Efficacy and safety results from the randomized controlled comparative study of adalimumab vs. methotrexate vs. placebo in patients with psoriasis (CHAMPION)

Safety and Efficacy of Methotrexate for Chinese Adults With Psoriasis With and Without Psoriatic Arthritis

Importance

It is necessary to determine whether psoriasis responds to methotrexate in the same manner in patients with and without psoriatic arthritis.

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of methotrexate in treating patients with psoriasis with and without psoriatic arthritis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this prospective, single-arm, interventional study, a total of 235 patients with psoriasis, 107 without psoriatic arthritis and 128 with psoriatic arthritis who were receiving methotrexate therapy from April 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017, were recruited from the outpatient department of a hospital at a large Chinese university. There were no significant demographic or clinical differences between the subgroups with the exception of diabetes.

Interventions

A 12-week course of low-dosage oral methotrexate (7.5-15 mg weekly).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Changes in disease severity, adverse events, blood cell counts, and liver and renal function.

Results

A total of 235 patients with psoriasis (166 male [66.0%]; mean [SD] age, 49.6 [15.1] years) received methotrexate treatment for 12 weeks. The 90% reduction from baseline Psoriasis Area Severity Index response was significantly lower in patients with psoriatic arthritis than in patients without psoriatic arthritis at week 8 (4 0f 128 [3.1%] vs 12 of 107 [11.2%]; P = .02) and week 12 (19 of 128 [14.8%] vs 27 of 107 [25.2%]; P = .049). Furthermore, the incidence of adverse events, including dizziness (12 of 128 [9.4%] vs 1 of 107 [0.9%]; P = .007), gastrointestinal symptoms (32 of 128 [25.0%] vs 13 of 107 [12.1%]; P = .01), and hepatoxicity (34 of 128 [26.6%] vs 16 of 107 [15.0%]; P = .04), was significantly higher in patients with psoriatic arthritis than in patients without psoriatic arthritis. Methotrexate-induced elevation of alanine aminotransferase levels was associated with body mass index (mean [SD] body mass index, 26 [4] in patients with [P = .04] vs 26 [4] in those without [P = .005] psoriatic arthritis) and smoking (17 of 34 [50.0%] in patients with [P = .02] vs 9 of 16 [56.3%] in those without [P = .04] psoriatic arthritis).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, methotrexate was well tolerated and effective in treating psoriasis. It was more effective, with fewer adverse effects, in patients with psoriasis who did not have psoriatic arthritis than in patients who presented with both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Therefore, methotrexate can be recommended as first-line treatment for psoriasis without arthritis.

Rapid Response of Biologic Treatments of Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis: A Comprehensive Investigation Using Bayesian and Frequentist Network Meta-analyses

INTRODUCTION

Rapid improvement of psoriasis is valued by patients and should be considered to be an important factor in treatment selection. We investigated Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) response rates within the first 12 weeks of treatment to compare the rapid response of 11 biologic therapies for moderate-to-severe psoriasis using Bayesian and Frequentist network meta-analyses (NMA).

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled trials for adult patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis treated with interleukin (IL)-17 (brodalumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab), IL-12/-23 (ustekinumab), IL-23 (guselkumab, risankizumab, tildrakizumab), or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, infliximab). Outcome measures extracted from 32 publications were ≥ 75, ≥ 90, or 100% improvement in PASI score (PASI  75, PASI 90, or PASI 100, respectively) at weeks 2, 4, 8, and 12 and DLQI    (0,1), where score (0,1) indicates no effect on patient's life, at week 12. Bayesian NMA (BNMA) used fixed-treatment effect and random-baseline effect, normal independent models. Frequentist NMA (fNMA) was conducted as sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the findings.

RESULTS

Based on BNMA and fNMA, brodalumab and ixekizumab showed the most rapid treatment effects on PASI 75 at weeks 2, 4, and 8 and on PASI 90 and PASI 100 at weeks 2, 4, 8, and 12; ixekizumab overlapped with risankizumab on PASI 75 at week 12. Brodalumab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab yielded higher DLQI (0,1) gains at week 12 compared to all of the other biologics studied. Additional measures of quality of life were not assessed in this report.

CONCLUSIONS

Ixekizumab and brodalumab provide the most rapid response and earliest clinical benefit at week 2 among all of the biologics studied, including other biologic treatments such as secukinumab, ustekinumab, guselkumab, adalimumab, and etanercept. BNMA and fNMA results showed similar relative effect estimates and treatment rankings.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

In psoriasis treatment, greater improvement in skin severity predicts greater improvement in nail severity

BACKGROUND

Nail are important for both function and esthetic appearance and although they represent a small body surface area, dermatologic disorders affecting the nails can have a detrimental effect to the patient. Deciding on the best systemic antipsoriatic drug to treat nail psoriasis can be difficult due to the lack of nail data on their Food and Drug Administration-approved labels, as well as the variety of scoring systems used for nail psoriasis.

METHODS

We performed a literature review and included randomized control trials or articles based on randomized control trials for different systemic antipsoriatic drugs. Only articles and studies utilizing Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI) or target NAPSI as outcome measures were included. Data was taken directly from articles, directly from clincaltrials.gov or directly from data on file at various pharmaceutical companies.

RESULTS

Data for NAPSI and PASI were collected for 10 antipsoriatic drugs including three oral medications and seven biologic agents. We found that NAPSI or target NAPSI was strongly predicted based on the change in PASI and duration of treatment (R² = 0.71, p = .0002). PASI alone (R² = 0.52, p = .001) and duration alone (R² = 0.21, p = .07) predict NAPSI response.

CONCLUSION

According to this model, there is a relationship between skin and nail response, with improvement in nails correlating with improvement in skin and longer duration of treatment.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. This is the baseline update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2017, in preparation for this Cochrane Review becoming a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our research using the following databases to January 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and the conference proceedings of a number of dermatology meetings. We also searched five trials registers and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) reports (until June 2019). We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse effects (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse effects). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes, according to GRADE, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 140 studies (31 new studies for the update) in our review (51,749 randomised participants, 68% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (59%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 19 treatments. In all, 117 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (57/140) as being at high risk of bias; 42 were at an unclear risk, and 41 at low risk. Most studies (107/140) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report the source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90. At class level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents. At drug level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, infliximab, all of the anti-IL17 drugs (ixekizumab, secukinumab, bimekizumab and brodalumab) and the anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab, but not tildrakizumab) were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and 3 anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept. Adalimumab and ustekinumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than certolizumab and etanercept. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and between two conventional drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness for these seven drugs was similar: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 29.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 19.94 to 43.70, Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) = 88.5; moderate-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.12, 95% CI 23.17 to 34.12, SUCRA = 88.3, moderate-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 27.67, 95% CI 22.86 to 33.49, SUCRA = 87.5, high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86, SUCRA = 83.5, low-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.84, 95% CI 20.90 to 31.95; SUCRA = 81; moderate-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 23.97, 95% CI 20.03 to 28.70, SUCRA = 75.4; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 21.96, 95% CI 18.17 to 26.53, SUCRA = 68.7; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to very low certainty for just under half of the treatment estimates in total, and moderate for the others. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were very similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab were the best choices for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence (low-certainty evidence for bimekizumab). This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. Indeed, we found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, but the evidence for all the interventions was of very low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials comparing directly active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between conventional systemic and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Comparison of Real-World Treatment Patterns Among Psoriasis Patients Treated with Ixekizumab or Adalimumab

BACKGROUND

There is lack of real-world treatment pattern comparison data between ixekizumab and adalimumab which are approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare real-world treatment patterns among psoriasis patients initiating ixekizumab or adalimumab in the United States.

METHODS

Psoriasis patients with ≥1 claim for ixekizumab or adalimumab between March 1, 2016, and May 31, 2018, were identified (index date = date of first ixekizumab or adalimumab claim) from the IBM Watson Health MarketScan^® databases. Patients were required to be continuously enrolled for ≥12 months before the index date and followed for a minimum of 6 months until inpatient death, enrollment end, or study end, whichever occurred first. Treatment persistence, adherence, discontinuation, restart, and switching were analyzed. Inverse probability of treatment weighting and multivariable regression modeling were employed to address cohort imbalances and estimate the adjusted risk of non-persistence, discontinuation, and switching, and the odds of adherence.

RESULTS

A total of 646 ixekizumab and 3668 adalimumab users were included and followed for a mean of 14.0 and 16.5 months, respectively. Compared to adalimumab, ixekizumab was associated with 19% lower risk of non-persistence (hazard ratio [HR]=0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-0.95), 26% lower risk of discontinuation (HR=0.74, 95% CI: 0.62-0.88), and 28% lower risk of switching (HR=0.72, 95% CI: 0.57-0.91). Ixekizumab users had higher odds of medication possession ratio ≥80% (odds ratio [OR]=1.36, 95% CI: 1.10-1.69) but similar odds by proportion of days covered ≥80% (OR=1.22, 95% CI: 0.98-1.53).

CONCLUSION

Psoriasis patients treated with ixekizumab demonstrated longer persistency, higher adherence and were less likely to discontinue or switch treatment compared to adalimumab users. However, while patients achieving highly adherent threshold significantly differed by MPR ≥80%, it did not by PDC ≥80%; hence, further analysis using fixed-length follow-up is required.

Patient sex does not affect endoscopic outcomes of biologicals in inflammatory bowel disease but is associated with adverse events

PURPOSE

Biological therapies are currently the mainstay in the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Several factors are known to influence the efficacy and tolerability of biologicals, such as CRP levels or previous biological use. Whether patient sex affects the efficacy or tolerability is unclear but would help with better risk and benefit stratification. This systematic review assesses patient sex on the efficacy and tolerability of biological therapies in IBD patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed using Embase (including MEDLINE), MEDLINE OvidSP, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and PubMed. The primary outcome was the influence of patient sex on endoscopic outcomes in IBD patients treated with biologicals. The secondary outcome was the influence of patient sex on adverse events. Studies were included in the assessment regardless of study type or setting.

RESULTS

The search yielded 19,461 citations; after review, 55 studies were included in the study, involving 28,465 patients treated with adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, infliximab, or vedolizumab. There was no significant association between patient sex and endoscopic efficacy in 41 relevant studies. Increased adverse events were associated with female sex in 7 out of 14 relevant studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence for a sex difference in endoscopically measured response to biological therapies in IBD patients. However, there is an influence of sex on the occurrence of adverse events.

Long-Term Safety of Adalimumab in 29,967 Adult Patients From Global Clinical Trials Across Multiple Indications: An Updated Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The safety profile of adalimumab was previously reported in 23,458 patients across multiple indications. Here we report the long-term safety of adalimumab in adults with plaque psoriasis (Ps), hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, peripheral spondyloarthritis, Crohn's disease (CD), ulcerative colitis (UC), and non-infectious uveitis (UV).

METHODS

Safety data from 77 clinical trials were pooled. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) that occurred after the first study dose and within 70 days (5 half-lives) after the last study dose.

RESULTS

A total of 29,967 patients were included, representing 56,916 patient-years (PY) of exposure. The most frequently reported SAE of interest was infection (3.7/100 PY) with highest incidences in CD, RA, UV, and UC (3.5/100 PY-6.9/100 PY); serious infections in Ps (1.8/100 PY) and HS (2.8/100 PY) were lower. The observed number of deaths was below what would be expected in an age- and sex-adjusted population for most adalimumab-treated patients (including Ps). Lack of real-life data and limited long-term data (> 5 years) for most patients are limitations of this analysis.

CONCLUSION

The safety profile of adalimumab was consistent with previous findings and no new safety signals were observed.

Comparison of cumulative clinical benefits of biologics for the treatment of psoriasis over 16 weeks: Results from a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cumulative clinical improvement and speed of improvement are important to psoriasis patients.

OBJECTIVE

Compare cumulative benefits of biologics over 12 to 16 weeks in the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis.

METHODS

A systematic literature review identified phase III trial data on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) responses for biologics during 12 and 16 weeks of treatment. Cumulative clinical benefit, measured by the area under the curve for PASI ≥75% improvement (PASI 75), ≥90% improvement (PASI 90), and 100% improvement (PASI 100), was compared using the network meta-analysis and Bayesian methodology on the relative probability of achieving percentage of maximum area under the curve.

RESULTS

Among biologics approved for psoriasis treatment, anti-interleukin-17 biologics demonstrated consistently greater cumulative clinical benefits on PASI 75, PASI 90, and PASI 100 over the 12- or 16-week period than anti-interleukin-23 and other biologics. For biologics with 12-week data, ixekizumab and brodalumab showed greater cumulative benefits for PASI 75, PASI 90, and PASI 100 than secukinumab, followed by guselkumab, infliximab, adalimumab, ustekinumab, and etanercept. Ixekizumab showed greater cumulative benefits than all other biologics reporting 16-week data.

LIMITATIONS

Recently approved biologics were not included.

CONCLUSION

Ixekizumab (at 12 weeks and 16 weeks) and brodalumab (at 12 weeks) had greater cumulative clinical benefit than all of other biologics studied.

Latin American Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Systemic Treatment of Psoriasis SOLAPSO - Sociedad Latinoamericana de Psoriasis (Latin American Psoriasis Society)

This Clinical Practice Guideline on the systemic treatment of Psoriasis includes the recommendations elaborated by a panel of experts from the Latin American Psoriasis Society SOLAPSO, who assessed the quality of the available evidence using the GRADE system and the PICO process to guide the literature search. To answer each question, the experts discussed the results of randomized controlled trials, observational studies and metanalysis evaluating the interventions identified (non-biologics, biologics and phototherapy) in different populations of patients with moderate to severe plaque-psoriasis, which was summarized in Tables ad-hoc. The main end-points considered to assess efficacy were PASI 50, 75, 90 and 100, PGA 0-1 and significant improvement of health-related quality of life. Specific adverse events, either severe or leading to treatment interruption, were also evaluated. The 31 recommendations included in this CPG follow the structure proposed by GRADE: direction (for or against) and strength (strong or weak). The goal of this CPG is to improve the management of patients with psoriasis by recommending interventions of proved benefit and providing a reference standard for the treating physician. Adhering to the contents of this CPG does not guarantee therapeutic success. The final decision on the specific treatment is the responsibility of the physician based on the individual circumstances and considering the values, the preferences and the opinions of the patient or caregivers.

A 24-week multicentre, randomized, open-label, parallel-group study comparing the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab vs. fumaric acid esters and methotrexate in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis naive to systemic treatment

Background

Interleukin‐17 antagonists have received a first‐line label for moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis.

Objectives

We conducted the first head‐to‐head trial between the two most commonly used first‐line therapies in Germany, fumaric acid esters (FAEs) and methotrexate, and the interleukin‐17A antagonist, ixekizumab.

Methods

Systemic‐naive patients were randomized in this parallel‐group, active‐comparator, open‐label, rater‐blinded trial (each group n = 54). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving ≥ 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) at 24 weeks. Key secondary outcomes included 24‐week PASI 90 and 100, static Physician's Global Assessment (sPGA) score of 0 or 1, and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of 0 or 1. Safety events at week 24 were analysed using Fisher's exact test. Missing data were imputed using nonresponder imputation. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02634801) and EudraCT (2015‐002649‐69).

Results

At week 24, more ixekizumab‐treated patients achieved PASI 75 [91% vs. 22% FAEs (P < 0·001) and 70% methotrexate (P = 0·014)], PASI 90 [80% vs. 9% FAEs (P < 0·001) and 39% methotrexate (P < 0·001)] and PASI 100 [41% vs. 4% FAEs (P < 0·001) and 13% methotrexate (P = 0·0041)], as well as sPGA (0,1) and DLQI (0,1).

Conclusions

Ixekizumab was superior in inducing PASI 75/90/100, sPGA (0,1) and DLQI (0,1) responses at week 24 compared with methotrexate and FAEs. Safety profiles for all treatments were consistent with prior studies.

What's already known about this topic?

Fumaric acid esters (FAEs) and methotrexate are two frequently used conventional systemic therapies for chronic plaque psoriasis.

A recent meta‐analysis of methotrexate showed a ≥ 75% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) rate of 45·2% from primary end points at either 12 or 16 weeks.

Until recently, FAEs were licensed for psoriasis only in Germany, but were used in many other European countries as off‐label treatment of psoriasis. In 2017, the European Medicines Agency approved dimethyl fumarate, presumed to be the main active ingredient of FAEs, for the treatment of adult patients with moderate‐to‐severe chronic plaque psoriasis.

What does this study add?

This study is the first randomized, head‐to‐head trial comparing a biologic treatment with these therapies in a systemic‐treatment‐naive patient population.

This study shows the low tolerability of FAEs leading to a significant discontinuation rate, the better tolerability and moderate efficacy of methotrexate, and the good tolerability, fast onset of action and high efficacy of ixekizumab in an unbiased comparison.

Our findings reinforce the favourable risk–benefit profile of ixekizumab shown previously and provide further evidence of its efficacy at 24 weeks.

https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.18905 available online

Meta-Analyses of Clinical Efficacy of Risankizumab and Adalimumab in Chronic Plaque Psoriasis: Supporting Evidence of Risankizumab Superiority

Risankizumab, an anti‐interleukin‐23 monoclonal antibody, achieved significantly (P < 0.001) greater Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and static Physician Global Assessment (sPGA) clear or almost clear (0/1) responses than adalimumab in a phase III trial in patients with moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis. Meta‐analyses of the PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90, PASI 100, and sPGA0/1 responses after 16 weeks of treatment from eight (three for risankizumab and five for adalimumab) randomized, placebo‐controlled trials were conducted to estimate the efficacy difference between risankizumab and adalimumab. For PASI 75, PASI 90, PASI 100, and sPGA0/1 responses, the estimated effect differences (95% confidence interval) between risankizumab and adalimumab were 15.2% (10.1%, 20.4%), 23.7% (15.7%, 31.2%), 20.8% (13.0%, 28.7%), and 20.1% (13.7%, 26.1%), respectively. These results were consistent with the observed efficacy difference from the head‐to‐head phase III trial, which was not included in the meta‐analyses, providing independent, confirmatory evidence of the superior efficacy of risankizumab compared with adalimumab for treatment of moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis.

Adalimumab for nail psoriasis: efficacy and safety over 52 weeks from a phase-3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Few clinical trials have evaluated long-term treatment of nail psoriasis with biologics.

OBJECTIVE

Safety and efficacy of adalimumab [ADA; Humira AbbVie Inc, North Chicago, IL, USA)] long-term treatment (52 weeks) was evaluated in a phase-3, randomized trial in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and concomitant moderate-to-severe fingernail psoriasis. Results from the first 26 weeks (Period A) have been reported.

METHODS

Patients receiving 40 mg ADA every other week or placebo in Period A, continued with or switched to 40 mg ADA every-other-week treatment in the subsequent 26-week open-label extension (OLE) period. Main efficacy evaluations were ≥75% improvement in total-fingernail modified Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (mNAPSI 75) and achievement of Physician's Global Assessment for Fingernail Psoriasis of clear or minimal disease (PGA-F 0/1) with a ≥2-grade improvement from baseline, across the trial for patients who continued ADA from Period A through the OLE (Continuous-ADA Population). Safety was evaluated during the OLE and for patients receiving ADA at any time during the study (All-ADA Population).

RESULTS

Of the 217 patients initially randomized in Period A, 188 (86.6%; 94 in each treatment group) entered the OLE after completion of or early escape from Period A. For the Continuous-ADA Population (N = 109), endpoint achievement rates improved from OLE entry (Week 26) to Week 52, including total-fingernail mNAPSI 75 (47.4-54.5%); PGA-F 0/1 (51.1-55.6%) and total-fingernail mNAPSI = 0 (6.6-17.9%). Serious adverse event and serious infection rates for the All-ADA Population (N = 203) were 6.9% and 3.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population of psoriasis patients with concomitant, moderate-to-severe nail psoriasis, long-term efficacy and improvement in signs and symptoms of nail disease were demonstrated after every-other-week ADA treatment, including incremental improvements in rate of total clearance of nail disease. No new safety risks were identified for patients receiving at least one ADA dose across 52 weeks.

Pathophysiology of Atopic Dermatitis and Psoriasis: Implications for Management in Children

Atopic dermatitis (AD) and psoriasis are chronic inflammatory skin diseases associated with a significant cutaneous and systemic burden of disease as well as a poor health-related quality of life. Here, we review the complex pathophysiology of both AD and psoriasis and discuss the implications for treatment with current state-of-the-art and emerging topical and systemic therapies. Both AD and psoriasis are caused by a complex combination of immune dysregulation, skin-barrier disruption, genetic factors, and environmental influences. Previous treatments for both diseases were limited to anti-inflammatory agents that broadly suppress inflammation. Emerging insights into relevant pathways, including recognition of the role of T-helper type 2 driven inflammation in AD and T-helper 1 and 17 driven inflammation in psoriasis, have led to a therapeutic revolution. There are a number of novel treatment options available for AD and psoriasis with many more currently under investigation.

Real-world comparative effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and methotrexate: a Swedish register analysis

BACKGROUND

The advent of biosimilars may render etanercept (ETN) and adalimumab (ADA) viable alternatives to methotrexate (MTX) as first-line systemics in psoriasis. However, real-world relative effectiveness data comparing ADA and ETN to MTX are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the relative effectiveness of ADA and ETN compared to MTX.

METHODS

We analysed data from DermaReg, a regional register in Stockholm, Sweden, to estimate drug survival and mean Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) during maintenance treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 524 patients initiated 727 treatment episodes with ADA, ETN or MTX. After adjusting for confounders, patients treated with ADA had better drug survival (HR: 0.67; P = 0.003), lower mean PASI (-2.0; P < 0.001) and lower mean DLQI (-0.9; P < 0.001) during maintenance treatment compared to patients treated with MTX. The results for ETN compared to MTX were mixed. After adjusting for confounding, there was no significant difference in drug survival (HR 1.23; P = 0.082), but patients on ETN had lower mean PASI (-0.7; P = 0.006) during maintenance treatment.

CONCLUSION

Adalimumab is superior to MTX in clinical practice whereas the relative effectiveness between ETN and MTX is less clear. This study also highlights the importance of appropriate confounding control in effectiveness analysis.

An update on clinical safety of adalimumab in treating psoriasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on 20 randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

The current meta-analysis was conducted to better evaluate the role of adalimumab for patients with psoriasis in terms of its safety profile on the basis of eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

The following electronic databases such as Cochrane, PubMed, and Embase database involving the index words were screened and identified for qualified studies updated to December 2018. Associated publications and sources were hand-searched for more related details. To further analyze the main outcomes, the odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were utilized.

RESULTS

There were a total of 20 RCTs involving respective 3795 and 3266 patients in the adalimumab and control group that met our inclusion criteria. According to the aggregated results, the adalimumab group was highly associated with significant improvement in the incidence of adverse event (AE), infection, and injection site reaction on comparison of the control group. Nevertheless, no remarkable differences were found between the two study groups in terms of the incidence of serious AE, serious infection as well as the discontinuation of study drug caused by AE.

CONCLUSION

Adalimumab was proved to be linked to higher incidence of AE, infection, and injection site reaction during the therapy process of psoriasis based on high-quality RCTs. In addition, there was no association between adalimumab therapy and serious AE, serious infection and the discontinuation of study drug caused by AE in patients harboring psoriasis according to eligible RCTs.

VITALITY: impact of adalimumab on health and disability outcomes in patients with Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, or psoriasis treated in clinical practice in New Zealand

Objective: VITALITY, a 6-month, multicenter, prospective, observational study, assessed the effects of originator adalimumab (HUMIRA) on health and disability outcomes in patients with Crohn's disease (CD), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), or psoriasis treated in routine clinical practice in New Zealand (NZ). Methods: Biologic-naïve adults initiating adalimumab in accordance with NZ funding requirements were recruited. The primary endpoint was 6-month change from baseline in World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 score in all participants completing the study (full analysis set). Secondary endpoints included 6-month change in other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of work activity and wellbeing (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: General Health, Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, Flourishing Scale, and Subject Vitality Scale) and in disease-specific PRO measures. Results: In total, 164 participants with severe disease initiating adalimumab completed the WHODAS 2.0 at baseline, of whom 114 (69.5%) completed the study at 6 months. Mean WHODAS 2.0 score halved from 15.2 points (SD = ±9.1) at baseline to 7.3 points (SD = ±7.2) after 6 months' adalimumab treatment (mean difference = 7.9 points; 95% CI = 6.4-9.4; p < .001), with statistically significant improvements seen as early as 2 months after adalimumab initiation (p < .001). The proportion of participants with a WHODAS 2.0 score ≥ 10 more than halved, from 68.3% to 28.9%, between baseline and 6 months. Other PROs also improved significantly at 6 months, as did disease-specific measures. No new adalimumab safety signals were observed. Conclusions: Health and disability outcomes improved significantly after 6 months of adalimumab use in NZ patients with severe CD, RA, or psoriasis. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02451839.

AURIEL-PsO: a randomized, double-blind phase III equivalence trial to demonstrate the clinical similarity of the proposed biosimilar MSB11022 to reference adalimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque-type psoriasis

BACKGROUND

MSB11022 is a proposed adalimumab biosimilar.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of MSB11022 with reference adalimumab.

METHODS

AURIEL-PsO was a double-blind randomized controlled equivalence trial, in which patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque-type psoriasis were randomized 1 : 1 to MSB11022 or reference adalimumab. The primary end point was ≥ 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) at week 16, with a prespecified equivalence interval of ± 18%. Patients with a ≥50% improvement in PASI at week 16 were eligible to enter a double-blind extension period: patients receiving MSB11022 continued treatment, and patients receiving reference adalimumab were rerandomized 1 : 1 either to continue reference adalimumab or to switch to MSB11022. Other efficacy end points and safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated at scheduled visits up to weeks 52 (efficacy and immunogenicity), 54 and 66 (safety).

RESULTS

In total, 443 patients were randomized. The difference in PASI 75 response rates at week 16 between the treatment arms was -1·9%, and the 95% confidence interval (-7·8% to 4·1%) was within the prespecified equivalence interval. No notable difference in the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was observed between treatment arms up to the end of the trial, and no new safety signals were observed. Following treatment switch at week 16, no clinically meaningful differences in safety or immunogenicity were seen between treatment arms through to the end of the observation period.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic equivalence between MSB11022 and reference adalimumab was demonstrated. AURIEL-PsO provides evidence to support the similarity of both products with regard to efficacy, safety and immunogenicity. What's already known about this topic? Adalimumab is a fully human antitumour necrosis factor-α monoclonal antibody, indicated for the treatment of multiple inflammatory disorders, including psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel diseases and ankylosing spondylitis. MSB11022 is a proposed adalimumab biosimilar that has shown structural and functional similarity to the reference product in an extensive analytical comparability exercise. MSB11022 has demonstrated bioequivalence and comparable safety and immunogenicity profiles in a phase I study in healthy volunteers. What does this study add? This phase III study confirmed equivalent efficacy for MSB11022 and reference adalimumab in patients without any immunomodulation comedication in moderate-to-severe chronic plaque-type psoriasis at week 16. The efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of MSB11022 and reference adalimumab were similar over the respective observation periods (week 52 for efficacy and immunogenicity, week 66 for safety). A switch from reference adalimumab to MSB11022 at week 16 did not impact efficacy, safety or immunogenicity.

Risankizumab compared with adalimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (IMMvent): a randomised, double-blind, active-comparator-controlled phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an autoimmune disease that affects approximately 100 million people worldwide, and is a disease that can be ameliorated by anti-cytokine treatment. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of risankizumab with adalimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

METHODS

IMMvent was a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, active-comparator-controlled trial completed at 66 clinics in 11 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 using interactive response technology to receive 150 mg risankizumab subcutaneously at weeks 0 and 4 or 80 mg adalimumab subcutaneously at randomisation, then 40 mg at weeks 1, 3, 5, and every other week thereafter during a 16-week double-blind treatment period (part A). For weeks 16-44 (part B), adalimumab intermediate responders were re-randomised 1:1 to continue 40 mg adalimumab or switch to 150 mg risankizumab. In part A, participants and investigators were masked to study treatment. Randomisation was stratified by weight and previous tumour necrosis factor inhibitor exposure. Co-primary endpoints in part A were a 90% improvement from baseline (PASI 90) and a static Physician's Global Assessment (sPGA) score of 0 or 1 at week 16, and for part B was PASI 90 at week 44 (non-responder imputation). Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in the safety population (all patients who received at least one dose of study drug or placebo). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02694523.

FINDINGS

Between March 31, 2016, and Aug 24, 2017, 605 patients were randomly assigned to receive either risankizumab (n=301, 50%) or adalimumab (n=304, 50%). 294 (98%) of patients in the risankizumab group and 291 (96%) in the adalimumab group completed part A, and 51 (96%) of 53 patients re-randomised to risankizumab and 51 (91%) of 56 patients re-randomised to continue adalimumab completed part B. At week 16, PASI 90 was achieved in 218 (72%) of 301 patients given risankizumab and 144 (47%) of 304 patients given adalimumab (adjusted absolute difference 24·9% [95% CI 17·5-32·4]; p<0·0001), and sPGA scores of 0 or 1 were achieved in 252 (84%) patients given risankizumab and 252 (60%) patients given adalimumab (adjusted absolute difference 23·3% [16·6-30·1]; p<0·0001). In part B, among adalimumab intermediate responders, PASI 90 was achieved by 35 (66%) of 53 patients switched to risankizumab and 12 (21%) of 56 patients continuing adalimumab (adjusted absolute difference 45·0% [28·9-61·1]; p<0·0001) at week 44. Adverse events were reported in 168 (56%) of 301 patients given risankizumab and 179 (57%) of 304 patients given adalimumab in part A, and among adalimumab intermediate responders, adverse events were reported in 40 (75%) of 53 patients who switched to risankizumab and 37 (66%) of 56 patients who continued adalimumab in part B.

INTERPRETATION

Risankizumab showed significantly greater efficacy than adalimumab in providing skin clearance in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. No additional safety concerns were identified for patients who switched from adalimumab to risankizumab. Treatment with risankizumab provides flexibility in the long-term treatment of psoriasis.

FUNDING

AbbVie and Boehringer Ingelheim.

Assessing the relative efficacy of interleukin-17 and interleukin-23 targeted treatments for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of PASI response

INTRODUCTION

New generation biologics, including interleukin (IL)-17 and IL-23 inhibitors, have delivered higher rates of skin clearance than older treatments in head-to-head studies. However, studies comparing these new biologics directly to one another are limited.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the short-term efficacy of available (or imminently available) biologic and non-biologic systemic therapies for treating patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken to identify randomised controlled trials evaluating biologic treatments, apremilast and dimethyl fumarate. MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched from the 1st January 2000 to 22nd November 2018. A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) using a random-effects multinomial likelihood model with probit link and meta-regression to adjust for cross-trial variation in placebo responses compared the efficacy of interventions at inducing different levels of Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response during the induction period. A range of sensitivity analyses was undertaken.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven trials (34,816 patients) were included in the NMA. The base-case analysis showed that all active treatments were superior to placebo. IL-17 inhibitors, guselkumab and risankizumab were found to be more efficacious than tildrakizumab, ustekinumab, all TNF inhibitors and non-biologic systemic treatments at inducing all levels of PASI response. In addition, brodalumab, ixekizumab and risankizumab were significantly more efficacious than secukinumab; no significant difference was found in the comparison with guselkumab. The greatest benefit of brodalumab, ixekizumab, guselkumab, and risankizumab was seen for PASI 90 and PASI 100 response. Results were consistent across all analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

In the NMA brodalumab, ixekizumab, risankizumab and guselkumab showed the highest levels of short-term efficacy. There were differences in efficacy between treatments within the same class. Longer-term analyses are needed to understand differences between these drugs beyond induction in what is a life-long condition.

Sustained long-term efficacy and safety of adalimumab in paediatric patients with severe chronic plaque psoriasis from a randomized, double-blind, phase III study

BACKGROUND

Adalimumab (ADA) (Humira^® , AbbVie Inc., U.S.A.) is approved by the European Medicines Agency for children aged ≥ 4 years with severe plaque psoriasis.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of ADA in children with severe plaque psoriasis.

METHODS

Results are presented from the 52-week long-term extension (LTE) of the randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, phase III trial, in children with severe plaque psoriasis (results from prior periods have been published). Patients aged ≥ 4 and < 18 years were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to ADA 0·8 mg kg^-1 (40 mg maximum) or 0·4 mg kg^-1 (20 mg maximum) every other week or to methotrexate (MTX) 0·1-0·4 mg kg^-1 (25 mg maximum) weekly. The 16-week initial treatment (IT) period was followed by a 36-week withdrawal period and a 16-week retreatment period. Patients could enter the LTE at prespecified time points to receive ADA 0·8 mg kg^-1 (blinded or open label) or ADA 0·4 mg kg^-1 (blinded), or to remain off treatment. Efficacy is reported for patient groups according to doses received in the IT and LTE periods.

RESULTS

Of the 114 patients randomized in the IT period, 108 entered the LTE (n = 36 in each group); 93 received ADA 0·8 mg kg^-1 . Efficacy (≥ 75% improvement from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) was maintained or improved from entry to the end of the LTE: MTX(IT)/ADA 0·8(LTE) 31-86% of patients; ADA 0·4(IT)/0·4 or 0·8(LTE) 28-47%; ADA 0·8(IT)/0·8(LTE) 50-72%. No serious infections occurred in the LTE.

CONCLUSIONS

After 52 weeks of long-term ADA treatment in children aged 4-18 years with severe plaque psoriasis, disease severity was reduced and maintained or further improved, as demonstrated by efficacy outcomes. No new safety risks were identified. What's already known about this topic? The results from the first three periods of this phase III trial in children aged 4-18 years with severe plaque psoriasis suggest that adalimumab is a safe and efficacious treatment option in this population. What does this study add? This is the first study to evaluate long-term treatment of adalimumab in children with severe psoriasis, and the first to evaluate switching from methotrexate to adalimumab in this population.

Persistence of apremilast in moderate-to-severe psoriasis: a real-world analysis of 14 147 apremilast- and methotrexate-naive patients in the French National Health Insurance database

BACKGROUND

Real-world data on the persistence of apremilast vs. methotrexate are inconclusive.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the long-term persistence of apremilast and methotrexate in a large cohort of patients with psoriasis.

METHODS

All adult patients with psoriasis registered in the French national health insurance database ('Système National des Données de Santé') between 2009 and 2017 were eligible for inclusion. The study population comprised apremilast- and methotrexate-naive patients, defined as those with a first prescription of apremilast or methotrexate. Levels of persistence were compared using a Cox model with propensity-score matching that included potential confounders (notably age, sex, psoriatic arthritis, comorbidities and previous exposure to topical and systemic treatments).

RESULTS

In this nationwide population-based cohort, 14 147 adult patients with psoriasis (mean age 52·3 years, 55·2% male) were found to be naive to both apremilast and methotrexate. After propensity-score matching, two subgroups of 4805 patients with similar baseline characteristics were included, of whom 3207 apremilast-treated patients and 2736 methotrexate-treated patients discontinued their treatment. Kaplan-Meier survival propensity-score analyses revealed a discontinuation rate of 69% for apremilast and 59% for methotrexate in the first year of treatment. Apremilast-treated patients had a higher risk of discontinuation than methotrexate-treated patients when considering the study population as a whole (hazard ratio 1·28, 95% confidence interval 1·23-1·34) or in a propensity-score-matched analysis (hazard ratio 1·34, 95% confidence interval 1·27-1·41; P < 0·001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our real-world data suggest that in the first year of treatment, the discontinuation rate was significantly higher for apremilast-treated patients than for methotrexate-treated patients, regardless of the previous therapeutic lines received. What's already known about this topic? Psoriasis is a common chronic, relapse-remitting, inflammatory skin disease associated with severe psychosocial impact. Apremilast, a phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, is one of the most recently commercialized psoriasis drugs. Little is known about the long-term clinical effectiveness of apremilast. What does this study add? The discontinuation rate at 1 year for apremilast was 69%, compared with 58% for methotrexate, in a nationwide population-based cohort including 14 147 nonselected adult patients with psoriasis. Patients in the apremilast cohort had a higher risk of discontinuation than patients in the methotrexate cohort using propensity-score matching, including potentially relevant individual risk factors such as age, sex, comorbidities and psoriatic arthritis, and regardless of the previous therapeutic lines received. In daily practice, physicians should take these results into account when choosing between methotrexate and apremilast as a first-line systemic therapy.

Diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for plaque psoriasis - Brazilian Society of Dermatology

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects 1.3% of the Brazilian population. The most common clinical manifestations are erythematous, scaling lesions that affect both genders and can occur on any anatomical site, preferentially involving the knees, elbows, scalp and genitals. Besides the impact on the quality of life, the systemic nature of the disease makes psoriasis an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, especially in young patients with severe disease. By an initiative of the Brazilian Society of Dermatology, dermatologists with renowned clinical experience in the management of psoriasis were invited to form a work group that, in a partnership with the Brazilian Medical Association, dedicated themselves to create the Plaque Psoriasis Diagnostic and Treatment Guidelines. The relevant issues for the diagnosis (evaluation of severity and comorbidities) and treatment of plaque psoriasis were defined. The issues generated a search strategy in the Medline-PubMed database up to July 2018. Subsequently, the answers to the questions of the recommendations were devised, and each reference selected presented the respective level of recommendation and strength of scientific evidence. The final recommendations for making up the final text were worded by the coordinators.

Opportunities and challenges in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis

In this chapter, we review the opportunities and challenges posed by the treatment options currently available in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. Both established and new or emerging treatment options are discussed using a domain-based approach. Finally, approaches to how treatment can be optimized together with some clinical pearls are presented and discussed. With the increasing treatment options available, we need a better way of deciding which treatment should be considered for which patient. On the basis of current knowledge, some guidance is provided on how these choices might best be made.

Patient-reported outcomes of adalimumab, phototherapy, and placebo in the Vascular Inflammation in Psoriasis Trial: A randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

There are limited data about the impact of narrowband ultraviolet B phototherapy on patient-reported measures of health-related quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of adalimumab and phototherapy on health-related quality of life.

METHODS

We examined patient-reported outcomes from a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov no. NCT01553058). The Dermatology Life Quality Index and EQ-5D-3L were evaluated every 4 weeks.

RESULTS

We enrolled 97 patients: 30.9% were female, mean age was 43.5 years (standard deviation, 14.0), and median Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score was 16.7 (interquartile range, 13.9-21.6). At week 12, patients being treated with adalimumab (odds ratio [OR], 2.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-8.17) and phototherapy (OR, 8.83; 95% CI, 2.47-31.57) were more likely to achieve the minimal clinically important difference in the Dermatology Life Quality Index compared with those receiving placebo. There were higher odds of achieving the minimal clinically important difference for the EQ-5D-3L Index score when comparing phototherapy versus placebo (OR, 9.78; 95% CI, 2.99-31.95) and phototherapy versus adalimumab (OR, 4.07; 95% CI, 1.42-11.70).

LIMITATIONS

Small sample size, secondary analysis, generalizability.

CONCLUSION

Phototherapy and adalimumab both improve skin-related quality of life and overall health-related quality of life compared with placebo in patients with psoriasis; however, patients treated with phototherapy achieved more improvement in overall health-related quality of life compared with patients treated with adalimumab.

Comparison of Drug Discontinuation, Effectiveness, and Safety Between Clinical Trial Eligible and Ineligible Patients in BADBIR

Importance

Patients with psoriasis enrolled in clinical trials of biologics may not be representative of the real-world population. There is evidence that patients ineligible for such trials have a greater risk of serious adverse events (SAEs), but the effect on drug discontinuation and effectiveness are unknown.

Objective

To determine whether (1) drug discontinuation, (2) effectiveness, and (3) rates of SAEs differ in patients with psoriasis categorized as eligible or ineligible for clinical trials.

Design, Setting, and Participants

An observational study using 157 dermatology centers in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland was carried out wherein we applied the eligibility criteria of clinical trials of biologic therapies for psoriasis to patients who were being followed up in the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic Interventions Register (BADBIR) and being prescribed biologics as part of standard clinical care. Patients with psoriasis registered to BADBIR who were taking etanercept (enbrel only; n = 1509), adalimumab (n = 4000), and ustekinumab (n = 1627) with at least 1 follow-up visit. Eligibility criteria were extracted from phase 3 licensing trials for etanercept, adalimumab, and ustekinumab for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. Patients in BADBIR with a missing baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) or baseline PASI value less than 10 (etanercept) or less than 12 (adalimumab; ustekinumab) but who would otherwise be eligible were investigated separately. Eligibility categories applied to BADBIR included: eligible, ineligible, insufficient baseline PASI only, and missing baseline PASI only.

Main Outcomes and Measures

(1) Drug discontinuation: cumulative incidence at 12 months by stop reason per eligibility category and drug; (2) effectiveness: linear regression of absolute change in PASI from baseline to 6 and 12 months; and (3) SAEs: incidence rate ratio (IRR) at 12 months between eligibility categories per drug.

Results

The mean (SD) age of the 7136 patients included in the analysis was 45 (13) years and 2924 (41%) were women and 4212 (59%) were men. Of 7136 patients, 839 (56%) etanercept, 2219 (56%) adalimumab, and 754 (46%) ustekinumab registrations were categorized as eligible. The most common reasons for ineligibility were diabetes (etanercept, 143 [9%]; ustekinumab, 201 [12%]) and nonchronic plaque psoriasis (adalimumab, 157 [4%]). Patients categorized as ineligible (etanercept, 367 [24%]; adalimumab, 282 [7%]; ustekinumab, 394 [24%]) achieved a smaller absolute change in PASI after 6 and 12 months (adalimumab, ustekinumab), and had significantly higher rates of SAEs compared with the eligible category (etanercept: IRR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6; adalimumab: IRR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.5-2.6; ustekinumab: IRR, 2.8; 95% CI, 2.1-3.8). No significant differences in drug discontinuation were observed between categories.

Conclusions and Relevance

Clinical trial effectiveness and safety outcomes are not representative of real-world patients in BADBIR patients categorized as ineligible for such trials.

Psoriasis in moderate grave plaque - immunobiological treatment

The Guidelines Project, an initiative of the Brazilian Medical Association, aims to combine information from the medical field in order to standardize producers to assist the reasoning and decision-making of doctors. The information provided through this project must be assessed and criticized by the physician responsible for the conduct that will be adopted, depending on the conditions and the clinical status of each patient.

Moderate to severe plaque psoriasis - treatment with drugs of the classic scheme

The Guidelines Project, an initiative of the Brazilian Medical Association, aims to combine information from the medical field in order to standardize producers to assist the reasoning and decision-making of doctors. The information provided through this project must be assessed and criticized by the physician responsible for the conduct that will be adopted, depending on the conditions and the clinical status of each patient.

The real world impact of adalimumab on quality of life and the physical and psychological effects of moderate-to-severe psoriasis: a UK prospective, multicenter, observational study

Psoriasis can adversely affect quality of life (QoL) and emotional well-being. In this UK prospective observational study we evaluated the 'real-world' impact of adalimumab on QoL and the physical/psychological effects of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Hundred and forty-three biologic-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, receiving adalimumab in clinical practice, were included. Patients completed a series of questionnaires at baseline (adalimumab initiation), 4 and 16-weeks and 6-months post-adalimumab initiation during routine visits. The main outcome measure was the proportion of Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) 'responders' at 16 weeks, defined as ≥5 point reduction from baseline or DLQI = 0.90% (95% CI = 80.8%-94.6%) of evaluable patients were DLQI responders at 16-weeks. There were significant improvements at 16 weeks in patient-reported measures of QoL, mental and physical well-being, cutaneous body image, anxiety, depression and psoriasis severity, which were maintained at 6-months. Adalimumab treatment was associated with improvements in patients' QoL and psychological functioning, which occurred contemporaneously with improvements in cutaneous disease.

Non-antistreptococcal interventions for acute guttate psoriasis or an acute guttate flare of chronic psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Guttate psoriasis displays distinctive epidemiological and clinical features, making it a separate entity within the heterogeneous group of cutaneous psoriasis types. It is associated with genetic, immune, and environmental factors (such as stress and infections) and usually arises in younger age groups (including children, teenagers, and young adults). There is currently no cure for psoriasis, but various treatments can help to relieve the symptoms and signs. The objectives of treatment when managing an acute flare of guttate psoriasis are to reduce time to clearance and induction of long-term remission after resolution. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2000; since then, new treatments have expanded the therapeutic spectrum of systemic treatments used for psoriasis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of non-antistreptococcal interventions for acute guttate psoriasis or an acute guttate flare of chronic psoriasis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to June 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials. We checked the proceedings of key dermatology conferences from 2004 to 2018, and also searched for trials in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database for drug registration.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of treatments for acute guttate psoriasis or an acute guttate flare of chronic psoriasis clinically diagnosed in children and adults. This included all topical and systemic drugs, biological therapy, phototherapy (all forms: topical and systemic), and complementary and alternative therapies. We compared these treatments against placebo or against another treatment. We did not include studies on drugs that aim to eradicate streptococcal infection. We did not include studies when separate results for guttate psoriasis participants were not available.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and methodological quality and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were 'percentage of participants clear or almost clear (i.e. obtaining Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 100/90 and/or Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) of 0 or 1)' and 'percentage of participants with adverse effects and severe adverse effects'. Our secondary outcomes were 'number of relapses of guttate psoriasis or flares within a period of six months after the treatment has finished', 'percentage of participants achieving a PASI 75 or PGA of 1 or 2', and 'improvement in participant satisfaction measures and quality of life assessment measures'. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included only one trial (21 participants), which compared fish oil-derived (n-3) fatty acid-based lipid emulsion (50 mL per infusion (1.05 g eicosapentaenoic and 10.5 g docosahexaenoic acid)) (10 participants) to soya oil-derived (n-6) fatty acid-based lipid emulsion (50 mL per infusion (1.05 g eicosapentaenoic and 10.5 g docosahexaenoic acid)) (11 participants) administered intravenously twice daily for 10 days, with a total follow-up of 40 days. The study was conducted in a single centre in Germany in 18 men and three women, aged between 21 and 65 years, who were in hospital with acute guttate psoriasis and had mean total body surface involvement of 25.7% ± 20.4% (range 10 to 90). The study was funded by a company that produces the oil emulsions. We found no other evidence regarding non-antistreptococcal interventions used in clinical practice for guttate psoriasis, such as topical treatments (corticosteroids, vitamin D₃ analogues), systemic drugs, biological therapy, and phototherapy.The primary outcomes of the review were not measured, and only one of our secondary outcomes was measured: improvement in participant satisfaction measures and quality of life assessment measures. However, the study authors did report that there was rare skin irritation at the site of peripheral intravenous route, but the number of affected participants was not provided.Improvement between baseline and day 10, using a non-validated score assessed by participants themselves daily based on five items (appearance of lesions, impairment of daily life, pruritus, burning, and pain), was greater in the group that received the fish oil-derived (n-3) fatty acid-based lipid emulsion (75%) than in the group receiving the soya oil-derived (n-6) fatty acid-based lipid emulsion (18%) (one trial, 21 participants). However, these results are uncertain as they are based on very low-quality evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence regarding topical and systemic drugs, biotherapy, or phototherapy in guttate psoriasis (we did not consider drugs that aimed to eradicate streptococcal infection because these are assessed in another Cochrane Review). We are uncertain of the effect of intravenously administered lipid emulsion on guttate psoriasis because the quality of the evidence is very low, due to risk of bias (unclear risk of bias for all domains), indirectness (the trial only included adults, and the follow-up from baseline was only 10 days), and imprecision (small number of participants).This review highlights the need for trials assessing the efficacy and safety of phototherapy and topical and systemic drugs for guttate psoriasis. There is also a need for studies that clearly distinguish the specific population with guttate psoriasis from the larger group of people with chronic plaque psoriasis, and children and young adults should be assessed as a distinct group.

Monocytes/Macrophages play a pathogenic role in IL-23 mediated psoriasis-like skin inflammation

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated inflammatory skin disease that affects millions worldwide. Studying immune cells involved in psoriasis pathogenesis is essential to identify effective and safe therapeutics for the disease. Using human psoriasis skin, activated macrophages were observed in both lesional and non-lesional skin, but were elevated in lesional skin. Activation of the IL-23/IL-17 pathway is integral to the development of psoriasis. To further characterize the monocyte/macrophage (Mon/Mac) population when the IL-23 pathway is activated, a murine model of intradermal injection of IL-23 was used. Flow cytometry revealed that Mon/Mac cells were the dominant immune population, particularly late in the model, highlighted by strong presence of Ly6C^hiMHC II^hi cells. The Mon/Mac cells were also shown to have high expression for TNFα but not IL-17A. Prophylactic dosing of a CSF-1R inhibitor to deplete Mon/Mac cells significantly reduced several inflammatory mediators from the skin tissue suggesting a pathogenic role for Mon/Mac. Treatment dosing of the inhibitor produced a less robust effect. Mon/Mac cells were also differentiated by levels of Ki67 and TNFα expression. These data point to an important contribution of Mon/Mac cells in IL-23 related skin inflammation and suggest that these cells are a significant player in the underlying pathophysiology of psoriasis.

Psoriasis Pathogenesis and Treatment

Research on psoriasis pathogenesis has largely increased knowledge on skin biology in general. In the past 15 years, breakthroughs in the understanding of the pathogenesis of psoriasis have been translated into targeted and highly effective therapies providing fundamental insights into the pathogenesis of chronic inflammatory diseases with a dominant IL-23/Th17 axis. This review discusses the mechanisms involved in the initiation and development of the disease, as well as the therapeutic options that have arisen from the dissection of the inflammatory psoriatic pathways. Our discussion begins by addressing the inflammatory pathways and key cell types initiating and perpetuating psoriatic inflammation. Next, we describe the role of genetics, associated epigenetic mechanisms, and the interaction of the skin flora in the pathophysiology of psoriasis. Finally, we include a comprehensive review of well-established widely available therapies and novel targeted drugs.

Joint AAD-NPF guidelines of care for the management and treatment of psoriasis with biologics

Psoriasis is a chronic, inflammatory multisystem disease that affects up to 3.2% of the US population. This guideline addresses important clinical questions that arise in psoriasis management and care, providing recommendations based on the available evidence. The treatment of psoriasis with biologic agents will be reviewed, emphasizing treatment recommendations and the role of the dermatologist in monitoring and educating patients regarding benefits as well as associated risks.

Unmet Needs in the Field of Psoriasis: Pathogenesis and Treatment

In times of targeted therapies, innovative therapeutics become tools to further unravel the pathogenesis of the treated disease, thus influencing current pathogenetic concepts. Based on such paradigm shifts, the next generation of novel therapeutic targets might be identified. Psoriasis is a good example for the resulting most fruitful dialog between clinical and fundamental research. As a result of this, the key role of Th17 lymphocytes, some of their effector molecules, as well as mediators contributing to their maturation have been identified, many of these being targeted by some of the most effective drugs currently available to treat psoriasis. During this process, it became obvious that major parts of the puzzle remain yet to be uncovered or understood in much more detail. This review will therefore address the search for additional important effector cells other than Th17 lymphocytes, such as neutrophils, monocytes, and mast cells, mediators other than IL-17A, including some other IL-17 isoforms, and trigger factors such as potential autoantigens. This will lead to discussing the next generation of targeted therapies for psoriasis as well as treatment goals. These goals need to comprise both psoriasis as well as its comorbidities, as a comprehensive approach to manage the whole patient with all his health issues is urgently needed. Finally, given the substantial differences in resources available in different parts of the world, the global burden of psoriasis and options on how to care for patients outside developed countries will be assessed.

Short-term risk of major adverse cardiovascular events or congestive heart failure in patients with psoriatic arthritis or psoriasis initiating a biological therapy: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Objective

The objective was to investigate the short-term risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) or congestive heart failure (CHF) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or psoriasis initiating a biological therapy.

Methods

Screening for the study was carried out using MEDLINE, Cochrane and Embase, from the inception of the database to December 2017. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF), anti-interleukin (IL)12/23, anti-IL23 and anti-IL17 agents for the treatment of PsA or psoriasis were included. Two investigators independently extracted MACEs or CHF data reported during the placebo-controlled phase. The primary outcome measures were the incidence of MACEs or CHF.

Results

Of 753 references screened, 62 articles were selected, and 12 articles were added by manual searches. Accordingly 77 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis (MA) (10 174 patient-years (P-Y)). No significant difference was observed in MACE incidences in patients receiving anti-TNF, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23 or anti-IL17 agents in comparison to the placebo. However, 10 MACEs were observed in the anti-IL12/23 group (1150 P-Y) compared with 1 in the placebo group (652 P-Y), with 0.01 -0.00 to 0.02 event/P-Y risk difference, which is not statistically significant. This trend was not observed in the anti-IL23 group. No significant difference was observed in CHF incidence in patients receiving biological agents in comparison to placebo.

Conclusion

This MA of 77 RCTs did not reveal any significant change in the short-term risk of MACE or CHF in patients with PsA or psoriasis initiating a biological therapy.

Guselkumab for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis During Induction Phase: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background:

Guselkumab is an interleukin-23 inhibitor indicated for treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

Objective:

The objective was to determine the relative efficacy and safety of guselkumab compared to other biologics.

Methods:

A systematic review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted using meta-regression analyses that adjusted for cross-trial differences and risk differences. The primary outcome was Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response. Other efficacy and safety outcomes were considered. Several meta-regressions were performed to account for variations in patient and study characteristics: baseline risk adjustment (ie, control group response), prior biologic use, duration of psoriasis, weight, age, race, and baseline PASI/dermatology life quality index scores. The best-fitting model using predefined criteria was selected.

Results:

Forty-five RCTs were identified. Patient and study characteristics differed between RCTs as reflected in variations in control group response. Both the baseline risk-adjusted NMA and the risk-difference NMA fit the data best and suggested guselkumab has one of the highest PASI 90 responses. Pairwise comparisons from the baseline risk-adjusted PASI 90 NMA suggested guselkumab has comparable efficacy with ixekizumab (relative risk [RR]: 0.999, 95% credible intervals [CrIs]: 0.89-1.13) and brodalumab (RR: 1.04, 95% CrIs: 0.91-1.17) and superior efficacy versus all other treatments in the network (RR range, 1.20 to 43.22). Guselkumab was superior or comparable to other therapies for other efficacy outcomes and had a more favorable safety profile than most.

Conclusions:

Guselkumab has one of the highest PASI 90 responses among psoriasis treatments; similar findings were observed for other efficacy outcomes. Guselkumab has a favorable benefit–risk balance compared to moderate-to-severe psoriasis therapies.

Risk of Infection with Methotrexate Therapy in Inflammatory Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The aim of this study was to determine the risk of infection in adults with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRDs) treated with methotrexate. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing methotrexate versus placebo in adults using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from 1980 to August 2017. The primary outcome was the risk of infection associated with methotrexate therapy. We chose a random effect model to summarize adverse event outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and related 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Twelve RCTs (total patients 1146) met the inclusion criteria for our main analysis, and ten for risk of serious infection (total patients 906). Overall, methotrexate was associated with increased risk of infection in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (RR: 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01⁻1.56; p = 0.04; I² = 0%), but not in other non-RA IRD populations. There was no increased risk of total infections (RR: 1.14; 95% CI, 0.98⁻1.34; p = 0.10; I² = 0%) or serious infections (RR: 0.76; 95% CI, 0.11⁻5.15; p = 0.78; I² = 0%) in all included IRDs. Conclusively, methotrexate use in IRDs is associated with a higher risk of all infections in RA, but not in other non-RA (IRD) populations. There is no increased risk of serious infections.

Comparative efficacy and safety of adalimumab biosimilar (BCD-057) and innovator in patients with psoriasis vulgaris. Results of the BCD-057-2/CALYPSO phase III international, multicenter, randomized double-blind clinical trial

The paper gives the results of the phase III clinical trial of adalimumab (ADA) biosimilar, (BCD-057) (BIOCAD, Russia), which demonstrate the clinical equivalence of the biosimilar to the ADA innovator Humira® in patients with moderate and severe psoriasis.Objective. The BCD-057-2/CALYPSO phase III international, multicenter, randomized double-blind clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of BCD-057 (International Nonproprietary Name (INN): adalimumab, ZAO «BIOCARD», Russia) versus Himura® (INN: adalimumab (OOO «Abbvie») in patients with plaque psoriasis aims to prove the equivalent pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of these medicines in both direct parallel comparison and subsequent switching from innovator to biosimilar.Patients and methods. The investigation enrolled 346 adult patients diagnosed with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis lasting at least 6 months. After screening, the patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio into BCD-057 or Humira® groups. At week 24, the patients taking Humira® were re-randomized 1:1 into a group to continue treatment with the ADA innovator or into that to switch to BCD-057. The primary efficacy endpoint was to estimate the proportion of patients who had achieved a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI75) at week 16. The secondary endpoints included the assessment of the time course of changes in the skin, nails, degree of itching, and quality of life at weeks 16 and 24. Safety was evaluated from the incidence of treatment-associated adverse events (AEs), cases of severe toxicity (grades 3–4 AEs according to the Common Terminology Criteria Adverse Event (CTCAE) 4.03), cases of early patient withdrawal due to AEs, as well as cases of toxicity potentially associated with the use of tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors. Immunogenicity was determined using the validated test of patient serum samples for binding antibodies (BAb) and neutralizing antibodies.Results and discussion. The per-protocol population for efficacy evaluation included 342 patients. At week 16, the primary endpoint of PASI75 was shown to be achieved by 62.5% (105/168) and 66.46% (109/164) of the patients in the BCD-057 and Himura® groups, respectively; p=0.45). The difference between the groups in PASI75 responses was 3.22% with 95% confidence interval [-14.25%; 6.32%]. The analysis of additional endpoints revealed no significant differences in the efficacy of the biosimilar and innovator. During 24 weeks of the investigation, treatment-associated AEs were recorded in 31.03 and 25.58% of the patients in the BCD-057 and Humira® groups, respectively (p=0.31). The proportion of patients with BAb detected at 16 weeks of the investigation was 25.44 and 24.07% in the BCD-057 and Humira® groups, respectively (p=0.87).Conclusion. The investigation provided convincing clinical evidence for of the equivalent efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of BCD-057 and Humira®.

Special Article: 2018 American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To develop an evidence-based guideline for the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF).

METHODS

We identified critical outcomes in PsA and clinically relevant PICO (population/intervention/comparator/outcomes) questions. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for PsA. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A voting panel, including rheumatologists, dermatologists, other health professionals, and patients, achieved consensus on the direction and the strength of the recommendations.

RESULTS

The guideline covers the management of active PsA in patients who are treatment-naive and those who continue to have active PsA despite treatment, and addresses the use of oral small molecules, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23i), IL-17 inhibitors, CTLA4-Ig (abatacept), and a JAK inhibitor (tofacitinib). We also developed recommendations for psoriatic spondylitis, predominant enthesitis, and treatment in the presence of concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, or serious infections. We formulated recommendations for a treat-to-target strategy, vaccinations, and nonpharmacologic therapies. Six percent of the recommendations were strong and 94% conditional, indicating the importance of active discussion between the health care provider and the patient to choose the optimal treatment.

CONCLUSION

The 2018 ACR/NPF PsA guideline serves as a tool for health care providers and patients in the selection of appropriate therapy in common clinical scenarios. Best treatment decisions consider each individual patient situation. The guideline is not meant to be proscriptive and should not be used to limit treatment options for patients with PsA.

2018 American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis

Objective:

To develop an evidence-based guideline for the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF).

Methods:

We identified critical outcomes in PsA and clinically relevant PICO (population/intervention/comparator/outcomes) questions. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for PsA. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A voting panel, including rheumatologists, dermatologists, other health professionals, and patients, achieved consensus on the direction and the strength of the recommendations.

Results:

The guideline covers the management of active PsA in patients who are treatment-naive and those who continue to have active PsA despite treatment, and addresses the use of oral small molecules, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23i), IL-17 inhibitors, CTLA4-Ig (abatacept), and a JAK inhibitor (tofacitinib). We also developed recommendations for psoriatic spondylitis, predominant enthesitis, and treatment in the presence of concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, or serious infections. We formulated recommendations for a treat-to-target strategy, vaccinations, and nonpharmacologic therapies. Six percent of the recommendations were strong and 94% conditional, indicating the importance of active discussion between the health care provider and the patient to choose the optimal treatment.

Conclusion:

The 2018 ACR/NPF PsA guideline serves as a tool for health care providers and patients in the selection of appropriate therapy in common clinical scenarios. Best treatment decisions consider each individual patient situation. The guideline is not meant to be proscriptive and should not be used to limit treatment options for patients with PsA.

Special Article: 2018 American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To develop an evidence-based guideline for the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF).

METHODS

We identified critical outcomes in PsA and clinically relevant PICO (population/intervention/comparator/outcomes) questions. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for PsA. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A voting panel, including rheumatologists, dermatologists, other health professionals, and patients, achieved consensus on the direction and the strength of the recommendations.

RESULTS

The guideline covers the management of active PsA in patients who are treatment-naive and those who continue to have active PsA despite treatment, and addresses the use of oral small molecules, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23i), IL-17 inhibitors, CTLA4-Ig (abatacept), and a JAK inhibitor (tofacitinib). We also developed recommendations for psoriatic spondylitis, predominant enthesitis, and treatment in the presence of concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, or serious infections. We formulated recommendations for a treat-to-target strategy, vaccinations, and nonpharmacologic therapies. Six percent of the recommendations were strong and 94% conditional, indicating the importance of active discussion between the health care provider and the patient to choose the optimal treatment.

CONCLUSION

The 2018 ACR/NPF PsA guideline serves as a tool for health care providers and patients in the selection of appropriate therapy in common clinical scenarios. Best treatment decisions consider each individual patient situation. The guideline is not meant to be proscriptive and should not be used to limit treatment options for patients with PsA.

Importance of assessing and adjusting for cross-study heterogeneity in network meta-analysis: a case study of psoriasis

Aim: The importance of adjusting for cross-study heterogeneity when conducting network meta-analyses (NMAs) was demonstrated using a case study of biologic therapies for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Methods: Bayesian NMAs were conducted for Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 90 response. Several covariates were considered to account for cross-trial differences: baseline risk (i.e., placebo response), prior biologic use, body weight, psoriasis duration, age, race and baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score. Model fit was evaluated. Results: The baseline risk-adjusted NMA, which adjusts for multiple observed and unobserved effect modifiers, was associated with the best model fit. Lack of adjustment for cross-trial differences led to different clinical interpretations of findings. Conclusion: Failure to adjust for cross-trial differences in NMA can have important implications for clinical interpretations when studying the comparative efficacy of healthcare interventions.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Phase 2 Trial of Selective Tyrosine Kinase 2 Inhibition in Psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) signaling pathways, which mediate cytokine signaling, are implicated in the pathophysiology of psoriasis. Selective inhibitors of TYK2 may be effective in treating psoriasis.

METHODS

We conducted a phase 2, double-blind trial of a TYK2 inhibitor, BMS-986165, in adults with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, excluding patients with a previous lack of response to agents targeting cytokine signaling through the same tyrosine kinase pathway. Patients were randomly assigned to receive the drug orally at a dose of 3 mg every other day, 3 mg daily, 3 mg twice daily, 6 mg twice daily, or 12 mg daily or to receive placebo. The primary end point was a 75% or greater reduction from baseline in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score at week 12 (higher scores indicate greater severity of psoriasis).

RESULTS

A total of 267 patients received at least one dose in an intervention group of the trial. At week 12, the percentage of patients with a 75% or greater reduction in the PASI score was 7% (3 of 45 patients) with placebo, 9% (4 of 44 patients) with 3 mg of BMS-986165 every other day (P=0.49 vs. placebo), 39% (17 of 44 patients) with 3 mg daily (P<0.001 vs. placebo), 69% (31 of 45 patients) with 3 mg twice daily (P<0.001 vs. placebo), 67% (30 of 45 patients) with 6 mg twice daily (P<0.001 vs. placebo), and 75% (33 of 44 patients) with 12 mg daily (P<0.001 vs. placebo). There were three serious adverse events in patients receiving the active drug, as well as one case of malignant melanoma 96 days after the start of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Selective inhibition of TYK2 with the oral agent BMS-986165 at doses of 3 mg daily and higher resulted in greater clearing of psoriasis than did placebo over a period of 12 weeks. Larger and longer-duration trials of this drug are required to determine its safety and durability of effect in patients with psoriasis. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02931838 .).

Review of safety and efficacy of approved systemic psoriasis therapies

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease which affects nearly 3% of the adult US population. Due to the chronic nature of the disease and need for long-term treatment, psoriasis is associated with substantial disease burden and negative impact on patients' quality of life. In the past, systemic agents such as methotrexate, cyclosporine, and acitretin have been the mainstay treatment for moderate to severe psoriasis. Multiple new molecular targets have been recently identified, and novel biologic therapies directed at these targets have been approved leading to a paradigm shift in psoriasis management. However, despite the availability of several treatment options and continued introduction of highly efficacious biologics, undertreatment of psoriasis patients remains a huge problem. This can be largely attributed to several causes including high cost of biologics, lack of experience, and reluctance of practitioners to initiate or switch to systemic treatment regimens in moderate to severe psoriasis patients. In this article, we aim to provide a concise review of mechanism, safety, and efficacy of the approved systemic treatments for psoriasis.

Review of Biosimilar Trials and Data on Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Purpose of Review

Adalimumab is one of the top-selling drugs worldwide. Its imminent patent expiration has seen the emergence of numerous biosimilar agents. In this article, we recap the evidence from bio-originator trials in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to provide context for a critical review of biosimilar trial data.

Recent Findings

Currently, three adalimumab biosimilars are approved in Europe and/or the USA: Amgen’s ABP 501 (AMJEVITA/Solymbic), Boehringer Ingelheim’s BI 695501 (Cyltezo) and Samsung Bioepis’s SB5 (Imraldi). All three agents met their pre-specified equivalence criteria. Subtle differences in adverse events and clinical responses between the reference and biosimilar products were noted.

Summary

The introduction of adalimumab biosimilars will offer exciting opportunities in improving treatment access and increasing treatment options for RA and other licensed indications. Real-world data will further provide assurances on efficacy as well as safety.