Statins and psoriasis: Position statement by the Psoriasis Task Force of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venerology

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is associated with an increased mortality risk, with cardiovascular disease being the leading excess cause (in a dose-response manner with psoriasis severity). Statins have demonstrated a reduction in all-cause mortality with no excess of adverse events among the general population. The underuse of interventions in cardiovascular prevention, such as statins, for patients with psoriasis may be the result of an insufficient evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

To provide the dermatologist with a tool for systematizing the treatment of dyslipidemia in psoriasis, which generally escapes the scope of dermatological practice, and to facilitate decision-making about the referral and treatment of patients.

METHODS

The Psoriasis Task Force of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology performed this two-phase study to achieve a consensus and create recommendations on the use of statin therapy in patients with psoriasis. The first phase included a systematic review to identify a list of outline concepts and recommendations according to guidelines. The second phase consisted in a two-round Delphi study to evaluate those recommendations not literally taken from guidelines.

RESULTS

A list of 47 concepts and recommendations to be followed by dermatologists involved in the treatment of patients with moderate-severe psoriasis was created. It included six main concepts about cardiovascular risk and psoriasis, six items related with the role of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) and the benefits of statin treatment in psoriasis patients, eight recommendations about how cardiovascular risk should be assessed, three on the role of non-invasive cardiovascular imaging, three on LDL-c thresholds, eight key points related to statin prescription, 10 on statin treatment follow-up and three on patient referral to another specialist.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of this position statement (close final list of concepts and recommendations) will help dermatologists to manage dyslipidemia and help psoriasis patients to reduce their cardiovascular risk.

POS0082 A NOVEL PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS COMPOSITE ENDPOINT COMBINING TREATMENT TARGETS FOR SKIN AND JOINTS: POOLED RESULTS FROM THE GUSELKUMAB DISCOVER-1 AND DISCOVER-2 STUDIES

Background

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is characterized by a range of musculoskeletal and extra-articular disease manifestations. Composite indices are valuable tools to assess the multidimensional nature of PsA. The Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS)1 provides robust assessment of both joint and skin domains but is cumbersome to use in clinical practice. The Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA)2 is relatively easy to use but does not assess skin disease.

Objectives

Using pooled data from the phase 3 DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2 studies of guselkumab (GUS) for the treatment of active PsA:3,4 (1) Describe the rate of achievement of a new composite endpoint combining DAPSA low disease activity (LDA; score ≤14, including remission) and Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) of psoriasis score ≤1 (range=0 [clear] to 4 [severe]); (2) Determine whether earlier (Week [W] 16) DAPSA LDA + IGA ≤1 is predictive of future achievement of minimal disease activity (MDA) or American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response criteria; and (3) Contrast the performance of DAPSA LDA + IGA ≤1 with that of PASDAS LDA (score ≤3.2).

Methods

Patients (pts) with active PsA despite standard therapies (DISCOVER-1: ≥3 swollen + ≥3 tender joints; CRP ≥0.3 mg/dL; ~30% had prior use of up to 2 TNF inhibitors; DISCOVER-2: ≥5 swollen + ≥5 tender joints; CRP ≥0.6 mg/dL; all pts were biologic-naïve) were randomized 1:1:1 to GUS 100 mg at W0, W4, then Q4W or Q8W; or placebo (PBO) with crossover to GUS Q4W at W24. In both studies, efficacy of GUS vs PBO was compared at W24 (primary endpoint). The number (%) of pts with DAPSA LDA + IGA ≤1 was determined at W24 for pts randomized to GUS or PBO. For all GUS-randomized pts, baseline variables associated with DAPSA LDA + IGA ≤1 and PASDAS LDA at W16 and the predictive value of W16 DAPSA LDA + IGA ≤1 or PASDAS LDA for achieving ACR50, MDA, and DAPSA LDA at W52 were assessed using logistic regression models.

Results

At W24, DAPSA LDA + IGA ≤1 was met by 37% (277/748) of GUS-treated pts vs 13% (48/372) in the PBO group. At W16, 27% (203/748) of GUS-randomized pts had DAPSA LDA + IGA ≤1, and 22% (164/748) had PASDAS LDA. Among the 73% (545/748) of pts who did not have DAPSA LDA + IGA ≤1 at W16, most (77% [418/545]) had IGA ≤1 but not DAPSA LDA; 4% (23/545) had DAPSA LDA but not IGA ≤1, and 19% (104/545) had neither component. Baseline predictors of DAPSA LDA + IGA ≤1 at W16 were male gender, lower dactylitis score, lower Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score, lower tender joint count (TJC), and higher Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score. Baseline predictors of PASDAS LDA at W16 were younger age, lower dactylitis score, lower HAQ-DI score, lower TJC, and higher PASI score. As shown (Figure 1), pts who had DAPSA LDA + IGA ≤1 and PASDAS LDA at W16 were significantly more likely to achieve ACR50, MDA, and DAPSA LDA at W52 than pts without W16 responses; odds ratios (ORs) for achievement of ACR50, MDA, and DAPSA LDA responses at W52 were similar for pts who had DAPSA LDA + IGA ≤1 and for pts who had PASDAS LDA at W16. ORs for achievement of ACR50 and MDA at W52 were higher for pts who had both DAPSA LDA and IGA ≤1 at W16 (9.5 and 10.7) than for pts who had DAPSA LDA but not IGA ≤1 (6.5 and 3.5) or IGA ≤1 but not DAPSA LDA (1.6 and 1.5).

Conclusion

DAPSA LDA at W16 predicted future (W52) achievement of the stringent treatment targets of ACR50 and MDA; associations with W52 response were greater when W16 IGA ≤1 was added to DAPSA LDA. DAPSA LDA + IGA ≤1 at W16 as a predictor of W52 ACR50 and MDA response performed similarly to PASDAS LDA. The novel composite of DAPSA LDA + IGA ≤1 may be a reliable predictor of long-term PsA skin and joint response that is more practical to implement than the PASDAS.

References

[1]Helliwell PS et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72:986-91.

[2]Schoels M et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:1441-47.

[3]Deodhar A et al. Lancet 2020;395:1115-25.

[4]Mease PJ et al. Lancet 2020;395:1126-36.

Disclosure of Interests

Wolf-Henning Boehncke Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Almirall, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, and UCB, Alice B Gottlieb Consultant of: AnaptsysBio, Avotres Therapeutics, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Incyte, GSK, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., UCB, and Dermavant, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis, UCB, Xbiotech, and Sun Pharma, Enrique Soriano Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, and Roche, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Alexis Ogdie Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, CorEvitas, Gilead, Happify Health, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Pfizer and Novartis and to Forward from Amgen, Olga Ziouzina Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, UCB, Celltrion, and Fresenius-Kabi, Emmanouil Rampakakis Consultant of: Janssen, Employee of: JSS Medical Research, Xie L Xu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Soumya D Chakravarty Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Marilise Marrache Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Inc, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB

AB0893 An Analysis of Fatigue in Patients With Psoriatic Disease Utilizing SF-36 Vitality Scores: Results Through Week 24 in Phase 3 Trials of Guselkumab in Patients With Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis

Background

Patients with chronic inflammatory diseases can experience significant fatigue, negatively impacting health-related quality-of-life.1,2

Objectives

This post-hoc analysis evaluated baseline fatigue severity among patients with psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and the effect of guselkumab treatment on patient-reported fatigue.

Methods

VOYAGE-2 evaluated guselkumab every 8 weeks (Q8W) versus placebo (W16→guselkumab) and adalimumab in treating moderate-to-severe psoriasis.3 DISCOVER-14 and DISCOVER-25 evaluated guselkumab Q4W and Q8W versus placebo in treating active PsA. Fatigue was assessed using 36-item Short Form (SF-36) vitality scale score (includes 4 questions on fatigue/energy level); the US population norm=50±10; 5-10-point decrements are typically observed in conditions known to cause fatigue2; scores ≤35 indicate clinically important fatigue1; increases ≥5 indicate clinically meaningful improvement.2

Results

Across randomized groups at baseline, mean SF-36 vitality scores were 47.7-48.5 in psoriasis and 42.2-44.0 in PsA patients; 11%-15% of psoriasis and 20%-28% of PsA patients had scores <35. In psoriasis patients, mean increases in SF-36 vitality score at W16 were: placebo, 1.1; adalimumab, 3.9 (p<0.001 versus placebo); guselkumab, 5.6 (p<0.001 versus placebo); at W24: placebo→guselkumab, 4.6; adalimumab, 3.9; guselkumab, 5.8 (p=0.0148 versus adalimumab). In PsA patients, mean increases at W24 were: placebo, 2.3-4.0; guselkumab, 5.5-7.5 (p≤0.001 versus placebo). Through the placebo-controlled periods, significantly greater proportions of guselkumab-treated patients achieved clinically meaningful improvement in fatigue versus placebo (W16 psoriasis: guselkumab, 48%; placebo, 32%; p<0.001; W24 PsA: guselkumab, 53%-55%; placebo, 34%-44%; p<0.05).

Conclusion

At baseline, patients with psoriatic disease experienced clinically important fatigue, more so with PsA (20%-28%) than psoriasis (11%-15%). In guselkumab-treated psoriasis and PsA patients, clinically meaningful improvements in fatigue were achieved at W16 and W24, respectively.

References

[1]Skoie IM et al. Br J Dermatol. 2017;177:505-12

[2]Bjorner JB et al. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23:731-9

[3]Reich K et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76:418-31

[4]Deodhar A et al. Lancet. 2020;395:1115-25

[5]Mease PJ et al. Lancet. 2020;395:1126-36

Disclosure of Interests

Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: AbbVie, Arena, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Yi-Hsuan Liu Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Ya-Wen Yang Employee of: Immunology Global Medical Affairs, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Megan Miller Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, May Shawi Employee of: Immunology Global Medical Affairs, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Daphne Chan Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Saakshi Khattri Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, UCB, Janssen, Paid instructor for: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, UCB, Janssen, Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, UCB, Janssen, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Abbvie, Leo, BMS, Eli Lilly, Laura Savage Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Janssen and Pfizer, Wolf-Henning Boehncke Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, and UCB Pharma; and has received a research grant from Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, and UCB Pharma; and has received a research grant from Pfizer, Chenglong Han Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson

AB0896 Comparative Effectiveness of Guselkumab in Psoriatic Arthritis: Updates to a Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background

The efficacy of guselkumab (GUS), an interleukin (IL)-23 p19-subunit inhibitor, has been demonstrated for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in two pivotal phase 3 trials (DISCOVER‑1&2). A third phase 3b trial (COSMOS) evaluated GUS in patients with PsA who had an inadequate response (IR) to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi). GUS has previously been compared to targeted PsA therapies through network meta-analysis (NMA).

Objectives

This NMA update was to include data for GUS in TNFi-IR patients from COSMOS, as well as two additional key comparators, risankizumab (RIS), an IL-23 inhibitor, and upadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi).

Methods

A systematic literature review identified PsA randomized controlled trials up to February 2021. A subsequent hand-search identified data for newer agents, including congresses up to July 2021. Bayesian NMAs were performed to compare treatments on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response, modified van der Heijde-Sharp (vdH-S) score, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Analyses used fixed or random effects models and adjusted for placebo response via meta-regression on baseline risk when feasible. Multinomial models were used for ACR and PASI. Results were summarized by ranking treatments in league tables according to results derived from NMAs. Conclusions (ie, comparable or better/worse) for GUS 100 mg every 8/4 weeks (Q8W/Q4W) versus comparators were based on overlap of pairwise 95% credible intervals (CrIs) (ie, treatments are comparable if CrIs overlap 1 [dichotomous outcomes] or 0 [continuous outcomes]).

Results

Thirty-three phase 3 studies were included in the NMAs. Studies were placebo-controlled up to 24 weeks except for 2 head-to-head studies, and evaluated 15 targeted PsA therapies in TNFi naïve, IR, or mixed populations. For ACR 20 response, GUS Q8W and Q4W ranked 14th and 12th among 23 treatments and were comparable to most other active agents, including RIS and UPA, subcutaneous (SC) TNFi, and most IL-17A inhibitors (IL-17Ai), as demonstrated by overlap in pairwise 95% CrIs with unity. Results were similar for ACR 50 and 70 responses. For PASI 90, GUS Q8W and Q4W ranked 2nd and 1st among 23 treatments and were better than multiple agents, including all SC TNFi, JAKi, including UPA, and other small molecules, as demonstrated by nonoverlap in pairwise 95% Crls with unity. GUS Q8W and Q4W were similar to RIS and most IL-17Ai for PASI 90, but point estimates consistently favored GUS. For vdH-S score, GUS Q8W and Q4W ranked 8th and 3rd among 18 treatments; GUS Q4W was better than RIS, and both GUS Q8W and Q4W were comparable to most other agents, including UPA. SAEs were comparable across most agents.

Conclusion

GUS demonstrated better skin efficacy than most other targeted PsA therapies, including UPA. For vdH-S, both GUS dose regimens were comparable to most treatments, with both GUS dose regimens ranking higher than most, including UPA and RIS. Both GUS dose regimens demonstrated ACR responses that were comparable to most other agents, including UPA and RIS, and ranked favorably in the network for SAEs.

References

None

Disclosure of Interests

Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB Pharma, Lai-Shan Tam Grant/research support from: Novartis and Pfizer, Raji Rajalingam Employee of: EVERSANA, Steve Peterson Shareholder of: may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC, Fareen Hassan Shareholder of: may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen EMEA, Soumya D Chakravarty Shareholder of: may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Christine CONTRE Shareholder of: may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, France, Alison Armstrong Employee of: EVERSANA, Wolf-Henning Boehncke Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo, Novartis, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo, Novartis, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, 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

AB0125 IL-25 PARTICIPATES IN KERATINOCYTE-DRIVEN DERMAL MATRIX TURNOVER AND IS REDUCED IN SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS (SSc) EPIDERMIS

Background

Evidence shows that dysfunctional SSc keratinocytes contribute to fibrosis by altering dermal homeostasis (1, 2). Whether interleukin-25 (IL-25), an IL-17 family member regulating many epidermal functions (3), takes part in skin fibrosis is unknown.

Objectives

To investigate the role of IL-25 in skin fibrosis.

Methods

The expression of IL-25 was evaluated by immunofluorescence and in situ hybridization in 10 SSc and 7 healthy donors (HD) skin biopsies. Epidermal equivalents (EE) reconstituted by primary HD keratinocytes were used as a model to study transcriptomic changes induced by IL-25 in the epidermis. RNA expression profile in EE was characterized by RNAseq. The conditioned medium (CM) from primary SSc and HD keratinocytes primed with IL-25 was used to stimulate fibroblasts. IL-6, IL-8, MMP-1, type-I collagen (col-I), and fibronectin production by fibroblasts was assessed by ELISA.

Results

SSc epidermis expressed lower levels of IL-25 compared to HD. In EE, IL-25 regulated several molecular pathways related to wound healing and extracellular matrix (ECM) remodeling. Compared to control CM, the CM from IL-25-primed keratinocytes enhanced the fibroblast production of MMP-1, IL-6, IL-8, but not of Col-I nor fibronectin. However, IL-25 significantly reduced the production of Col-I when applied directly to fibroblasts and partially inhibit α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA) expression promoted by TGFβ. The activation of keratinocytes by IL-25 was receptor-dependent and evident after a very short incubation time (10 min), largely mediated by IL-1, suggesting enhanced and specific release of preformed mediators.

Conclusion

These results show that IL-25 participates to skin homeostasis and its decreased expression in SSc may contribute to skin fibrosis by favoring ECM deposition over degradation.

References

[1]Russo B, Brembilla NC, Chizzolini C. Interplay between Keratinocytes and Fibroblasts: A Systematic Review Providing a New Angle for Understanding Skin Fibrotic Disorders. Frontiers in immunology. 2020; 11:648.

[2]Russo B, Borowczyk J, Boehncke WH, Truchetet ME, Modarressi A, Brembilla NC, et al. Dysfunctional keratinocytes increase dermal inflammation in systemic sclerosis. Results from tissue-engineered scleroderma epidermis. Arthritis & rheumatology. 2021.

[3]Borowczyk J, Shutova M, Brembilla NC, Boehncke WH. IL-25 (IL-17E) in epithelial immunology and pathophysiology. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2021.

Acknowledgements

We thank Natacha Civic and Mylène Docquier (Genomics Platform) for performing the RNA sequencing; Nicolas Laudet (Bioimaging Core Facility) for quantification of immune-histology, François Prodon and Olivier Brun for microscope imaging (Bioimaging Core Facility), Marie Ebrahim Malek and Laura de Luca (Histology Core Facility) for contribution to tissue preparation (all at University Medical Center, Geneva, Switzerland).

Disclosure of Interests

Barbara Russo: None declared, Julia Borowczyk: None declared, Pietro Cacialli: None declared, Philippe Moguelet: None declared, Marie-Elise Truchetet Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Lilly, SOBI and Boehringer Ingelheim, Ali Modaressi: None declared, Nicolò Brembilla: None declared, Julian Bertrand: None declared, Wolf-Henning Boehncke Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Almirall, BMS, Celgene, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, and UCB, Carlo Chizzolini Speakers bureau: GSK, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim

POS1015 SAFETY OF GUSELKUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS WHO ARE BIO-NAÏVE OR TNFi-EXPERIENCED: POOLED RESULTS FROM 4 RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS THROUGH 2 YEARS

Background

Guselkumab (GUS), a selective IL-23p19 subunit inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy and a favorable safety profile in active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in the Phase (Ph)21, Ph3 (DISCOVER [D]-1&2)2,3, and Ph3b COSMOS4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Objectives

Assess GUS safety through 2 years (Y) in biologic (bio)-naïve and tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-experienced (exp) active PsA patients (pts) pooled across 4 RCTs (Week [W] 56: Ph2 and COSMOS; W60: D1; W112: D2).

Methods

Eligible pts in COSMOS had inadequate response to 1 or 2 prior TNFi; 9% of Ph2 pts and 30% of D1 pts had 1 or 2 prior TNFi; D2 pts were bio-naïve. Incidence rates of adverse events (AEs) are summarized among all treated pts for the placebo (PBO)-controlled (W0-24) and active treatment periods through 2Y (max duration of exposure 100 W) according to actual treatment received, calculated as the number of events per 100 pt-Y of follow-up (PY), along with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Gastrointestinal (GI)-related serious AEs (SAEs) were identified using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system-organ class; major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; predefined as MI, Stroke, or CV death) and opportunistic infections (OIs) were identified through medical review.

Results

Across the 4 RCTs, 1508 pts with active PsA received GUS 100 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) or Q8W and were followed for a median of 1.2 Y, representing 2125 PY. In the overall population (N=1554), which includes PBO-treated pts that discontinued study agent prior to W24, 1138 pts were bio-naïve and 416 pts were TNFi-exp. Among all treated pts, the overall GUS safety profile was generally consistent with that of PBO through W24; rates remained low through 2Y of GUS (Table 1). The GUS safety profile was similar to that observed with PBO within the bio-naïve and TNFi-exp cohorts through W24. Incidence rates of AEs were generally consistent between cohorts in GUS-treated pts; whereas, TNFi-exp PBO-treated pts had more SAEs, study agent d/c due to AEs, and serious infections than bio-naïve PBO pts (Figure).

Table 1.

Overall Treatment-emergent AEs

PBO-controlled (W0-24)aThrough up to 2YPBOb(N=517)GUS Q8W (N=664)GUS Q4W (N=373)Combined GUS (N=1037)GUS Q8W (N=664)GUS Q4W (N=373)Combined GUSc(N=1508)Total (median) PY230 (0.5)305 (0.5)172 (0.5)478 (0.5)941 (1.1)645 (2.1)2125 (1.2)Events/100 PY (95% CI)AEs223 (204, 243)233 (216, 250)223 (201, 246)229 (216, 243)164 (156, 172)139 (130, 148)146 (141, 151)SAEs8.7 (5.3, 13)4.9 (2.8, 8.1)5.2 (2.4, 9.9)5.0 (3.2, 7.5)6.4 (4.9, 8.2)4.7 (3.1, 6.6)5.7 (4.7, 6.8)AEs leading to study agent d/c4.4 (2.1, 8.0)3.6 (1.8, 6.5)7.0 (3.6, 12.2)4.8 (3.1, 7.2)2.6 (1.6, 3.8)2.9 (1.8, 4.6)2.7 (2.1, 3.5)Infections59 (50, 70)56 (48, 65)57 (47, 70)57 (50, 64)43 (38, 47)37 (33, 42)39 (36, 42)Serious Infections2.2 (0.71, 5.1)0.33 (0.01, 1.8)1.7 (0.36, 5.1)0.84 (0.23, 2.1)1.7 (0.97, 2.8)0.77 (0.25, 1.8)1.5 (1.0, 2.1)Malignancy0.44 (0.01, 2.4)0.98 (0.20, 2.9)0.00 (0.00, 1.7)0.63 (0.13, 1.8)0.42 (0.12, 1.1)0.00 (0.00, 0.46)0.28 (0.10, 0.61)MACE0.44 (0.01, 2.4)0.33 (0.01, 1.8)0.58 (0.01, 3.2)0.42 (0.05, 1.5)0.21 (0.03, 0.77)0.46 (0.10, 1.4)0.24 (0.08, 0.55)GI-related SAEs1.3 (0.27, 3.8)0.33 (0.01, 1.8)0.00 (0.00, 1.7)0.21 (0.01, 1.2)0.32 (0.07, 0.93)0.46 (0.10, 1.4)0.28 (0.10, 0.61)OIs0.00 (0.00, 1.3)0.00 (0.00, 0.98)0.00 (0.00, 1.7)0.00 (0.00, 0.63)0.21 (0.03, 0.77)0.00 (0.00, 0.46)0.14 (0.03, 0.41)

MedDRA Version 23.1.

a Includes safety follow-up data through 2Y for pts who d/c study agent prior to W24 and did not receive any study agent at or after W24.

b Includes data prior to GUS in PBO pts who switched from PBO to GUS.

c Includes PBO to GUS cross-over at W24.

Conclusion

The favorable GUS safety profile demonstrated through W24 persisted through 2Y across bio-naïve and TNFi-exp pts.

References

[1]Deodhar A, et al. Lancet. 2018;391:2213-2224.

[2]Deodhar A, et al. Lancet. 2020;395:1115-1125.

[3]Mease PJ, et al. Lancet. 2020;395:1126-1136.

[4]Coates LC, et al. ARD. 2021;80:140-141. OP0230.

Disclosure of Interests

Proton Rahman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Janssen and Novartis, Wolf-Henning Boehncke Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Almirall, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, and UCB, Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Aclaris, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Inmagene, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Alice B Gottlieb Consultant of: AnaptsysBio, Avotres Therapeutics, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, GSK, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., UCB, and Dermavant, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis, UCB, Xbiotech, and Sun Pharma, Iain McInnes Shareholder of: Causeway Therapeutics and Evelo Compugen, Consultant of: Astra Zeneca, AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Cabaletta, Compugen, GSK, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, and UCB, Marlies Neuhold Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Yanli Wang Consultant of: Janssen, Employee of: IQVIA, Shihong Sheng Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Paul Bergmans Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Biostatistics, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Elke Theander Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Jenny Yu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Evan Leibowitz Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Marilise Marrache Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Medical Affairs, Janssen Inc., Laura Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB

IL-17E, iNOS and Arginase1 as new biomarkers in the identification of neutrophilic dermatoses

Background

Neutrophilic dermatoses (ND) are a heterogeneous group of diseases, but can often have a relatively similar histological appearance.

Aim

To identify a combination of biomarkers allowing a better differentiation of ND types.

Methods

Biopsies were obtained from normal human skin (NS; n = 4), chronic plaque‐type psoriasis (PsO; n = 7), paradoxical psoriasis (PP; n = 8), generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP; n = 9), subcorneal pustular dermatosis of Sneddon–Wilkinson (SPD; n = 3), acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP; n = 3), hidradenitis suppurativa (HS; n = 7), Sweet syndrome (SS; n = 8) and pyoderma gangrenosum (PG; n = 8). Samples were analysed by immunofluorescence using three biomarkers, interleukin (IL)‐17E, inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) and arginase1, each one in combination with two cell markers, myeloperoxidase (MPO) and CD68, which allow the identification of neutrophils and macrophages, respectively.

Results

We found that SS is characterized by high expression of IL‐17E and iNOS in the epidermis, while PG exhibits low expression. The density of the neutrophil infiltrate helps to differentiate PP (high‐density infiltrate) from PsO (low‐density infiltrate). High expression of arginase1 in the granular layer of the epidermis is a hallmark of SPD. Finally, mature neutrophils and proinflammatory macrophages are readily detectable in PP, SPD and PG, whereas immature neutrophils and anti‐inflammatory macrophages are more frequent in GPP, AGEP, HS and SS.

Conclusions

The analysis of ND by immunofluorescence using IL‐17E, iNOS and arginase1 in combination with MPO and CD68 allows for characterization of differential expression patterns in the epidermis as well as the determination of the polarization status of the dermal neutrophils and macrophages. The appropriate markers may help in the differentiation of ND in clinical practice.

AB0526 SUSTAINED GUSELKUMAB RESPONSE IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS REGARDLESS OF BASELINE DEMOGRAPHIC AND DISEASE CHARACTERISTICS: POOLED RESULTS THROUGH WEEK 52 OF TWO PHASE 3, RANDOMIZED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED STUDIES

Background:

In the Phase 3 DISCOVER-11 & DISCOVER-22 trials, guselkumab (GUS), a human monoclonal antibody targeting the IL-23p19-subunit, was effective in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) across joint & skin endpoints. At Week 24 (W24), GUS benefit was consistent regardless of baseline (BL) demographic & disease characteristics.3

Objectives:

We assessed whether GUS efficacy was sustained through W52 in pooled DISCOVER-1 & -2 patients (pts) across select BL subgroups.

Methods:

Adults with active PsA despite standard therapies were enrolled in DISCOVER-1 (swollen [SJC] ≥3 & tender joint count [TJC] ≥3, C-reactive protein [CRP] ≥0.3 mg/dL) & DISCOVER-2 (SJC ≥5 & TJC ≥5, CRP ≥0.6 mg/dL). 31% of DISCOVER-1 pts had received 1-2 prior tumor necrosis factor inhibitors; DISCOVER-2 pts were biologic naïve. Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to GUS 100 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W); GUS 100 mg at W0, W4, then Q8W; or placebo (PBO). Pts randomized to PBO received GUS 100 mg Q4W starting at W24 & were excluded from these analyses assessing maintenance of effect from W24 to W52. GUS effects on joint (American College of Rheumatology [ACR]20/50/70) & skin (Investigator’s Global Assessment [IGA=0/1 + ≥2-grade reduction from W0] in pts with ≥3% body surface area [BSA] with psoriasis & IGA ≥2 at W0) endpoints were evaluated by pt BL SJC, TJC, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) use, body mass index (BMI), PsA duration, & % BSA with psoriasis. Missing data were imputed as nonresponse through W52.

Results:

BL pt characteristics in DISCOVER-1 (N=381) & DISCOVER-2 (N=739) were well balanced across randomized groups.1,2 Among 1120 pooled pts, mean SJC was 11, mean TJC was 21, & 68% used csDMARDs (primarily methotrexate [MTX]). At W24, 62% (232/373) & 60% (225/375), respectively, of GUS Q4W- & Q8W-treated pts achieved ACR20 vs 29% (109/372) of PBO, with GUS effect consistently observed across pt BL subgroups (Figure 1). ACR20 response rates were sustained or increased at W52 in the GUS Q4W (72%) & Q8W (70%) groups & across SJC (61-79%), TJC (68-76%), & csDMARD use (68-80%) subgroups (Table 1) & pt subgroups defined by BL BMI, PsA duration, & % BSA with psoriasis (data not shown). ACR50 & 70 response patterns were similar to ACR20 (Table 1). In pts with ≥3% BSA psoriasis & IGA ≥2 at BL, 71% (193/273) & 66% (171/258) of GUS Q4W- & Q8W-treated pts, respectively, vs 18% (47/261) of PBO, achieved IGA 0/1 at W24, with GUS effect consistently observed across pt BL subgroups (Figure 1). IGA 0/1 response rates were also sustained or increased at W52 in the GUS Q4W (80%) & Q8W (71%) groups & across % BSA with psoriasis (67-87%) & csDMARD use (68-87%) subgroups (Table 1) & pt subgroups defined by BL BMI and PsA duration (data not shown).

Conclusion:

Treatment with GUS 100 mg Q4W & Q8W resulted in sustained improvement in signs & symptoms of active PsA through W52 regardless of pt BL characteristics.

References:

[1]Deodhar A, et al. Lancet 2020;395:1115-25;

[2]Mease P, et al. Lancet 2020;395:1126-36;

[3]Deodhar A, et al. American College of Rheumatology 2020; Poster P0908.

Figure 1

Figure 1Table 1.

ACR & IGA Responses at Weeks 24 & 52 & by Select BL Characteristics

Guselkumab Q4WGuselkumab Q8WN=373N=375Week 24Week 52Week 24Week 52ACR20, %62726070 SJC (<10/10-15/>15)68/59/5379/61/6757/66/6068/68/76 TJC (<10/10-15/>15)74/67/5673/76/6962/60/6075/68/68 csDMARD use (none/any/MTX)66/60/6380/68/6862/59/5773/68/68ACR50, %34493145 SJC (<10/10-15/>15)41/32/2058/39/3834/28/2646/40/49 TJC (<10/10-15/>15)51/41/2458/53/4340/33/2652/46/43 csDMARD use (none/any/MTX)36/33/3553/46/4836/29/2751/42/40ACR70, %16271627 SJC (<10/10-15/>15)22/10/732/20/2418/10/1930/23/26 TJC (<10/10-15/>15)29/19/934/32/2227/15/1435/28/24 csDMARD use (none/any/MTX)21/13/1430/26/2721/14/1434/24/23N=273N=258IGA 0/1, %71806671 BSA % with psoriasis(≥3-<10/≥10-<20/≥20)61/71/8076/87/7962/64/7267/72/74 csDMARD use (none/any/MTX)84/64/6787/77/7872/63/6477/68/68

Disclosure of Interests:

Christopher T. Ritchlin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, and UCB Pharma, Philip J Mease Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN, and UCB Pharma, Wolf-Henning Boehncke Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Janssen, Leo, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Janssen, Leo, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, John Tesser Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Crescendo Biosciences/Myriad, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Janssen, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Horizon, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck KG, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sun Pharma, Setpoint, and UCB Pharma, Elena Schiopu Consultant of: Janssen, Grant/research support from: Janssen, Soumya D Chakravarty Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, of which Janssen Research & Development is a wholly owned subsidiary, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, of which Janssen Research & Development is a wholly owned subsidiary, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Elizabeth C Hsia Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, of which Janssen Research & Development is a wholly owned subsidiary, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Xie L Xu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, of which Janssen Research & Development is a wholly owned subsidiary, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, of which Janssen Research & Development is a wholly owned subsidiary, Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC, Yusang Jiang Employee of: Cytel, Inc., providing statistical support (funded by Janssen), Shihong Sheng Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, of which Janssen Research & Development is a wholly owned subsidiary, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: AbbVie, Arena, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB Pharma, Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma.

POS1031 LOW INCIDENCE OF GASTROINTESTINAL-RELATED AND OVERALL SERIOUS ADVERSE EVENTS AMONG GUSELKUMAB-TREATED PATIENTS: POOLED ANALYSES OF VOYAGE 1 & 2 AND DISCOVER 1 & 2 THROUGH 1-YEAR

Background:

Guselkumab (GUS), a human monoclonal antibody that specifically binds to the p19-subunit of interleukin (IL)-23, demonstrated efficacy in the Phase 3 VOYAGE 1&2 trials of patients (pts) with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (PsO)1,2 and in the DISCOVER 1&2 trials of pts with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).3,4 IL-17 inhibitors used to treat PsO and PsA have been associated with exacerbation or new onset of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (e.g., Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis).5

Objectives:

Evaluate the incidence of gastrointestinal (GI)-related and overall serious adverse events (SAEs) from pooled safety data through 1-year of GUS 100 mg treatment from the VOYAGE 1&2 and DISCOVER 1&2 trials.

Methods:

Using pooled safety data from the VOYAGE 1&2 PsO trials and DISCOVER 1&2 PsA trials, SAEs related to GI disorders were identified using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system-organ class “GI disorders”. Pts with a previous history of IBD were not excluded in these trials; medical history of IBD was collected at baseline in DISCOVER 1&2. Rates of overall SAEs and GI-related SAEs were calculated as the number of SAEs per 100 pt-years (PY) of follow-up (95% confidence intervals). Data are presented for the placebo (PBO)-controlled period (Weeks 0-16 for VOYAGE 1&2; Weeks 0-24 for DISCOVER 1&2) and through 1-year (defined as through Week 48 for VOYAGE 1&2; through Week 60 for DISCOVER 1, and through Week 52 for DISCOVER 2). Events of uveitis and opportunistic infections were also analyzed.

Results:

Through the PBO-controlled period, the overall rates of GI-related SAEs per 100 PY for pooled VOYAGE 1&2 were: PBO 0.78 (0.02, 4.34), GUS q8w 0; and for pooled DISCOVER 1&2: PBO 0.58 (0.01, 3.23), GUS q8w 0.58 (0.01, 3.21), GUS q4w 0. The GI-related SAEs included: gastrointestinal hemorrhage (PBO; n=1) for pooled VOYAGE 1&2; and inflammatory bowel disease (PBO; n=1) and mechanical ileus (GUS q8w; n=1) for pooled DISCOVER 1&2. Through 1-year, the overall rates of GI-related SAEs for pooled VOYAGE 1&2 were: Combined GUS group (GUS q8w and PBO→GUS groups) 0.51 (0.17, 1.20); and for pooled DISCOVER 1&2: GUS q8w 0.52 (0.06, 1.88), GUS q4w 0, Combined GUS group (GUS q8w, GUS q4w, and PBO→GUS groups) 0.21 (0.02, 0.74). The GI-related SAEs in the Combined GUS group for pooled VOYAGE 1&2 included: gastritis, hemorrhoids, inguinal hernia, pancreatitis, and umbilical hernia (0.10/100PY [0.00, 0.57]; n=1 for each); and in the Combined GUS group for pooled DISCOVER 1&2: mechanical ileus and pancreatitis chronic (0.10/100PY [0.00, 0.57]; n=1 for each). Overall, no cases of exacerbation or new onset of IBD were reported in GUS-treated pts, including 2 pts with a prior history of IBD in DISCOVER 1&2 (total PY of follow-up for the Combined GUS groups in VOYAGE and DISCOVER were 974 and 973, respectively). Through the PBO-controlled period, rates of overall SAEs for GUS-treated pts were comparable to PBO-pts and SAE rates remained low through 1-year of follow-up in the VOYAGE 1&2 and DISCOVER 1&2 trials. There were no reported cases of uveitis, opportunistic infections, or tuberculosis in GUS-treated pts through 1-year.

Conclusion:

Through 1-year of follow-up with GUS treatment in pooled VOYAGE 1&2 and DISCOVER 1&2, GI-related SAE rates were low. There were no reported cases of uveitis, opportunistic infections, or new onset/exacerbation of IBD in GUS-treated pts. No new safety concerns were identified through 1-year.

References:

[1]Blauvelt A., et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76:405-17.

[2]Reich K., et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76:418-31.

[3]Deodhar A., et al. Lancet. 2020;395:1115-25.

[4]Mease P.J., et al. Lancet. 2020; 395:1126-36.

[5]Hohenberger M., et al. J Dermatolog Treat. 2018;29:13-8.

Disclosure of Interests:

Philip J Mease Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN, and UCB, Peter Foley Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Valeant, Galderma, GSK, Leo Pharma, and Roche, Consultant of: Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Galderma, AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Arcutis, Aslan, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Hexima, Merck, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma, Valeant, BMS, Celtaxsys, CSL, Cutanea, Dermira, Genentech, GSK, Leo Pharma, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, Reistone, Roche, and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma; travel grants from AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Galderma, Leo Pharma, Roche, Sun Pharma, and Sanofi

, Kristian Reich Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, and UCB Pharma, Jerry Bagel Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Janssen Biotech, and Novartis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Biotech, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Corrona, LLC, Dermavant Sciences, LTD, Dermira/UCB, Eli Lilly and Company, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Janssen Biotech, Kadmon Corporation, Leo Pharma, Lycera Corp, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sun Pharma, Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Mark Lebwohl Consultant of: Aditum Bio, Allergan, Almirall, Arcutis, Inc., Avotres Therapeutics, BirchBioMed Inc., BMD skincare, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cara Therapeutics, Castle Biosciences, Corrona, Dermavant Sciences, Evelo, Evommune, Facilitate International Dermatologic Education, Foundation for Research and Education in Dermatology, Inozyme Pharma, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Meiji Seika Pharma, Menlo, Mitsubishi, Neuroderm, Pfizer, Promius/Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Serono, Theravance, and Verrica, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Arcutis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Evommune, Incyte, Janssen, Leo Pharmaceutucals, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, and UCB, Ya-Wen Yang Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC, May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC, Megan Miller Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Elizabeth C Hsia Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Xie L Xu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Miwa Izutsu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Paraneedharan Ramachandran Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Shihong Sheng Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Yin You Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Philip Helliwell Consultant of: Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Janssen, Pfizer, Wolf-Henning Boehncke Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Pfizer

AB0538 POOLED SAFETY RESULTS FROM TWO PHASE-3 TRIALS OF GUSELKUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS THROUGH 1 YEAR

Background:

DISCOVER 1 & 2, two double-blind, phase-3, psoriatic arthritis (PsA) trials of guselkumab (GUS, an IL-23 inhibitor), demonstrated significant improvement with GUS vs placebo (PBO) in signs and symptoms of PsA, with good tolerability, at week (w) 24 during the PBO-controlled period.1,2 Beyond w24, all patients (pts) switched to GUS. Continued treatment maintained efficacy through w52.3,4

Objectives:

To describe pooled safety results from the DISCOVER 1 & 2 trials through 1-year of GUS treatment.

Methods:

Adults with active PsA (DISCOVER 1: ≥3 tender/swollen joints and C-Reactive protein [CRP] ≥0.3 mg/dL; DISCOVER 2: ≥5 tender/swollen joints and CRP ≥0.6 mg/dL) were randomized to subcutaneous GUS 100 mg at w0, w4, then every 8 w (q8w); GUS 100 mg q4w; or PBO. At w24, PBO pts switched to GUS 100 mg q4w. Pts were biologic naive except ~30% pts in DISCOVER 1. Safety was reported through w60 in DISCOVER 1 and through w52 in DISCOVER 2.

Results:

Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups in the pooled studies. Through w24 and 1 year, numbers of pts per 100 patient years with ≥1 event were similar among treatment groups for adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, infections, serious infections, and discontinuations due to AE (Table 1). At 1 year, there were no cases of active tuberculosis, opportunistic infections (including candida), or inflammatory bowel disease in GUS-treated pts; 2 deaths in PBO pts; and low incidences that were similar across treatment groups for malignancy, major adverse cardiac events, and injection-site reactions. Incidence of anti-GUS antibodies was 4.5%, and most were not neutralizing. Mild elevations in serum hepatic transaminases and decreases in neutrophil counts were consistent at 1 year with the results at w24 (Table 1).

Conclusion:

GUS regimens of q8w and q4w were well tolerated in PsA pts through 1 year of treatment in the phase-3 DISCOVER trials, consistent with the w24 results. No meaningful differences between incidences of AEs were reported in the q8w and q4w groups. The safety profile of GUS in PsA pts is generally comparable with the previously established safety profile of GUS.

References:

[1]Deodhar A et al. Lancet. 2020;395:1115

[2]Mease P et al. Lancet. 2020;395:1126

[3]Ritchlin C et al. EULAR 2020 # SAT0397

[4]McInnes I et al. EULAR 2020 # SAT0402

Table 1.

Number of Patients with AEs per 100 PY and Incidence of AEs of Interest

Time Period24 Weeks1 Year*Treatment GroupPBOGUS SC 100 mgPBO to GUS‡GUS SC 100 mgDosing ScheduleMatchingq8wq4wGUSCombined†q4wq8wq4wGUSCombined‡ N3723753737483523753731100Total PY Follow-Up173173172346204384385589Patients with AEs per 100 PY, n (95% CI)≥1 AE143 (123, 166)148 (127, 171)154 (132, 178)151 (136, 167)92 (77, 108)114 (100, 130)115 (101, 131)109 (100, 117)≥1 Serious AE7.1 (3.7, 12)4.1 (1.6, 8.4)4.7 (2.0, 9.3)4.4 (2.5, 7.3)7.0 (3.8, 11.8)4.8 (2.9, 7.6)4.0 (2.2, 6.6)4.9 (3.6, 6.6)≥1 Infection50 (39, 62)47 (37, 59)52 (42, 65)49 (42, 58)39 (31, 49)41 (34, 48)38 (31, 45)39 (35, 44)≥1 Serious Infection1.7 (0.4, 5.1)0.6 (0.0, 3.2)1.8 (0.4, 5.1)1.2 (0.3, 3.0)2.5 (0.8, 5.8)1.3 (0.4, 3.1)0.8 (0.2, 2.3)1.3 (0.7, 2.3)Discontinued due to AE4.1 (1.6, 8.4)2.9 (1.0, 6.8)4.7 (2.0, 9.3)3.8 (2.0, 6.5)3.5 (1.4, 7.1)2.1 (0.9, 4.1)2.6 (1.3, 4.8)2.6 (1.7, 3.8)AEs of Interest§, n (%)Death2 (0.5)0000000Malignancy1 (0.3)2 (0.5)02 (0.3)1 (0.3)2 (0.5)03 (0.3)Major Adverse Cardiac Events1 (0.3)01 (0.3)1 (0.1)001 (0.3)1 (0.1)Opportunistic Infections00000000Tuberculosis00000000Inflammatory Bowel Disease1 (0.3)0000000Injection-Site Reaction1 (0.3)5 (1.3)4 (1.1)9 (1.2)4 (1.1)6 (1.6)9 (2.4)19 (1.7)Anti-GUS Antibody+-6/373 (1.6)9/371 (2.4)15/744 (2.0)14/350 (4.0)18/373 (4.8)17/371 (4.6)49/1094 (4.5)

*Through w60 for DISCOVER 1 and w52 for DISCOVER 2; †Combined GUS q8w and q4w; ‡For patients who switched from PBO to GUS, only data on and after first GUS administration were included in this group; §PBO N=370.

AE, adverse event; CI, confidence interval; GUS, guselkumab; PBO, placebo; PY, patient year; q4w, every 4 weeks; q8w, every 8 weeks; SC, subcutaneous; w, week

Disclosure of Interests:

Christopher T. Ritchlin Grant/research support from: Received grant/research support from UCB Pharma, AbbVie, Amgen, consultation fees from UCB Pharma, Amgen, AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Gilead, Janssen, Proton Rahman Speakers bureau: Received speakers fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Received grant/research support from Janssen and Novartis, consultation fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer., Philip Helliwell Consultant of: Consultation fees paid to charity (AbbVie, Amgen, Pfizer, UCB) or himself (Celgene, Galapagos), Grant/research support from: Received grants/research support paid to charity (AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis), Wolf-Henning Boehncke Consultant of: Received consultation fees from Janssen, Grant/research support from: Received grant/research support from Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Iain McInnes Consultant of: Received consultation fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Received grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, and UCB, Alice B Gottlieb Speakers bureau: Received speakers fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, Nordic, Celltrion and UCB, Consultant of: Received consultation fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, Nordic, Celltrion and UCB, Grant/research support from: Received grant/research support from Pfizer, AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, Nordic, Celltrion and UCB, Shelly Kafka Shareholder of: Shareholder of Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Employee of Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Shareholder of Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Employee of Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Elizabeth C Hsia Shareholder of: Shareholder of Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Employee of Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Xie L Xu Shareholder of: Shareholder of Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Employee of Janssen Research & Development, LLC, May Shawi Shareholder of: Shareholder of Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Employee of Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Shihong Sheng Shareholder of: Shareholder of Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Employee of Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Prasheen Agarwal Shareholder of: Shareholder of Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Employee of Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Bei Zhou Shareholder of: Shareholder of Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Employee of Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Paraneedharan Ramachandran Shareholder of: Shareholder of Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Employee of Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: Received speakers fees from Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau, Consultant of: Received consultation fees from Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB, Grant/research support from: Received grant/research support from Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB.

Tofacitinib in psoriatic arthritis patients: skin signs and symptoms and health-related quality of life from two randomized phase 3 studies

Background

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic, systemic immune‐mediated inflammatory musculoskeletal disease. The onset of dermatologic symptoms often precedes rheumatic manifestations. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of PsA that has been shown to improve dermatologic symptoms in patients with PsA.

Objectives

To investigate the efficacy of tofacitinib in improving dermatologic endpoints in adult patients with active PsA.

Methods

This analysis included data from two placebo‐controlled, double‐blind, phase 3 studies in patients with active PsA and an inadequate response (IR) to ≥1 conventional synthetic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) who were tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)‐naïve (OPAL Broaden; NCT01877668) or an IR to ≥1 TNFi (OPAL Beyond; NCT01882439). Patients had active plaque psoriasis at screening and received a stable dose of one csDMARD during the study. Patients were randomized to tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID), 10 mg BID, adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneous injection once every 2 weeks (OPAL Broaden only) or placebo (to Month 3). Dermatologic endpoints: Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) total score; PASI90 overall; PASI75 and PASI90 by baseline PASI severity; Physician’s Global Assessment of Psoriasis; Nail Psoriasis Severity Index; Dermatology Life Quality Index total and sub‐dimension scores; Itch Severity Item; and Patient’s Global Joint and Skin Assessment‐Visual Analog Scale‐Psoriasis question.

Results

In patients with active PsA, including those stratified by mild or moderate/severe dermatologic symptoms, greater improvements from baseline and percentage of responders were observed in tofacitinib‐treated patients vs. placebo for the majority of analyzed dermatologic endpoints at Months 1 and 3, and improvements were maintained to Month 12 in OPAL Broaden and Month 6 in OPAL Beyond. Similar effects were observed in adalimumab‐treated patients vs. placebo in OPAL Broaden across dermatologic endpoints.

Conclusions

Tofacitinib provides a treatment option for patients with active PsA, including the burdensome dermatologic symptoms of PsA.

SAT0397 GUSELKUMAB, AN IL-23 INHIBITOR THAT SPECIFICALLY BINDS TO THE IL23P19-SUBUNIT, FOR ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: ONE YEAR RESULTS OF A PHASE 3, RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED STUDY OF PATIENTS WHO WERE BIOLOGIC-NAÏVE OR TNFΑ INHIBITOR-EXPERIENCED

Background:

Guselkumab (GUS), a monoclonal antibody that specifically binds to the p19-subunit of IL-23, is approved to treat PsO. At Week24 (W24) of the Phase 3, double-blind, PBO-controlled trial in pts with active PsA who were biologic-naïve or prior TNFα inhibitor (TNFi)-treated (DISCOVER-1), GUS 100 mg, given every 4/8 weeks (Q4W/Q8W), demonstrated efficacy for joint & skin symptoms, physical function & quality of life vs PBO; AEs were consistent with GUS safety in PsO.

Objectives:

Assess GUS efficacy & safety in PsA through 1 year.

Methods:

Adults with active PsA (≥3 swollen+≥3 tender joints; CRP ≥0.3mg/dL) despite standard therapies were eligible. Approx. 30% of pts could have previously received ≤2 TNFi. Pts were randomized 1:1:1, stratified by W0 DMARD [Y/N] & prior TNFi (Y/N) use, to GUS 100mg Q4W; GUS 100 mg at W0, W4 & Q8W; or PBO. At W24, PBO pts crossed over to GUS 100 mg Q4W (PBO X Q4W). W48 marked the last dose of study agent. ACR response rates at W52, based on nonresponder imputation (NRI) for missing data and as observed in pts still on study agent at W24, are shown. Observed data for additional endpoints are shown. AEs through W60 are reported.

Results:

362/381 (95%) randomized pts continued study agent at W24 (125 Q4W, 123 Q8W, 114 PBO X Q4W), 347/381 (91%) pts completed treatment & 343/381 (90%) completed study. NRI ACR20 response rates were maintained at W52 (Q4W 73%, Q8W 60%; Fig 1A). Similar responses patterns were seen for the more stringent ACR50/70 criteria (Fig 1C,E). Observed ACR responses, overall (Fig, 1B,D,F) and in pts with (Fig 2A,C,E) & without (Fig 2B,D,F) prior TNFi use, were also maintained at W52. Improvements in other clinical outcomes were also maintained at W52, and responses for pts crossing over from PBO X Q4W at W24 were generally consistent with other GUS-treated pts by W52 (Table 1). Through W24, 4 (2%) GUS- and 5 (4%) PBO-treated pts had serious AEs; no GUS-treated and 2 (2%) PBO-treated pts had a serious infection. Through W60, serious AEs and serious infections occurred in 4% & 1%, respectively, of all 369 GUS-treated pts; no GUS-treated pt died or had IBD, opportunistic infections or active TB, or anaphylactic or serum sickness-like reactions.

Table 1.

Observed Efficacy1

GUSQ4WGUSQ8WPBO(W0-24) XQ4W(W24-52)Data are % unless otherwise statedW24W52W24W52W24W52Dactylitis at W0,n373749444743Resolution64.978.467.379.561.781.4Enthesitis at W0,n717071647163Resolution49.362.940.856.331.069.8≥3% BSA psoriasis, IGA ≥2 at W0,n888881756866IGA 0/1 + ≥2-grade decrease76.183.058.069.317.681.52PASI7587.594.376.580.020.684.8PASI9063.676.150.666.713.272.7PASI10045.564.825.948.07.462.1HAQ-DI,n125124123114114104Mean change-0.4-0.5-0.3-0.4-0.1-0.4SF-36 scores,n (mean change)124124123114114104Physical Component - PCS6.68.56.57.32.76.9Mental Component - MCS3.84.93.05.11.84.2MDA, n125124123112114103MDA response31.240.323.633.912.331.1VLDA,n125124123114113104VLDA response9.616.94.112.31.814.4

1Randomized pts still on study agent at W24;2n=65

Conclusion:

GUS Q4W & Q8W maintained improvements in joint symptoms through 1 year in pts with active PsA who were biologic-naïve or previously TNFi-treated. In pts continuing in the study, improvements in skin symptoms, dactylitis, enthesitis, physical function & quality of life were also maintained through 1 year. GUS 100 mg Q4W & Q8W were safe and well-tolerated through study completion and consistent with GUS safety in PsO.1

References:

[1]https://www.janssenlabels.com/package-insert/product-monograph/prescribing-information/TREMFYA-pi.pdf.

Acknowledgments:

None

Disclosure of Interests:

Christopher T. Ritchlin Grant/research support from: UCB Pharma, AbbVie, Amgen, Consultant of: UCB Pharma, Amgen, AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Gilead, Janssen, Philip Helliwell: None declared, Wolf-Henning Boehncke Grant/research support from: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Consultant of: Janssen, Elizabeth C Hsia Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Ramanand A Subramanian Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Xie L Xu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Shihong Sheng Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Yusang Jiang: None declared, Bei Zhou Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Atul Deodhar Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB

FRI0359 INTEGRATED SAFETY RESULTS OF TWO PHASE-3 TRIALS OF GUSELKUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS THROUGH THE PLACEBO-CONTROLLED PERIODS

Background:

DISCOVER 1 & 2 are phase 3 psoriatic arthritis (PsA) trials investigating guselkumab (GUS), an IL-23 inhibitor that specifically binds the IL-23p19 subunit. In both studies, GUS showed significant improvement vs placebo (PBO) through week (W) 24 in the PBO-controlled period.1,2

Objectives:

To present integrated safety results of DISC 1 & 2 through the PBO-controlled periods.

Methods:

Adult patients (pts) with active PsA despite standard therapy were enrolled. All pts were biologic-naïve, except ~30% in DISC 1 with previous exposure to 1-2 TNF inhibitors. Pts were randomized to SC GUS 100 mg Q4W; GUS 100 mg at W0, W4, then Q8W; or PBO. Adverse events (AEs) and lab results were analyzed from pooled data.

Results:

The rates of pts experiencing ≥1 AE, serious AE, infection, serious infection, and discontinuation due to an AE were similar between GUS and PBO (Table 1). There were 2 deaths, 3 malignancies, 2 Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE), and no opportunistic infections (treatment group not shown to prevent unblinding). Among the AEs reported by ≥5% pts in any group (Table 1), nasopharyngitis and elevated serum hepatic aminotransferases were more common with GUS vs PBO. Laboratory ALT and AST elevations were mostly mild, transient, and not associated with significant bilirubin elevation. There was a trend to decreased neutrophil count (mostly Grade 1, transient, and not associated with infection) with GUS vs PBO (Table 2). Low rates of injection-site reactions were seen with GUS vs PBO. Anti-drug antibody development was also low (Table 1).

Table 1.

Patient Reported AEs, n (%)

GUS100 mgQ8WGUS100 mgQ4WPBON375373372≥1 AE182 (48.5)182 (48.8)176 (47.3)≥1 Serious AE7 (1.9)8 (2.1)12 (3.2)Discontinuation due to AE5 (1.3)8 (2.1)7 (1.9)≥1 Infection73 (19.5)80 (21.4)77 (20.7)≥1 Serious infection1 (0.3)3 (0.8)3 (0.8)≥1 Opportunistic Infection (including Candida)000Active Tuberculosis000≥1 Injection-site reaction5 (1.3)4 (1.1)1 (0.3)Anti-GUS antibody +, n/N (%)6/373 (1.6)9/371 (2.4)--AEs* reported by ≥5% of patients in any treatment groupNasopharyngitis26 (6.9)19 (5.1)17 (4.6)Upper respiratory tract infection13 (3.5)23 (6.2)17 (4.6)Increased ALT23 (6.1)28 (7.5)14 (3.8)Increased AST23 (6.1)14 (3.8)9 (2.4)

*Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) preferred term

Table 2.

Lab Results*

GUS100 mgQ8WGUS100 mgQ4WPBON373371370ALT Increased (%)Grade 128.235.030.121.12.71.43-40.81.10.8Neutrophil Count Decreased (%)Grade 15.65.93.221.61.60.83-400.30.3

*NCI toxicity grade

ALT=Alanine aminotransferase

Conclusion:

GUS was safe and well tolerated through the PBO-controlled period in 2 randomized, phase 3 trials of patients with active PsA. There were no meaningful safety differences between the Q8W and Q4W groups, no significant safety issues identified when comparing GUS to PBO, and no safety signals with regards to infections, malignancy, and MACE. The safety profile of GUS Q4W and Q8W in PsA pts was generally consistent with that in the Phase 3 trials of GUS Q8W for psoriasis.3,4

References:

[1]Deodhar et al. ACR 2019 (#807). Arth Rheum 2019;71 S10:1386

[2]Mease et al. ACR 2019 (#L13). Arth Rheum 2019;71 S10:5247

[3]Blauvelt et al. J Am Acad Derm 2017;76:405

[4]Reich et al. J Am Acad Derm 2017;76:418

Acknowledgments:

None

Disclosure of Interests:

Proton Rahman Grant/research support from: Janssen and Novartis, Consultant of: Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer., Speakers bureau: Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Christopher T. Ritchlin Grant/research support from: UCB Pharma, AbbVie, Amgen, Consultant of: UCB Pharma, Amgen, AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Gilead, Janssen, Philip Helliwell: None declared, Wolf-Henning Boehncke Grant/research support from: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Consultant of: Janssen, Philip J Mease Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau, Alice B Gottlieb Grant/research support from:: Research grants, consultation fees, or speaker honoraria for lectures from: Pfizer, AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, Nordic, Celltrion and UCB., Consultant of:: Research grants, consultation fees, or speaker honoraria for lectures from: Pfizer, AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, Nordic, Celltrion and UCB., Speakers bureau:: Research grants, consultation fees, or speaker honoraria for lectures from: Pfizer, AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, Nordic, Celltrion and UCB., Shelly Kafka Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Elizabeth C Hsia Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Xie L Xu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Shihong Sheng Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Prasheen Agarwal Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Bei Zhou Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Paraneedharan Ramachandran Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Iain McInnes Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB

SAT0289 THE INS AND OUTS OF EPIDERMAL DYSFUNCTION IN SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS (SSC): RESULTS FROM A NOVEL TISSUE ENGINEERED EPIDERMAL EQUIVALENT FROM SSC KERATINOCYTES

Background:

Skin fibrosis is a hallmark of systemic sclerosis (SSc). It is commonly accepted that vascular damage, immune system activation and, abnormal fibroblasts-to-myofibroblasts differentiation are pathological capital features. Nevertheless, recent evidence portrays a potential role of the epidermis in the pathogenesis of SSc skin fibrosis (1, 2). This new angle on skin fibrosis pathogenesis is particularly attractive as the epidermis is an easy to access therapeutic target.

Objectives:

To dissect the potential epidermal dysfunction in SSc and its effect on dermis homeostasis, using a novel epidermal equivalent reconstituted from SSc keratinocytes.

Methods:

Primary keratinocytes and fibroblasts cell lines were generated from skin biopsies obtained from 6 SSc and 6 healthy donors (HD), upon informed consent and ethical approval. Epidermal equivalents (EE) were generated from 4 SSc and 6 HD keratinocytes. Skin and EE expression of the mitotic marker Ki67, of the differentiation markers (K10, involucrin, filaggrin, loricrin), and activation markers (K6, K16) was evaluated by immunohistochemistry. The transcriptomic profile of SSc keratinocytes in monolayer or stratified in EE was identified by RNAseq analysis. EE conditioned medium was used to stimulate fibroblasts. The fibroblast production of interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-1, type-I collagen (col-I), and fibronectin was assessed by ELISA.

Results:

Compared to HD, immunohistochemistry revealed that SSc epidermis is characterized by aberrant premature differentiation and enhanced expression of activation markers associated with a lower mitotic rate of basal keratinocytes. Of interest, EE reconstituted from SSc keratinocytes reproduced most of the abnormalities observed in SSc epidermis. RNAseq analysis revealed that SSc keratinocytes, either cultured in monolayer or in EE, have a distinct transcriptomic profile compared to their HD counterpart, characterized by the downregulation of genes from the HOX family.

The supernatant of EE enhanced the production of IL-6, IL-8, MMP-1, col-I, and fibronectin by HD fibroblasts (p<0.05). Except for col-I and fibronectin, this effect was 2-fold higher in the presence of supernatant from EE reconstituted by SSc keratinocytes. Neutralization experiments indicated that IL-1 was, at least in part, responsible for keratinocyte-dependent fibroblasts activation.

Conclusion:

We established a novel epidermal equivalent tissue engineered from SSc keratinocytes, that recapitulates thein vivocharacteristics of SSc epidermis. Our preliminary data suggest that SSc keratinocytes have an intrinsic altered program of differentiation, possibly due to the downregulation of some HOX genes. This altered phenotype is associated with increased production of mediators that stimulate fibroblasts production of inflammatory cytokines. In this scenario, we may hypothesize that SSc epidermis participates in modifying the dermis environment, favoring the development of chronic inflammation and fibrosis.

References

[1]Takahashi T, Asano Y, Sugawara K, Yamashita T, Nakamura K, Saigusa R, et al. Epithelial Fli1 deficiency drives systemic autoimmunity and fibrosis: Possible roles in scleroderma. J Exp Med. 20317;214(4):1129-51.

[2]Nikitorowicz-Buniak J, Shiwen X, Denton CP, Abraham D, Stratton R. Abnormally differentiating keratinocytes in the epidermis of systemic sclerosis patients show enhanced secretion of CCN2 and S100A9. J Invest Dermatol. 2014;134(11):2693-702.

Disclosure of Interests:

Barbara Russo: None declared, Julia Borowczyk-Michalowska: None declared, Wolf-Henning Boehncke Consultant of: WHB received honoraria as advisor or invited speaker from Abbvie, Almirall, BMS, Celgene, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, UCB., Speakers bureau: WHB received honoraria as advisor or invited speaker from Abbvie, Almirall, BMS, Celgene, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, UCB., Nicolò Brembilla: None declared, Carlo Chizzolini Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche

AB0820 COMPARATIVE EFFICACY OF GUSELKUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: RESULTS FROM SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW AND NETWORK META-ANALYSIS

Background:

The efficacy of the interleukin (IL)-23 subunit p19 inhibitor guselkumab (GUS) for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) has recently been demonstrated in two Phase 3 trials (DISCOVER-1 & -2) but has not been evaluated versus existing targeted therapies for PsA.

Objectives:

To compare GUS to targeted therapies for PsA through network meta-analysis (NMA).

Methods:

A systematic literature review was performed to identify PsA randomized controlled trials from 2000 to 2018. Bayesian NMAs were performed to compare treatments on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response, Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 75/90/100 response, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score, resolution of enthesitis (RoE), resolution of dactylitis (RoD), adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). Analyses used random effects models that adjusted for placebo response via meta-regression on baseline risk when feasible. Results are summarized by ranking treatments according to median absolute probabilities of response derived from NMAs.

Results:

Twenty-six Phase 3 studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. Studies were placebo-controlled up to 24 weeks and evaluated 13 targeted therapies for PsA. Absolute probabilities are reported for PASI 90 & ACR 20 responses according toFigure 1,and a forest plot of relative risks versus placebo for AEs is reported according toFigure 2. For ACR 20 response, GUS 100 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) and every 8 weeks (Q8W) ranked 5th and 8th out of 20 interventions and were comparable to IL-17A inhibitor (IL-17Ai) and most tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) agents. Similar findings were observed for ACR 50 and 70 responses. For PASI 90 response, GUS Q4W and Q8W ranked 1st and 2nd out of 15 interventions and were highly likely to provide a greater benefit than most other agents. Similar findings were observed for PASI 75 and 100 responses. For HAQ-DI score, GUS Q4W and Q8W ranked 6th and 10th out of 20 interventions and were comparable to IL-17Ai and most TNFi agents. For RoE, GUS Q4W and Q8W ranked 8th and 6th out of 13 interventions and were comparable to IL-17Ai and TNFi agents. For RoD, GUS Q4W and Q8W ranked 8th and 9th out of 13 interventions and were comparable to most IL-17Ai and TNFi agents. For AEs, GUS Q4W and Q8W ranked 3rd and 2nd out of 19 interventions and were comparable to IL-17Ai and TNFi agents. Likewise, for SAEs, GUS Q4W and Q8W ranked 4th and 5th out of 20 interventions and were comparable to IL-17Ai and TNFi agents. Analyses that controlled for previous exposure to biologics or assessed outcomes at alternative timepoints were broadly consistent with primary analysis results.

Conclusion:

NMA results indicate that GUS is comparable to most targeted PsA treatments for improvement in arthritis, soft tissue damage, physical function, and safety outcomes. For PASI outcomes, GUS is highly likely to provide a greater benefit than other targeted PsA treatments.

Disclosure of Interests:

Iain McInnes Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Philip J Mease Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau, Kiefer Eaton Shareholder of: Test Pharma, Consultant of: Janssen, Agata Schubert Employee of: Janssen-Cilag, Steve Peterson Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Tim Disher Consultant of: Janssen, Wim Noel Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceuticals NV, Hassan Fareen Employee of: Janssen, Chetan Karyekar Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Consultant of: Janssen, Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC. Previously, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Abbott Labs., Suzy Van Sanden Employee of: Janssen, Christopher T. Ritchlin Grant/research support from: UCB Pharma, AbbVie, Amgen, Consultant of: UCB Pharma, Amgen, AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Gilead, Janssen, Wolf-Henning Boehncke Grant/research support from: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Consultant of: Janssen

Association between clinical specialty setting and disease management in patients with psoriatic arthritis: results from LOOP, a cross-sectional, multi-country, observational study

BACKGROUND

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic and debilitating disease that can be managed by different clinical specialists.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the LOOP study was to evaluate the impact of clinical specialty setting on the time to diagnosis and treatment of patients with PsA. Clinical disease activity and disease burden were also compared between clinical settings.

METHODS

LOOP was a cross-sectional, multicentre, observational study conducted in 17 countries in Western and Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and Asia. Adult patients (≥18 years) with a suspected or established diagnosis of PsA who were routinely visiting a rheumatologist, dermatologist or non-rheumatology/non-dermatology physician were enrolled. All patients were assessed by both a rheumatologist and a dermatologist.

RESULTS

Of 1483 enrolled patients, a total of 1273 had a confirmed diagnosis of PsA. There was no significant difference in the median time from onset of inflammatory musculoskeletal symptoms to PsA diagnosis between patients enrolled by rheumatologists and dermatologists (6.0 vs. 3.9 months). However, the median time from diagnosis to first treatment with a conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (csDMARD) was significantly shorter in the rheumatology setting compared with the dermatology setting (0 vs. 2.0 months; P < 0.001). In addition, disease activity was significantly higher in the dermatology setting compared with the rheumatology setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in the management and clinical status of patients with PsA were observed between the rheumatology and dermatology settings. Importantly, median time from diagnosis to first csDMARD was significantly shorter in the rheumatology setting, and patients in the dermatology setting had higher disease activity. These data show the importance of improved collaboration between rheumatologists and dermatologists.

Linkage between patients' characteristics and prescribed systemic treatments for psoriasis: a semantic connectivity map analysis of the Swiss Dermatology Network for Targeted Therapies registry

BACKGROUND

Several treatment options are currently available for the treatment of psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the main associations between patients' characteristics and systemic treatments prescribed for psoriasis in a large group of patients observed in real-life clinical practice.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of baseline data collected within the Swiss Dermatology Network for Targeted Therapies registry in Switzerland between March 2011 and December 2017. Semantic map analysis was used in order to capture the best associations between variables taking into account other covariates in the system.

RESULTS

A total of 549 patients (mean age 46.7 ± 14.7 years) were included in the analysis. Conventional therapies such as retinoids and methotrexate were associated with no previous systemic therapies for psoriasis, a moderate quality of life (QoL) at therapy onset and older age (≥60 years). Fumaric acid derivatives were associated with mild psoriasis (psoriasis area severity index < 10) and long disease duration (≥20 years). On the other side, cyclosporine and psoralen and ultraviolet A/ultraviolet B treatments were linked to a more severe condition, including impaired QoL, hospitalization and inability to work. Regarding biological therapies, both infliximab and adalimumab were connected to the presence of psoriatic arthritis, severe disease condition and other comorbidities, including chronic liver or kidney diseases and tuberculosis. Etanercept, ustekinumab and secukinumab were all connected to a complex history of previous systemic treatments for psoriasis, moderate disease condition, overweight and university education.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis shows multifaceted associations between patients' characteristics, comorbidities, disease severity and systemic treatments prescribed for psoriasis. In particular, our semantic map indicates that comorbidities play a central role in decision-making of systemic treatments usage for psoriasis. Future studies should further investigate specific connections emerging from our data.

The role of IL-23 and the IL-23/TH 17 immune axis in the pathogenesis and treatment of psoriasis

Psoriasis is a chronic, immune‐mediated disease affecting more than 100 million people worldwide and up to 2.2% of the UK population. The aetiology of psoriasis is thought to originate from an interplay of genetic, environmental, infectious and lifestyle factors. The manner in which genetic and environmental factors interact to contribute to the molecular disease mechanisms has remained elusive. However, the interleukin 23 (IL‐23)/T‐helper 17 (T_H17) immune axis has been identified as a major immune pathway in psoriasis disease pathogenesis. Central to this pathway is the cytokine IL‐23, a heterodimer composed of a p40 subunit also found in IL‐12 and a p19 subunit exclusive to IL‐23. IL‐23 is important for maintaining T_H17 responses, and levels of IL‐23 are elevated in psoriatic skin compared with non‐lesional skin. A number of agents that specifically inhibit IL‐23p19 are currently in development for the treatment of moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis, with recent clinical trials demonstrating efficacy with a good safety and tolerability profile. These data support the role of this cytokine in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. A better understanding of the IL‐23/T_H17 immune axis is vital and will promote the development of additional targets for psoriasis and other inflammatory diseases that share similar genetic aetiology and pathogenetic pathways.

Diagnosing and treating psoriatic arthritis: an update

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is an inflammatory arthritis of uncertain pathogenesis, affecting approximately one in four patients with psoriasis. Onset of psoriasis typically precedes the development of PsA. Therefore, the dermatologist is ideally positioned to recognize the early signs and symptoms of PsA for diagnosis and subsequent treatment. The role of the dermatologist in early diagnosis and treatment is essential for preventing pain and functional disabilities, as well as the joint deterioration that accompanies progressive forms of PsA. Diagnosis of PsA is a key aspect of the clinical decision process for the dermatologist, as psoriasis plus PsA requires a different therapeutic approach from that required for psoriasis alone. Furthermore, PsA is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular comorbidities that present significant health concerns. In this review, the pathogenesis and comorbidities of PsA are discussed. In addition, screening and imaging tools that aid in the diagnosis of PsA, as well as tools used for efficacy assessment, are reviewed. Available therapies are presented, with a focus on targeted biologics and emerging treatments.

Mammalian target of rapamycin and its downstream signalling components are activated in psoriatic skin

BACKGROUND

Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signalling integrates signals leading to cellular growth, proliferation and differentiation. Disturbance of this tightly regulated interplay leads to malignancies, as reflected by altered mTOR signalling in epidermal tumours. As psoriatic keratinocytes also show features of perturbed cell growth and differentiation, the question arises as to whether mTOR signalling also plays a role in the pathogenesis of psoriasis.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the activation status of mTOR signalling components in psoriasis.

METHODS

Biopsies from lesional and nonlesional skin of patients with psoriasis (n = 10), as well as samples from healthy donors (n = 3), were analysed by immunohistochemistry and Western blot, utilizing antibodies detecting phosphorylated mTOR, phospho-S6 kinase and phospho-S6 ribosomal protein.

RESULTS

We found mTOR and its downstream signalling molecule, the ribosomal protein S6, to be activated in lesional psoriatic skin. While mTOR is activated throughout the whole epidermis, with particularly strong activation in the basal layer, S6 is active in suprabasal layers of differentiating keratinocytes.

CONCLUSIONS

Altogether these results suggest a role for mTOR signalling in the epidermal changes leading to the psoriatic phenotype. mTOR inhibition might be a mode of action to explore in developing innovative antipsoriatic drugs.

New developments in our understanding of psoriatic arthritis and their impact on the diagnosis and clinical management of the disease

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a spondyloarthritis with a comorbid association with psoriasis. Without appropriate treatment it can be progressive, severe, deforming and destructive. It has long been recognized that subsets of PsA patients exist, characterized by different patterns of joint involvement. Associations between development of PsA and certain human leukocyte antigens (HLA) have been established. Evidence now suggests that progression of PsA is also genetically determined. The presence of one allele (HLA-B*27) has been associated with a distinct phenotype characterized by early joint involvement, whereas development of musculoskeletal symptoms is much slower in patients with another allele, C*06. Dermatologists need to consider what these differences in genotypes and phenotypes mean for clinical practice. Delay in the diagnosis of PsA is a significant contributor to poor patient outcomes, but there is evidence that PsA is underdiagnosed among psoriasis patients attending dermatology clinics. Dermatologists need to identify PsA symptoms among their psoriasis patients and refer for rheumatological assessment where appropriate. Treatment should address all aspects of the disease, including skin, nail and joint symptoms as well as physical functioning and quality of life. The existence of distinct phenotypic and genetic PsA subsets means dermatologists need to consider which drugs are likely to be most efficacious in which patient populations. Stratification of PsA according to susceptibility genes may in future help identify patients requiring more aggressive treatment to prevent progression. Biologic therapies show efficacy in PsA, but the patient populations of clinical trials are not always representative of patients treated with biologics in clinical practice.

Cardiovascular morbidity in psoriasis: epidemiology, pathomechanisms, and clinical consequences

Psoriasis is a common inflammatory skin condition. Around 25% of patients develop joint involvement in the form of psoriatic arthritis as well. Recent epidemiologic studies demonstrated an increased cardiovascular morbidity among psoriasis patients. Although the association of psoriasis with cardiovascular diseases such as hypertension, myocardial infarction, and heart failure, is now widely accepted, the pathogenetic link remains yet unclear. High prevalence of the metabolic syndrome as well as adverse effects of systemic anti-psoriatic therapies may contribute to the observed association. Several pilot studies suggest that insulin resistance may contribute to the development of cardiovascular diseases in psoriasis patients who exhibit metabolic parameters like patients developing diabetes. Retrospective data provide evidence that continuous systemic therapy may reduce the risk of cardiovascular mortality in psoriasis patients. The consequences for the management of psoriasis at this point are two-fold: as co-morbidity goes along with co-medication, potential drug interactions need to be kept in mind when choosing a systemic anti-psoriatic therapy. Moreover, as psoriasis itself is a risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity, patients must avoid other known risk factors such as obesity or smoking. Dermatologists need to communicate this additional risk to their patients and support them accordingly.

German evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of Psoriasis vulgaris (short version)

Psoriasis vulgaris is a common and chronic inflammatory skin disease which has the potential to significantly reduce the quality of life in severely affected patients. The incidence of psoriasis in Western industrialized countries ranges from 1.5 to 2%. Despite the large variety of treatment options available, patient surveys have revealed insufficient satisfaction with the efficacy of available treatments and a high rate of medication non-compliance. To optimize the treatment of psoriasis in Germany, the Deutsche Dermatologische Gesellschaft and the Berufsverband Deutscher Dermatologen (BVDD) have initiated a project to develop evidence-based guidelines for the management of psoriasis. The guidelines focus on induction therapy in cases of mild, moderate, and severe plaque-type psoriasis in adults. The short version of the guidelines reported here consist of a series of therapeutic recommendations that are based on a systematic literature search and subsequent discussion with experts in the field; they have been approved by a team of dermatology experts. In addition to the therapeutic recommendations provided in this short version, the full version of the guidelines includes information on contraindications, adverse events, drug interactions, practicality, and costs as well as detailed information on how best to apply the treatments described (for full version, please see Nast et al., JDDG, Suppl 2:S1-S126, 2006; or http://www.psoriasis-leitlinie.de ).

Calcipotriol solution for the treatment of scalp psoriasis: evaluation of efficacy, safety and acceptance in 3,396 patients

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis of the scalp is a very common disease, cosmetically disturbing and therapeutically difficult to manage.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to investigate the efficacy, safety and cosmetic acceptance of calcipotriol solution in a large number of patients with mild to moderate scalp psoriasis and to compare this treatment with previous therapies used.

METHODS

In this multicentre prospective observational cohort study 3,396 patients were treated with calcipotriol solution (50 microg/ml) twice daily over an 8-week period either alone or in combination with other treatments. The psoriasis scalp severity index (PSSI) and investigator/patient global assessment were used for the evaluation of clinical response.

RESULTS

All psoriasis severity parameters measured were reduced with a significant decrease in PSSI scores from 18.4 to 5.6 after 8 weeks of therapy (p < 0.001). About 80% of the patients showed very good or good clinical improvement. Combination of calcipotriol solution with other treatment modalities e.g. corticosteroids or salicylic acid, showed an increased treatment response. In only 2.4% of the patients side effects occurred (e.g. irritation).

CONCLUSION

Calcipotriol solution is an effective, safe, well-tolerated and cosmetically acceptable treatment modality. By patients and physicians, this treatment was found to be a valuable supplement to previously available and established treatments for scalp psoriasis.

Biologic effects of bacterial superantigens in a xenogeneic transplantation model for psoriasis

Both clinical as well as experimental data support the concept of psoriasis being a T-cell-mediated immune disease possibly triggered by bacterial superantigens. Further analysis of its pathogenesis was facilitated by the generation of a xenogeneic transplantation model in which skin from psoriatic patients is grafted onto SCID mice lacking functional B and T cells. Applying this model it was demonstrated that psoriasis can be triggered by bacterial superantigens; this process depends on the presence of immunocytes. Mutated variants of the respective superantigens exhibiting no measurable affinity to HLA class II molecules can function as competitive inhibitors in vivo.

The Western blot is a highly sensitive and efficient technique in diagnosing allergy to wasp venom

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of allergy to wasp venom and decision to perform immunotherapy are based on the patient's history, along with skin and in vitro tests.

OBJECTIVE

Given the high prevalence of specific IgE also in non-allergic individuals, we evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of Western blots as a possible alternative to serum analyses of venom-specific IgE.

METHODS

Skin prick and/or intracutaneous tests were performed in 30 patients with allergy to wasp venom (generalized reaction following sting) along with serum analysis of venom-specific IgE (AlaSTAT microplate) and Western blots. Western blots were subsequently scanned and evaluated qualitatively and semiquantitatively by means of densitometry. Bands were scored 'positive' in cases of signal intensities beyond the mean plus 3 standard deviations of control sera. Twenty newborns (age 2-7 days) and 30 adults without systemic or increased local reactions to hymenoptera stings served as controls.

RESULTS

Western blot sensitivity reached 100% in the samples studied and was thus superior to the sensitivities of serum analysis of venom-specific IgE using AlaSTAT microplate assay (90%) and skin tests (87%). The sensitivity of detection of a phospholipase A1 and antigen 5-specific band was higher compared with a hyaluronidase-specific band (97%, 97% and 86%, respectively). Twenty-four out of twenty-nine (83%) patients exhibited specific IgE antibodies against at least three distinct allergens. With regard to the specificities, skin tests as well as AlaSTAT microplate assays were comparable (90% and 93%, respectively), whereas the specificity of the Western blots was 70% if the appearance of any single band was regarded as a positive result. However, when analysing the appearance of a specific band for antigen 5 or hyaluronidase the specificity and overall diagnostic value increased markedly, making it the most efficient test (specificity 97% and 100%, efficiency 96.8% and 93.2%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

As allergy to wasp venom is a severe and potentially life threatening disease, false-negative test results need to be minimized. Therefore, the superiority of the Western blot with regard to sensitivity, specificity and overall efficiency makes this technique a valuable tool for its diagnosis.

Mycophenolate mofetil is effective in the treatment of atopic dermatitis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether mycophenolate mofetil, a new immunosuppressive agent, is effective for treating moderate-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

DESIGN

In an open-label pilot study, mycophenolate mofetil, 1 g, was given orally twice daily for 4 weeks. At week 5, the dosage was reduced to 500 mg twice daily until study end (week 8). Patients were followed up for 20 weeks.

SETTING

University hospital dermatology department.

PATIENTS

Ten consecutive patients with moderate-severe AD nonresponsive to standard therapy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Severity of AD as measured using the subjective SCORAD [SCORing Atopic Dermatitis] index.

RESULTS

Clinical efficacy was measured every 2 weeks using the subjective SCORAD index. Treatment with mycophenolate notably reduced the severity of AD within 4 weeks in all patients (P<.05), and after 8 weeks the mean +/- SD SCORAD index dropped from the pretreatment value of 49.2 +/- 13.8 to 21.9 +/- 26.5 (P<.01). One patient had to discontinue mycophenolate therapy after 4 weeks because of the development of herpes retinitis. Except for this event, mycophenolate was tolerated well in all patients. Six of 7 patients who had responded to mycophenolate monotherapy had no relapse of disease during 20-week follow-up. In the 7 patients who finished the study, the SCORAD index was reduced by 74%, from 44.0 +/- 7.8 before treatment to 11.4 +/- 5.9 at 20-week follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Mycophenolate is a highly effective drug for treating moderate-severe AD, with no serious adverse effects occurring in any patients. Thus, mycophenolate might develop into a promising alternative in the therapy of moderate-severe AD.

[Tolerability of a selective cyclooxygenase-2-inhibitor (rofecoxib) in patients with intolerance reactions to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Pseudoallergic reactions triggered by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are common and caused by inhibition of the enzyme cyclooxygenase-1, whereas their therapeutic effects are mediated by inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2. This study analyzed the tolerability of the selective cyclooxygenase-2-inhibitor rofecoxib in patients who encountered pseudoallergic reactions to NSAIDs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

37 patients (12 males, 25 females, mean age 35 years [15-75 years]) with a history of pseudoallergic reactions to NSAIDs underwent standardized skin prick, scratch and patch tests along with oral placebo-controlled blinded exposure to rofecoxib (maximum single dose 12.5 mg, cumulative dose 25 mg).

RESULTS

23 patients had skin reactions, 4 times respiratory symptoms were documented, and in 10 cases cutaneous as well as respiratory symptoms were reported. Salicylic acid was identified as the most common trigger for a pseudoallergic reaction (n = 28). In 9 cases several non-steroidal antiphlogistics of different chemical groups caused symptoms. All skin tests showed negative results. Oral challenge with rofecoxib was tolerated by all 37 patients without adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Given the high incidence of pseudoallergic reactions to NSAIDs the use of selective cyclooxygenase-2-inhibitors represents a therapeutic alternative as well as a means of prevention of the described reactions.

Antagonistic effects of the staphylococcal enterotoxin a mutant, SEA(F47A/D227A), on psoriasis in the SCID-hu xenogeneic transplantation model

Psoriasis is a T-cell-mediated immune dermatosis probably triggered by bacterial superantigens. This pathomechanism has been experimentally reproduced in a SCID-hu xenogeneic transplantation model. We analyzed the effects of different bacterial superantigens on the induction of psoriasis in this model. Staphylococcal enterotoxin B and exfoliative toxin triggered the onset of psoriasis when administered repetitively intracutaneously over a period of 2 wk, whereas staphylococcal enterotoxin A representing a distinct subfamily of staphylococcal enterotoxins only mimicked certain aspects of psoriasis. The biologic effects of staphylococcal enterotoxin A were more pronounced when a mutated form, SEA(H187A), of this superantigen with reduced affinity to major histocompatibility complex class II was coinjected. Another mutated variant, SEA(F47A/D227A), exhibiting no measurable major histocompatibility complex class II affinity blocked the effects triggered by wild-type staphylococcal enterotoxin A when injected in a 10-fold higher dose. Inhibition was specific as induction of psoriasiform epidermal changes by staphylococcal enterotoxin B could not be blocked. As staphylococcal enterotoxin A, in contrast to the other superantigens tested, is capable of inducing epidermal thickening but not the typical appearance of psoriasis, we conclude that bacterial superantigens may differ with regard to their effects on human nonlesional psoriatic skin. Staphylococcal-enterotoxin-A-mediated effects were blocked by a genetically engineered superantigen highlighting the potential therapeutic use of mutated superantigens.

Monitoring of phagocytic activity in histiocytic cytophagic panniculitis

Histiocytic cytophagic panniculitis presents with subcutaneous panniculitis. Histologically, it is characterized by phagocytosis of blood cells in the subcutaneous tissue and bone marrow. One patient with histiocytic cytophagic panniculitis is described in whom hemophagocytosis macrophages and histiocytes was observed histologically and was confirmed in vitro measuring phagocytosis by peripheral blood monocytes by means of chemiluminescence. In vitro measurements of phagocytosis corresponded well with the clinical course. Chemiluminescence for measuring phagocytosis in vitro may be suitable for analyzing disease activity and for testing therapeutic compounds in vitro.

Antibodies to desmogleins 1 and 3, but not to BP180, induce blisters in human skin grafted onto SCID mice

Pemphigus and bullous pemphigoid (BP) are blistering skin diseases associated with IgG autoantibodies to desmosomal and hemidesmosomal components. When autoantibodies to desmogleins 1 and 3 from patients with pemphigus foliaceus (PF) and pemphigus vulgaris (PV) or rabbit antibodies against the murine hemidesmosomal component BP180 are passively transferred into neonatal mice, they induce blisters in the skin of the mice. To develop an animal model that would duplicate the findings in the skin of the patients more closely, full-thickness human skin from healthy volunteers was grafted onto SCID mice. Injection of the purified IgG fraction from the serum of PF and PV patients led to subcorneal and suprabasal splits in the human grafts and human IgG was deposited intercellularly in the upper and lower layers of the epidermis, respectively. Interestingly, anti-BP180 autoantibodies purified from the serum of BP patients and from a rabbit immunized with recombinant human BP180 strongly bound to the basement membrane zone of the grafts (n=32), fixed murine complement, led to the recruitment of neutrophils to the upper dermis of the graft, but did not induce subepidermal blisters. We report a novel experimental model for PF and PV which should greatly facilitate further studies to dissect the immunopathological mechanisms in these diseases. Specifically, this model can be used to identify pathogenically relevant epitopes on human desmogleins 1 and 3 and to develop novel strategies for the treatment of pemphigus.

Is psoriasis a T-cell disease?

The etiology and pathogenesis of psoriasis--one of the most common chronic, inflammatory, hyperproliferative skin disorders of man--have long fascinated dermatologists, pathologists and biologists alike. Here, we have a model disease that offers to study neuroectodermal-mesenchymal interactions in the widest sense possible. Epithelial, endothelial, and hematopoietic cells as well as neurons projecting into the skin apparently all interact with each other to generate the characteristic psoriatic lesion. For decades, the ongoing controversy on the molecular nature, choreography and hierarchy of these complex interactions e.g. between epidermal keratinocytes, T cells, neurotrophils, endothelial cells and sensory nerves has served as a driving force propelling investigative dermatology to ever new horizons. This debate has not only been at the heart of our quest to develop more effective forms of therapy for this socially crippling disease, but it also has profoundly influenced how we view the skin as a whole: the numerous competing theories on the pathogenesis of psoriasis published so far also are reflections on the evolution of mainstream thought in skin biology over the last decades. These days, conventional wisdom infatuated with a T-cell-centered approach to inflammatory skin diseases-- portrays psoriasis as an autoimmune disease, where misguided T lymphocyte activities cause secondary epithelial abnormalities. And yet, as this CONTROVERSIES feature reminds us, some authoritative "pockets of academic resistance" are still quite alive, and interpret psoriasis e.g. as a genetically determined, abnormal epithelial response pattern to infectious and/or physicochemical skin insults. Weighing the corresponding lines of argumentation is not only an intriguing, clinically relevant intellectual exercise, but also serves as a wonderful instrument for questioning our own views of the skin universe and its patterns of deviation from a state of homeostasis.

Treatment of chronic plaque-stage psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis with mycophenolate mofetil

Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), a widely used immunosuppressant in organ transplantation, is a recent addition to the therapeutic armamentarium of autoimmune and inflammatory skin disorders in dermatology. We describe 5 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis and 6 patients with psoriatic arthritis that was refractory to conventional systemic and/or topical antipsoriatic treatment who were treated with MMF monotherapy (2 g/d) in a 10-week study. Although MMF was tolerated well in all patients, only patients with moderate psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis improved with therapy, whereas patients with severe psoriasis did not respond to MMF. Although MMF seems to be effective and safe for blistering autoimmune diseases and pyoderma gangrenosum, our data do not allow optimistic statements on the use of MMF in severe plaque-stage psoriasis. However, MMF may develop into an interesting therapeutic alternative for patients with psoriatic arthritis.

Expression of the basal cell adhesion molecule (B-CAM) in normal and diseased human skin

The basal cell adhesion molecule (B-CAM) is a 90-kD cell surface glycoprotein with a characteristic immunoglobulin domain structure. The pattern of B-CAM expression in cultured cells suggests that the molecule is associated with a substrate-adherent growth pattern in some lineages. We investigated the expression of B-CAM in normal and diseased human epidermis by means of immunohistochemistry employing a single batch of high-titer mouse monoclonal antibody G253. Snap-frozen biopsy material from normal skin (n = 8), psoriasis (n = 5), contact dermatitis (n = 6), basal cell carcinoma (n = 5) and fetal skin (n = 6) was studied. In normal human skin, B-CAM was found in varying degrees throughout the epidermis with a preference for suprabasal expression, hair follicles were regularly of a B-CAM-positive phenotype. There were no qualitative differences with regard to the B-CAM expression pattern in normal skin in comparison to psoriasis and contact dermatitis. In contrast, fetal skin (15th to 18th week of gestation) was characterized by B-CAM-positive cells in the basal layer of the epidermis as well as in the outer root sheath of hair follicles. Basal cell carcinomas also regularly expressed high levels of B-CAM. A strong B-CAM-positive phenotype can be found in the outer root sheath of hair follicles of adult and fetal human skin as well as in fetal basal keratinocytes.

Selection of conserved TCR VDJ rearrangements in chronic psoriatic plaques indicates a common antigen in psoriasis vulgaris

Psoriasis vulgaris is a common HLA-associated inflammatory skin disease. Although its etiology is still unknown, it is thought to involve T cell-mediated inflammatory mechanisms. In examining the lesional psoriatic TCR beta chain (TCRB) usage in a pair of identical twins concordant for psoriasis, we observed repetitive TCR VDJ rearrangements which indicated antigen-specific oligoclonal T cell expansion. Several of these TCRB rearrangements were identical or highly homologous in the amino acid composition of the complementarity determining region 3 (CDR3), suggesting that T cells with these TCR might be important for disease manifestation. This conclusion was strengthened by TCR analysis of other psoriasis patients. Several repetitive lesional TCRB rearrangements were found that were similar to the conserved CDR3 seen in the twins. Since TCR antigen specificity is largely determined by the beta chain CDR3, selection of T cells with conserved TCRB CDR3 motifs could indicate the presence of a common antigen as a major target of the lesional psoriatic immune response.

Ablative techniques in Psoriasis vulgaris resistant to conventional therapies

BACKGROUND

Treatment of patients with psoriasis vulgaris exhibiting only solitary plaque-stage lesions might become difficult since topical treatments often fail and systemic therapies seem inappropriate.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the feasibility of ablative techniques in this clinical setting comparing dermatome shaving to the application of an Er:YAG laser.

METHODS

Six patients were treated by means of dermatome shaving; in four of these patients additional lesions were ablated utilizing an Er:YAG laser (2 J, 10 Hz, 5 mm spot size).

RESULTS

Four of six patients experienced complete clearance of the lesions treated, three of the four patients receiving additional Er:YAG treatment also showed a complete clinical response.

CONCLUSION

Our observations document that removal of epidermis and the papillary dermis is effective in treating recalcitrant psoriatic plaques. The Er:YAG laser represents a state-of-the-art device for performing this task. The beneficial effect on skin might be due to clearance of the putative autoantigen along with a considerable part of the potential effector cell population.

The SCID-hu xenogeneic transplantation model: complex but telling

Animal models based on knock-out or transgenic technology are widely used in basic and applied biomedical research. An alternative to these approaches is the generation of xenogeneic transplantation models allowing the in-vivo investigation of cell types and organs. In the field of dermatology transplantation of human skin onto mice lacking functional B and T cells (SCID mice) and subsequent manipulation of these grafts yielded new insights in many different aspects of skin biology. This review highlights some of the applications of this versatile model focussing on phenomena relevant for the subject of dermatology.