From laboratory to clinic: rationale for biologic therapy

The Effect of Biological Agents on Antinuclear Antibody Status in Patients with Psoriasis: A Single-Center Study

Background and Aims:

Biological agents are being used as treatment of psoriasis for years. However, autoimmunity can develop after the using of these agents. Antinuclear antibody (ANA) status changes during biological therapy can be affected by certain factors including the presence of immunosuppression. We aimed to evaluate the effect of antitumor necrosis factor agents and ustekinumab on ANA status, as well as other factors leading to change in ANA status such as history of phototherapy and methotrexate combination therapy.

Methods:

In this study, the laboratory findings of thirty-one patients with psoriasis who received biological agents including infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, and ustekinumab from 2016 to 2018 managed at the department of dermatology were reviewed. The ANA status of the patients was evaluated every 2–3 months.

Results:

Twelve (38.7%) out of the thirty-one patients developed ANA positivity during treatment. Nine patients receiving infliximab, two patients receiving etanercept, and one patient receiving adalimumab developed ANA positivity. The nuclear homogeneous, nuclear fine speckled, and nuclear large/coarse speckled were the most common patterns of ANA. A patient receiving infliximab also developed anti-dsDNA positivity. None of the patients developed drug-induced lupus erythematosus or any autoimmune diseases. Concomitant methotrexate use and phototherapy history had no effect on ANA status statistically (P = 0.240 and 0.717, respectively).

Conclusion:

The emergence of ANA positivity during infliximab therapy among all biological agents was more common. ANA positivity during biologic agents does not cause any signs and symptoms of autoimmune diseases in patients with psoriasis; thus, it can be suggested that biological agents are not major risk factors for autoimmunity.

Study of serum levels and skin expression of S100B protein in psoriasis

Background

S100B protein was reported to be elevated in psoriatic patients' serum, with no previous evaluation of its skin expression, in contrast to the extensively studied S100 protein.

Objective

To evaluate the serum level and skin expression of S100B in psoriasis to assess its possible involvement in its pathogenesis.

Methods

Serum level of S100B protein was estimated in 40 psoriatic patients of different clinical varieties and 10 healthy controls. S100B protein expression was assessed immunohistochemically in lesional and non-lesional skin of patients and in normal skin of controls. Relation to disease severity was also evaluated.

Results

Serum level of S100B protein was significantly higher in psoriatic patients (0.15±0.03 µg/l) than in controls (0.03±0.007 µg/l) (P-value <0.001) with no significant correlation with PASI score. On comparing grades of S100B protein skin expression in lesional and non-lesional skin biopsies, a statistically significant difference was found (P=0.046) with higher percentage of strong S100B skin expression (60%) in non-lesional than in lesional (42%) skin. All the control biopsies showed negative expression.

Study limitations

Relatively small sample size with a limited range of low PASI scores.

Conclusion

This study points to a potential link between psoriasis and S100B protein with higher serum and skin expression in patients than in controls.

Reviewing concepts in the immunopathogenesis of psoriasis

Insights into the pathogenesis of psoriasis led to the development of therapeutic tools aimed at blocking its immunological trigger. In parallel, cytokines such as the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) have been recognized as playing a crucial role in the pathogenesis of psoriasis and its associated comorbidities. Genetic and immunological studies have contributed effectively towards establishing the currently held concepts regarding this complex disease.

Biological agents targeting beyond TNF-alpha

Biological agents represent an important addition to the therapies for immuno-inflammatory conditions and have a great impact on the disease course and quality of life of these patients. However, recent reports of serious infections like tuberculosis, demyelinating and neurodegenerative diseases, pancytopenia, cardiovascular diseases, etc. after anti-TNF therapy raised questions on their safety. Hence, focus is shifted towards drugs targeting cytokine checkpoints in the inflammatory cascades beyond TNF-α. Existing therapeutic targets include the biological agents acting as antagonists of various inflammatory cytokines (Anakinra, Tocilizumab, Atlizumab) and modulators of CD80 or CD86-CD28 co-stimulatory signal (Abatacept), CD2 receptors on T-cells (Alefacept), CD11a, subunit of leukocyte function-associated antigen 1 (Efalizumab), vitronectin receptor and CD20 antigen on pre-B, immature and mature B cells (Rituximab). With the introduction of these novel molecules the future for immunomodulatory intervention in rheumatology, asthma, crohn's disease, septic shock etc. looks very promising. These novel therapeutic agents could truly give a new hope to the clinician to modify the disease and achieve tangible improvements in the lives of the patients.

Biologics in dermatologic therapy - an update

Biologics are protein molecules which are used in various diseases to target the specific points in the immunopathogenesis of the diseases. The molecules are produced by recombinant DNA technology. The molecules bind to the specific targets without interfering wtih rest of the pathogenetic pathways. Therefore the so called 'immunosuppressives' have, although, a broader broader spectrum of action on immune system, their side-effects are also equally more. The biologics, because of their spefic action on the immune system, have very little side effects. The biologics which have revolutionized the treatment of various dermatologic diseases have been discussed here.

Ist der Psoriasis-Plaque-Test im Zeitalter der Biologics noch aktuell?

A variety of approaches (in vitro-/ex vivo studies, animal models, human studies and clinical trials) are available to assess compounds with potential antipsoriatic properties. Over the past few years various rodent models that mirror aspects of psoriasis phenotypes and/or pathogenesis have been created (e. g. knockout rodents, xenotransplantation models). Unfortunately these animal models do not reflect the complete pathogenesis of psoriasis. Therefore, screening procedures involving psoriatic lesions in humans are necessary. Even in the era of biologicals, the psoriasis plaque test (PPT) remains an important in vivo tool. In addition to screening potential antipsoriatic substances, the PPT can help answer other questions (frequency of use, dose-response relationship). A prerequisite for correct performance of PPT is knowledge of the toxicological and pharmacological data of the investigational compounds. The PPT is relatively simple, not time-consuming and allows the simultaneous testing of multiple substance. All the results from PPT must be confirmed by controlled clinical trials.

Alefacept in the treatment of psoriasis in patients for whom conventional therapies are inadequate

BACKGROUND

Many patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis fail to respond to or are not appropriate candidates for conventional systemic therapies and/or phototherapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, quality of life and safety of alefacept among the proportion of patients who participated in the phase III studies and who were not suitable candidates for conventional systemic psoriasis therapies or phototherapy.

METHODS

The patient's historical responses at the baseline visit during the phase III studies of alefacept were used to identify a subpopulation in whom the use of methotrexate, ciclosporin, retinoids, ultraviolet B or psoralen plus ultraviolet A was ineffective or inappropriate. Endpoints included Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and adverse events.

RESULTS

Most patients (69%) who were treated with alefacept in the phase III programme were not candidates for > or =1 of the above-mentioned therapies, and 41 and 21% were not candidates for > or =2 and > or =3, respectively. A reduction in PASI of > or =75% was achieved by 27, 23 and 26% of alefacept-treated patients who were not candidates for > or =1, > or =2 and > or =3 conventional systemic psoriasis therapies or phototherapy, respectively (all p < or = 0.001 vs. placebo). The corresponding results for PASI 50 were 53, 52 and 50% (all p < or = 0.001 vs. placebo). At 2 weeks after the last dose of alefacept, mean DLQI overall scores were reduced by -4.2, -3.9 and -5.2, respectively (all p < or = 0.001 vs. placebo). The incidence of adverse events was similar in the alefacept and placebo groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy, quality of life effects and safety of alefacept in patients who were not candidates for conventional systemic psoriasis therapies or phototherapy were similar to those reported previously for the overall alefacept-treated population in the phase III studies.