Population exposure-response model to support dosing evaluation of ixekizumab in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis

Ixekizumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: the first septennium

Ixekizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that specifically inhibits IL-17A. It has been approved for the treatment of adult and pediatric psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthropathies by the US FDA and the EMA. Phase III trials, post hoc analyses and real-life data have reported its efficacy, effectiveness and safety. This review summarizes the latest evidence on the clinical efficacy, pharmacology and safety profile of ixekizumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. A literature search was performed for articles published through December 2022. Ixekizumab is one of the most efficacious biologics for psoriasis, with a rapid onset of response, favorable long-term outcomes and an adequate safety profile.

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

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, 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. 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.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2022: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes an additional 12 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 179, and randomised participants to 62,339, 67.1% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.6 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (56%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (152) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (65/179) had high risk of bias, 24 unclear risk, and most (90) low risk. Most studies (138/179) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 49.16, 95% CI 20.49 to 117.95), bimekizumab (RR 27.86, 95% CI 23.56 to 32.94), ixekizumab (RR 27.35, 95% CI 23.15 to 32.29), risankizumab (RR 26.16, 95% CI 22.03 to 31.07). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab and ixekizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than secukinumab. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than brodalumab and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab), and anti-IL23 drugs except tildrakizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than ustekinumab, three anti-TNF alpha agents, and deucravacitinib. Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab. Adalimumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with very low- to moderate-certainty evidence for all the comparisons. The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were 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, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.6 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was very low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies is needed. 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.

Blocking interleukin-17 in psoriasis: Real-world experience from the PsoPlus cohort

BACKGROUND

Real-world studies on the use of biologics in psoriasis (Pso) are increasing, but still scarce. Trough concentrations (C_t s) of interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i) seem promising for clinical decision-making, but their value in daily practice has yet to be proven.

OBJECTIVES

To report on IL-17i effectiveness, treatment modifications and C_t use in our clinic.

METHODS

Data were collected from IL-17i-treated Pso patients followed up in the PsoPlus clinic at the Dermatology department, Ghent University Hospital, Belgium. Descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier analysis were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 111 patients were included, counting for 134 IL-17i courses (secukinumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab). Fifty-five per cent of the patients were bio-naive prior to IL-17i initiation. During maintenance, merely 97.0% and 77% achieved near-complete and complete skin clearance, respectively. Major reasons for treatment modification were suboptimal response (63.0%) and safety issues (9.3%). Reported modifications were switch (25.4%), dose escalation (11.9%), dose de-escalation (6.7%), treatment association (6.0%) and IL-17i stop (3.0%). Overall drug survival was 69.0 months, without difference between the different IL-17i (p = 0.078). Ixekizumab tended to have the highest survival. Drug survival was higher in bio-naive subjects compared to bio-experienced subjects (p = 0.011). C_t was measured in 20 patients and interpreted post hoc. In 85%, the clinical decision was in accordance with the C_t (e.g. substantiated need for dose escalation). For the other cases, the C_t would have led to another clinical decision if known at that time.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world study showed that IL-17i are very effective drugs for Pso, with ixekizumab as leading biologic. Prior bio-experience seemed to impact IL-17i drug survival. Treatment modifications were mainly performed in case of insufficient response, primarily via switch and dose escalation, and least frequently in ixekizumab patients. C_t might rationalize clinical decision-making; however, there is need for standardized algorithms to corroborate its use.

Population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis of AK111, an IL-17A monoclonal antibody, in subjects with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis

AK111 is an innovative IL-17A antibody, presenting high affinity to IL-17A and showing similar pharmacokinetic (PK) characteristics to those of typical immunoglobulin (Ig) G1 antibodies. To optimize the dosage regimen for phase 2/3 clinical trials, PK and pharmacodynamics (PD) of AK111 were first characterized in Chinese moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis patients in a phase 1b study. AK111 PK serum sample and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score data were collected from 48 moderate-to-severe psoriasis patients in this study. Non-linear mixed-effects modeling was used for the population PK/PD analysis. A one-compartment model with a first-order absorption and a first-order elimination best described the PK behavior of AK111. The apparent systemic clearance was 0.182 L/day, and the central volume was 6.65 L. The exposure–response relationship was characterized using an indirect response model. The pharmacological effect of AK111 was described in the form of inhibiting the formation of psoriatic plaque, whereas placebo was quantified in the form of promoting the degradation of psoriatic skin lesions. The maximum effect of drug effect (I_max) and placebo effect (PLB_max) was 1 and 0.429, respectively. The rate constant for psoriatic plaque production (K_in) was 0.474 PASI/day and psoriatic plaque loss (K_out) was 0.024 day⁻¹. The body surface area (BSA) affected by psoriasis was identified as a significant covariate on Kout. The simulation results confirmed that all of the predicted PASI90 response rates at week 12 were higher than 60% at 150 and 300 mg dose levels with different regimens and could reach higher than 80% at week 24. We hope this first PK/PD study of AK111 in Chinese moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis patients will be of help in the further clinical development of AK111 and provide a reference to the dosage optimization for similar antibodies with a long half-life.

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

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, 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. 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.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2021: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes an additional 19 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 167, and randomised participants to 58,912, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.5 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (57%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (140) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (57/167) had high risk of bias; 23 unclear risk, and most (87) low risk. Most studies (127/167) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions, except anti-IL23. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23 and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 50.19, 95% CI 20.92 to 120.45), bimekizumab (RR 30.27, 95% CI 25.45 to 36.01), ixekizumab (RR 30.19, 95% CI 25.38 to 35.93), risankizumab (RR 28.75, 95% CI 24.03 to 34.39). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab and risankizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than other anti-IL17 drugs (secukinumab and brodalumab) and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab and brodalumab) and anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab) except tildrakizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents (adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept). Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab; adalimumab and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low- to moderate-certainty for all the comparisons (except methotrexate versus placebo, which was high-certainty). The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were 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, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.5 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports from regulatory agencies is needed. 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.

Impact of Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Properties of Monoclonal Antibodies in the Management of Psoriasis

The treatment of psoriasis has been revolutionized by the emergence of biological therapies. Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) generally have complex pharmacokinetic (PK) properties with nonlinear distribution and elimination. In recent years, several population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) models capable of describing different types of mAb have been published. This study aims to summarize the findings of a literature search about population PK/PD modeling and therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of mAb in psoriasis. A total of 22 articles corresponding to population PK/PD models of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors (adalimumab and golimumab), interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors (guselkumab, tildrakizumab, and risankizumab), IL-23/IL-12 inhibitor (ustekinumab), and IL-17 inhibitors (secukinumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab) were collected. A summary of the clinical trials conducted so far in psoriasis was included, together with the current structural population PK and PD models. The most significant and clinical covariates were body weight (BW) and the presence of immunogenicity on clearance (CL). The lack of consensus on PK/PD relationships has prevented establishing an adequate dosage and, therefore, accentuates the need for TDM in psoriasis.

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.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

For this living systematic review we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to September 2020: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers to the same date. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to eligible 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 events (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse events.

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 events). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons, according to CINeMA, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer on treatment hierarchy: 0% (treatment is the worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (treatment is the best for effectiveness or safety).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 158 studies (18 new studies for the update) in our review (57,831 randomised participants, 67.2% 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 (58%), 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 20 treatments. In all, 133 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 (53/158) as being at high risk of bias; 25 were at an unclear risk, and 80 at low risk. Most studies (123/158) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report their source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in reaching PASI 90. At class level, in 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 non-biological systemic agents. At drug level, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, risankizumab and guselkumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab, and etanercept. Ustekinumab and adalimumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than etanercept; ustekinumab was more effective than certolizumab, and the clinical effectiveness of ustekinumab and adalimumab was similar. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and three non-biological drugs: fumaric acid esters (FAEs), ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab, and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar, except for ixekizumab which had a better chance of reaching PASI 90 compared with secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab. The clinical effectiveness of these seven drugs was: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 50.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 20.96 to 120.67, SUCRA = 93.6; high-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 32.48, 95% CI 27.13 to 38.87; SUCRA = 90.5; high-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.76, 95% CI 23.96 to 34.54; SUCRA = 84.6; high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86; SUCRA = 81.4; high-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 25.79, 95% CI 21.61 to 30.78; SUCRA = 76.2; high-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.52, 95% CI 21.25 to 30.64; SUCRA = 75; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 23.55, 95% CI 19.48 to 28.48; SUCRA = 68.4; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as mirikizumab, 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 moderate certainty for all the comparisons. 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 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, secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. 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. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the evidence for all the interventions was of 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 directly comparing active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between non-biological systemic agents 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.

Exploring the role of immunotherapeutic drugs in autoimmune diseases: A comprehensive review

Autoimmune diseases are group of disorders where an immune response is mounted against the self. The prevalence and burden of this well established and recognised entity is on the rise. Irrespective of being a systemic or organ specific autoimmune disorder, the common underlying mechanism of action, is the imbalance in immune system resulting in loss of tolerance to self-antigens. The oral cavity is no alien to these disorders or to their influences. Pemphigus group of lesions, systemic lupus erythematosus, psoriasis and even Sjogren's syndrome are some of the established autoimmune disorders with prominent oral manifestations. Though these diseases are well documented and enumerated, however addressing them is where the dilemma lies. Science, research and discoveries are a crucial part of medical discipline which help in looking beyond the horizon. With the introduction of selective targeted immunotherapies for autoimmune diseases as a treatment modality either in solitary or in combination with the conventional immunosuppressive treatments, are emerging as a promising elixir for patients enduring them. However, being unique, exploration of these biologics from its inception, to its mechanism of action, recognition of its application and evaluation of its safety norms are equally vital. Therefore, this review aims to provide a comprehensive particular on the novel biologics, the immunotherapies in autoimmune disorders targeting the different cells, their receptors or cytokines of the immune system.

Dermatologists on the medical need for therapeutic drug monitoring of biologics in psoriasis: results of a structured survey

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) may lead to more rational use of biologics. Still, TDM is largely underexplored in psoriasis. Little is known about the dosing behavior of biologics by dermatologists, and their attitude toward TDM.

OBJECTIVE

Exploration of the awareness and need for the concept of TDM in psoriasis amongst (inter)national dermatologists.

METHOD

A survey was distributed at the Belgian Dermatology Days 2019 and Skin Inflammation & Psoriasis International Network (SPIN) Congress 2019. Next, an online survey version was launched amongst the SPIN Scientific Committee members. We collected physician's characteristics, prescription behavior of biologics, data regarding clinical response to biologics and attitude toward TDM.

RESULTS

A total of 107 surveys were included for analysis. Most dermatologists were Belgium-based (54.2%), others from European (23.4%) or non-European countries (19.6%). Seventy percent performed either dose increase (64.8%), time interval shortening (74.6%), dose lowering (16.9%) or time interval extension (33.8%). The majority who performed dose adaptations acknowledged the need for TDM.

CONCLUSION

This study showed most dermatologists perform dose adaptations empirically. The need for TDM was indicated by the majority, implying the need for effective communication regarding availability, utility and implementation of TDM assays in daily dermatology practice.

Exposure-response characterisation of tildrakizumab in chronic plaque psoriasis: Pooled analysis of 3 randomised controlled trials

AIMS

In this exposure-response analysis, the dosing regimen for tildrakizumab, an antibody for treating moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis, was determined using data from 3 randomised controlled trials (P05495/NCT01225731: phase 2b, n = 355; reSURFACE 1/NCT01722331: phase 3, n = 772; reSURFACE 2/NCT01729754: phase 3, n = 1090).

METHODS

A maximum drug effect (Emax ) logistic-regression exposure-efficacy model was used to describe the week 12 Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) responses with average concentration of tildrakizumab during weeks 1-12 (Cavg12 ) as exposure metric. The impact of covariates (e.g., body weight, region) was tested. Exposure-safety, longitudinal pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic and risk-benefit analyses were also conducted.

RESULTS

At week 12, Emax was estimated at 62.2, 37.9 and 14.6% of responders for PASI75/90/100, respectively. Exposure-response curves plateaued at exposures >5 μg mL-1 . Heavier subjects had a lower response rate to placebo as measured by PASI75/90/100 than lighter subjects. PASI100 placebo response was less in subjects with higher baseline PASI score and older age. Simulated week 12 PASI75 increased by ≤4% on increasing the dose from 100 to 200 mg every 12 weeks (Q12W). The pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model adequately described the time course of PASI change after treatment in the entire population and in each subject. Risk-benefit profiles were favourable for the 100- and 200-mg doses in different weight subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis should receive 100-mg subcutaneous tildrakizumab Q12W. Patients with high body weight (>90 kg) may benefit from a higher dose (200-mg Q12W).

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.

Assessment of the effects of immunogenicity on the pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety of tildrakizumab

BACKGROUND

We evaluated antidrug antibody (ADA) development in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis from three clinical trials of tildrakizumab, a humanized anti-interleukin-23p19 monoclonal antibody (P05495, reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of immunogenicity on the pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety of tildrakizumab.

METHODS

In 1400 (weeks 12-16) and 780 (weeks 52-64) evaluable patients randomized to tildrakizumab 100 or 200 mg, treatment-emergent ADA-positive (TE-POS) patients were identified and characterized for neutralizing antibodies (NAbs). Pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy were evaluated by ADA status.

RESULTS

In patients treated with tildrakizumab 100 or 200 mg continuously, < 7% were inconclusive at 52-64 weeks. In long-term data through 52-64 weeks, the incidence of TE-POS was 6·5% (100 mg) and 8·2% (200 mg) and the incidence of TE-POS NAb-POS was 2·5% (100 mg) and 3·2% (200 mg). TE-POS NAb-POS patients had modestly increased median tildrakizumab clearance (36·5%) compared with ADA-NEG patients. Percentage Psoriasis Area and Severity Index improvements in TE-POS NAb-POS vs. ADA-NEG patients on continuous treatment through week 52 were 76% (n = 10) vs. 91% (n = 342) for 100 mg and 77% (n = 12) vs. 87% (n = 299) for 200 mg. The incidence of potential immunogenicity-related adverse events did not indicate a clear trend in any positive ADA patient category compared with ADA-NEG patients through weeks 52-64. The effects of ADA on pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety at 12-16 weeks were also summarized.

CONCLUSIONS

ADA development with tildrakizumab treatment for 52-64 weeks was low; around 3% of patients developed TE-POS NAb-POS ADAs and showed lower serum concentrations and corresponding reduced efficacy. No relationship between ADAs and safety was observed. What's already known about this topic? Unwanted immune responses - for example immunogenicity and antidrug antibodies (ADAs) - have been observed with therapeutic monoclonal antibodies and can affect efficacy and safety. Tildrakizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-23 and is currently approved for patients with plaque psoriasis. What does this study add? ADA development in tildrakizumab-treated patients with psoriasis over 52 weeks was low. The small proportion of patients who had treatment-emergent ADAs and had neutralizing antibodies experienced lower serum tildrakizumab concentrations and reduced efficacy. No relationship between ADAs and safety events was observed.

Ixekizumab: A Review of Its Use for the Management of Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis

Objective: To review the efficacy, safety, and place in therapy of ixekizumab for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Data Sources: PubMed (1966 to July 2018) and clinicaltrials.gov were searched using the terms ixekizumab, LY2439821, interleukin-17, and psoriasis. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Human studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals in English were used. Data Synthesis: The efficacy and safety of ixekizumab has been primarily reported by 4 phase III trials (UNCOVER-1, UNCOVER-2, UNCOVER-3, and UNCOVER-J) and multiple post hoc analyses. The average proportions of patients achieving a 75%, 90%, and 100% reduction in their Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) were 89%, 70%, and 38%, respectively, after 12 weeks of therapy. PASI75 was maintained for up to 3 years in 80.5% of participants. Ixekizumab was statistically significantly more effective than ustekinumab, with 76.5%, compared with 59%, of patients achieving PASI90 in 52 weeks. The most common adverse events include nasopharyngitis (14.1%), upper respiratory tract infections (7.9%), and injection-site reactions (6.8%), which are similar to that for other biological agents. The risk of inflammatory bowel disease may be increased with ixekizumab. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This review summarizes and evaluates clinical data regarding the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab and discusses relevant differences compared with other biological agents used for the management of chronic plaque psoriasis. Conclusions: Ixekizumab is a highly efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

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.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional systemic agents (acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, methotrexate), small molecules (apremilast, tofacitinib, ponesimod), anti-TNF alpha (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab), anti-IL12/23 (ustekinumab), anti-IL17 (secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab), anti-IL23 (guselkumab, tildrakizumab), and other biologics (alefacept, itolizumab) for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to December 2016: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) reports. We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant RCTs. We searched the trial results databases of a number of pharmaceutical companies and handsearched the conference proceedings of a number of dermatology meetings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic and biological 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.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three 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 Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI) 90) 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; we evaluated evidence as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 109 studies in our review (39,882 randomised participants, 68% men, all recruited from a hospital). The overall average age was 44 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo controlled (67%), 23% were head-to-head studies, and 10% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and placebo. We have assessed all treatments listed in the objectives (19 in total). In all, 86 trials were multicentric trials (two to 231 centres). All of the trials included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment at less than 24 weeks after randomisation); in fact, all trials included in the network meta-analysis were measured between 12 and 16 weeks after randomisation. We assessed the majority of studies (48/109) as being at high risk of bias; 38 were assessed as at an unclear risk, and 23, low risk.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.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. Small molecules were associated with a higher chance of reaching PASI 90 compared to conventional systemic agents.At drug level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, all of the anti-IL17 agents and guselkumab (an anti-IL23 drug) were significantly more effective than the anti-TNF alpha agents infliximab, adalimumab, and etanercept, but not certolizumab. Ustekinumab was superior to etanercept. No clear difference was shown between infliximab, adalimumab, and etanercept. Only one trial assessed the efficacy of infliximab in this network; thus, these results have to be interpreted with caution. Tofacitinib was significantly superior to methotrexate, and no clear difference was shown between any of the other small molecules versus conventional treatments.Network meta-analysis also showed that ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, certolizumab, and ustekinumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90: the most effective drug was ixekizumab (risk ratio (RR) 32.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 23.61 to 44.60; Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) = 94.3; high-certainty evidence), followed by secukinumab (RR 26.55, 95% CI 20.32 to 34.69; SUCRA = 86.5; high-certainty evidence), brodalumab (RR 25.45, 95% CI 18.74 to 34.57; SUCRA = 84.3; moderate-certainty evidence), guselkumab (RR 21.03, 95% CI 14.56 to 30.38; SUCRA = 77; moderate-certainty evidence), certolizumab (RR 24.58, 95% CI 3.46 to 174.73; SUCRA = 75.7; moderate-certainty evidence), and ustekinumab (RR 19.91, 95% CI 15.11 to 26.23; SUCRA = 72.6; high-certainty evidence).We found no significant difference between all of the interventions and the placebo regarding the risk of serious adverse effects (SAEs): the relative ranking strongly suggested that methotrexate was associated with the best safety profile regarding all of the SAEs (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.99; SUCRA = 90.7; moderate-certainty evidence), followed by ciclosporin (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.01 to 5.10; SUCRA = 78.2; very low-certainty evidence), certolizumab (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.36; SUCRA = 70.9; moderate-certainty evidence), infliximab (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.00; SUCRA = 64.4; very low-certainty evidence), alefacept (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.55; SUCRA = 62.6; low-certainty evidence), and fumaric acid esters (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.99; SUCRA = 57.7; very low-certainty evidence). Major adverse cardiac events, serious infections, or malignancies were reported in both the placebo and intervention groups. Nevertheless, the SAEs analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to very low certainty for just over half of the treatment estimates in total, moderate for the others. Thus, the results have to be considered with caution.Considering both efficacy (PASI 90 outcome) and acceptability (SAEs outcome), highly effective treatments also had more SAEs compared to the other treatments, and ustekinumab, infliximab, and certolizumab appeared to have the better trade-off between efficacy and acceptability.Regarding the 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 a third of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, certolizumab, and ustekinumab are the best choices for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate to severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. At class level, 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, too. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured between 12 to 16 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficiently relevant for a chronic disease. Moreover, low numbers of studies were found for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 44 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. Methotrexate appeared to have the best safety profile, but as the evidence was of very low to moderate quality, we cannot be sure of the ranking. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies as well.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 patients, 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.

Improvement in latent variable indirect response modeling of multiple categorical clinical endpoints: application to modeling of guselkumab treatment effects in psoriatic patients

Exposure-response modeling plays an important role in optimizing dose and dosing regimens during clinical drug development. The modeling of multiple endpoints is made possible in part by recent progress in latent variable indirect response (IDR) modeling for ordered categorical endpoints. This manuscript aims to investigate the level of improvement achievable by jointly modeling two such endpoints in the latent variable IDR modeling framework through the sharing of model parameters. This is illustrated with an application to the exposure-response of guselkumab, a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody in clinical development that blocks IL-23. A Phase 2b study was conducted in 238 patients with psoriasis for which disease severity was assessed using Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) scores. A latent variable Type I IDR model was developed to evaluate the therapeutic effect of guselkumab dosing on 75, 90 and 100% improvement of PASI scores from baseline and PGA scores, with placebo effect empirically modeled. The results showed that the joint model is able to describe the observed data better with fewer parameters compared with the common approach of separately modeling the endpoints.

Evaluating Dosage Optimality for Tofacitinib, an Oral Janus Kinase Inhibitor, in Plaque Psoriasis, and the Influence of Body Weight

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor. An integrated analysis was conducted to evaluate dosage optimality for tofacitinib in patients with moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis and the impact of body weight on optimality in this patient population. Data were pooled from one phase IIb trial (2, 5, and 15 mg twice daily (b.i.d.)) and four phase III trials (5 and 10 mg b.i.d.). A longitudinal exposure–response model for Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) improvement (percent change from baseline) was established. Body weight influenced potency; heavier subjects require higher doses to achieve comparable benefit to lighter subjects. Disease severity, sex, and prior biologic usage were also predictive of response. The 10 and 5 mg doses were predicted to achieve 81% and 65%, respectively, of the maximum effect based on a 75% improvement in PASI. The greater efficacy of 10 mg over 5 mg was clinically meaningful.

Ixekizumab: A Review in Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis

Ixekizumab (Taltz^®) is a subcutaneously administered, humanized anti-interleukin-17A monoclonal antibody indicated for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy (USA and EU) or phototherapy (USA). In the phase 3 UNCOVER trials in this patient population, ixekizumab was superior to placebo or etanercept in terms of the proportion of patients achieving a ≥75% reduction from baseline in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index and in those achieving a static Physician Global Assessment score of 0 or 1, after 12 weeks of induction treatment. Clinical responses to ixekizumab were seen as early as week 1. Patients receiving ixekizumab also reported improvements in health-related quality of life, itching, and work productivity. Clinical responses to ixekizumab were sustained during additional 48 weeks of maintenance treatment. Ixekizumab was generally well tolerated and exhibited low immunogenicity in the UNCOVER trials during up to 60 weeks of therapy. Currently available data indicate that ixekizumab is an effective and generally well tolerated treatment option for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. It has the potential advantage of one maintenance dose for every 4 weeks.

The Role of IL-17 and Th17 Lymphocytes in Autoimmune Diseases

The end of twentieth century has introduced some changes into T helper (Th) cells division. The identification of the new subpopulation of T helper cells producing IL-17 modified model of Th1-Th2 paradigm and it was named Th17. High abilities to stimulate acute and chronic inflammation made these cells ideal candidate for crucial player in development of autoimmune disorders. Numerous publications based on animal and human models confirmed their pivotal role in pathogenesis of human systemic and organ-specific autoimmune diseases. These findings made Th17 cells and pathways regulating their development and function a good target for therapy. Therapies based on inhibition of Th17-dependent pathways are associated with clinical benefits, but on the other hand are frequently inducing adverse effects. In this review, we attempt to summarize researches focused on the importance of Th17 cells in development of human autoimmune diseases as well as effectiveness of targeting IL-17 and its pathways in pre-clinical and clinical studies.

Targeting IL-17 with ixekizumab in patients with psoriasis

Psoriasis is a multifactorial chronic inflammatory skin disease of unknown etiology. Knowledge of the pathophysiology of psoriasis has evolved and identified IL-17 as a key pro-inflammatory mediator in psoriasis creating new medical avenues. Several agents targeting IL-17 or its receptor are in clinical trials for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. This review focuses on the biological rationale and the results of clinical trials with ixekizumab, a humanized IgG4 monoclonal antibody. The currently available Phase I to III data indicate that ixekizumab is a well-tolerated promising drug, although long-term data of efficacy and safety are needed before ixekizumab and other IL-17 targeting therapeutics can find their place in clinical practice.

Ixekizumab for treatment of psoriasis

Psoriasis is a prevalent chronic inflammatory skin disease of unknown etiology. Recent advances in understanding the pathogenesis of psoriasis suggest that IL-17 is a key proinflammatory mediator present in the skin. Several agents targeting IL-17 or its receptor are in clinical trials for the treatment of psoriasis. This review focuses on the biological rationale and the results of clinical trials with ixekizumab, a humanized IgG4 monoclonal antibody. Ixekizumab binds the IL-17A homodimer, thereby blocking the binding of IL-17A to the IL-17 receptor. The currently available Phase I-III data indicate that ixekizumab is a promising drug, although long-term data of efficacy and safety are needed before ixekizumab and other IL-17 targeting therapeutics can find their place in clinical practice.