such as swimming (58%), a wider choice of clothing (40%), and meeting new people (26%). A limitation of this study, as with any survey-based research, is that selection and recall bias may have been present. Additionally, respondent definitions of clear/almost clear skin were subjective and may have varied.

CONCLUSION

Despite the importance of clear/almost clear skin to psoriasis patients, most are still not achieving it, and many are unaware it is possible.

Secukinumab significantly reduces psoriasis-related work impairment and indirect costs compared with ustekinumab and etanercept in the United Kingdom

Background

Psoriasis causes work productivity impairment that increases with disease severity. Whether differential treatment efficacy translates into differential indirect cost savings is unknown.

Objective

To assess work hours lost and indirect costs associated with secukinumab versus ustekinumab and etanercept in the United Kingdom (UK).

Methods

This was a post hoc analysis of work impairment data collected in the CLEAR study (secukinumab vs. ustekinumab) and applied to the FIXTURE study (secukinumab vs. etanercept). Weighted weekly and annual average indirect costs per patient per treatment were calculated from (i) overall work impairment derived from Work Productivity and Activity Impairment data collected in CLEAR at 16 and 52 weeks by Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response level; (ii) weekly/annual work productivity loss by PASI response level; (iii) weekly and annual indirect costs by PASI response level, based on hours of work productivity loss; and (iv) weighted average indirect costs for each treatment. In the primary analysis, work impairment data for employed patients in CLEAR at Week 16 were used to compare secukinumab and ustekinumab. Secondary analyses were conducted at different time points and with patient cohorts, including FIXTURE.

Results

In CLEAR, 452 patients (67%) were employed at baseline. At Week 16, percentages of weekly work impairment/mean hours lost decreased with higher PASI: PASI < 50: 22.8%/7.60 h; PASI 50–74: 13.3%/4.45 h; PASI 75–89: 6.4%/2.14 h; PASI ≥ 90: 4.9%/1.65 h. Weighted mean weekly/annual work hours lost were significantly lower for secukinumab than ustekinumab (1.96/102.51 vs. 2.40/125.12; P = 0.0006). Results were consistent for secukinumab versus etanercept (2.29/119.67 vs. 3.59/187.17; Ρ<0.0001). Average annual indirect cost savings with secukinumab were £355 vs. ustekinumab and £1061 versus etanercept. Results at 52 weeks were similar.

Conclusions

Secukinumab significantly reduced work impairment and associated indirect costs of psoriasis compared with ustekinumab and etanercept at Week 16 through 52 in the United Kingdom.

What's new in psoriasis treatment? An analysis of systematic reviews published in 2015

This review provides a summary of key findings from 27 systematic reviews of 51 articles first published or indexed during 2015, focusing on the treatment of psoriasis and on precision medicine in psoriasis. The evidence supports weight-loss interventions by dieting and exercise for improvement in disease severity in overweight and obese patients with psoriasis. No significant increased risk of serious infections was reported for the biologic therapies adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab compared with appropriate comparators. Evidence could not provide reliable estimates of rare adverse events, emphasizing the need for large prospective registries. Polymorphisms in the tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α gene may confer improved responses to TNF inhibitor (TNFI) therapy, but the studies to date lack power to detect a true association. From the limited available evidence, multidisciplinary management is both more effective and more satisfactory for patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis than conventional consultations. This summary of reviews provides a succinct guide for clinicians and patients wishing to remain up to date with high-quality evidence for the treatment of psoriasis.

Assessment of two screening tools to identify psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Many patients with psoriasis have undiagnosed psoriatic arthritis. Low specificity is found with many PsA screening tools. A new instrument, the CONTEST questionnaire, was developed utilizing the most discriminative items from existing instruments.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the CONTEST and PEST screening tools.

METHODS

People attending secondary care clinics with psoriasis, but not PsA, completed the questionnaires, were assessed for function and quality of life, and had a physical examination. Patients thought to have PsA were compared to those without. The performance of CONTEST and PEST was compared using area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), and sensitivity and specificity at the previously published cut-offs.

RESULTS

A total of 451 dermatology patients were approached, 35% were reviewed and 27 (17%, 95% CI 12.3-21.7) had unidentified psoriatic arthritis. The sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) of PEST were 0.60 (0.42-0.78)/0.76 (0.69-0.83) and for CONTEST 0.53 (0.34-0.72)/0.71 (0.63-0.79). The confidence limits for the AUC overlapped (AUC for PEST 0.72 (0.61-0.84), for CONTEST 0.66 (0.54-0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

PEST and CONTEST questionnaires performed equally well, with no superiority of the new CONTEST tool.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of efficacy in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis treated with ixekizumab vs. secukinumab

BACKGROUND

Head-to-head randomized studies comparing ixekizumab and secukinumab in the treatment of psoriasis are not available.

OBJECTIVES

To assess efficacy and quality of life using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons for treatment with ixekizumab vs. secukinumab.

METHODS

Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) improvement of at least 75%, 90% and 100% and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) 0/1 response rates for approved dosages of ixekizumab (160 mg at Week 0, then 80 mg every two weeks for the first 12 weeks) and secukinumab (300 mg at Weeks 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4, then 300 mg every 4 weeks) treatment were compared using data from active (etanercept and ustekinumab) and placebo-controlled studies. Comparisons were made using the Bucher (BU) method and two modified versions of the Signorovitch (SG) method (SG total and SG separate). Subsequently, results based on active treatment common comparators were combined using generic inverse-variance meta-analysis.

RESULTS

In the meta-analysis of studies with active comparators, PASI 90 response rates were 12·7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 5·5-19·8, P = 0·0005], 10·0% (95% CI 2·1-18·0, P = 0·01) and 11·2% (95% CI 3·2-19·1, P = 0·006) higher and PASI 100 response rates were 11·7% (95% CI 5·9-17·5, P < 0·001), 12·7% (95% CI 6·0-19·4, P < 0·001) and 13·1% (95% CI 6·3-19·9, P < 0·001) higher for ixekizumab compared with secukinumab using BU, SG total and SG separate methods. PASI 75 results were comparable when SG methods were used and favoured ixekizumab when the BU method was used. Week 12 DLQI 0/1 response rates did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Ixekizumab had higher PASI 90 and PASI 100 responses at week 12 compared with secukinumab using adjusted indirect comparisons.

Comparative effectiveness of biological therapies on improvements in quality of life in patients with psoriasis

Background

Evidence of the comparative effectiveness of biological therapies for psoriasis on health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) in routine clinical practice is limited.

Objectives

To examine the comparative effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab on HRQoL in patients with psoriasis, and to identify potential predictors for improved HRQoL.

Methods

This was a prospective cohort study in which changes in HRQoL were assessed using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and EuroQoL‐5D (EQ‐5D) at 6 and 12 months. Multivariable regression models were developed to identify factors associated with achieving a DLQI of 0/1 and improvements in the EQ‐5D utility score.

Results

In total, 2152 patients with psoriasis were included, with 1239 patients on adalimumab, 517 on etanercept and 396 on ustekinumab; 81% were biologic naïve. For the entire cohort, the median (interquartile range) DLQI and EQ‐5D improved from 18 (13–24) and 0·73 (0·69–0·80) at baseline to 2 (0–7) and 0·85 (0·69–1·00) at 6 months, respectively (P < 0·001). Similar improvements were achieved at 12 months. At 12 months, multivariable regression modelling showed that female sex, multiple comorbidities, smoking and a higher DLQI or a lower EQ‐5D utility score at baseline predicted a lower likelihood of achieving a DLQI of 0/1 or improvement in the EQ‐5D. Compared with adalimumab, patients receiving etanercept, but not ustekinumab, were less likely to achieve a DLQI of 0/1. There was no significant difference between the biological therapies in EQ‐5D improvement.

Conclusions

In routine clinical practice biological therapies produce marked improvement in HRQoL, which is influenced by the choice of biological therapy, baseline impairment in HRQoL, lifestyle characteristics and comorbidities. These findings should help inform selection of optimal biological therapy for patients related to improvements in HRQoL.

What's already known about this topic?

Evidence of the comparative effectiveness of biological therapies for psoriasis on health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) in routine clinical practice is limited.

Earlier observational studies were either cross‐sectional, thereby limiting the ability to compare changes in HRQoL, or cohort studies that have not taken into account important clinical factors that could influence treatment response, such as alterations in dosing regimens of biological therapies and the concomitant use of conventional systemic treatments for psoriasis.

What does this study add?

This large prospective cohort study found that in routine clinical practice, the use of biological therapies for psoriasis was associated with marked improvements in HRQoL over 12 months.

These improvements were influenced by the choice of biological therapy, baseline impairment in HRQoL, lifestyle characteristics and comorbidities.

Compared with adalimumab, patients receiving etanercept were less likely to achieve a DLQI of 0/1, but there was no significant difference between ustekinumab and adalimumab in the proportion of patients achieving a DLQI of 0/1.

There was no significant difference between the three biological therapies in level of improvement in the EQ‐5D.

Linked Comment: Finlay. Br J Dermatol 2017; 177:1164–1165.