Therapeutic Effect and Safety of Ustekinumab for Plaque Psoriasis: A Meta-analysis

Biologic Treatment for Hidradenitis Suppurativa

Patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) are often undertreated and there are limited efficacious therapies available for treating this population. Biologics are an emerging therapeutic modality used in the management of many inflammatory conditions including HS. Implementation of biologics is typically reserved for moderate-to-severe cases or in those cases that are refractory to treatment. Though many biologics have been trialed for use in HS, only one biologic, adalimumab, is currently US FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe HS. Limitations in the use of biologics for HS include the many scoring systems utilized in research studies and the relatively few well-designed, adequately powered clinical trials.

Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia with iliac artery endarteritis in a patient receiving ustekinumab

BACKGROUND

Ustekinumab (Stelara®), a human monoclonal antibody targeting the p40-subunit of interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23, is indicated for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. In large multicenter, prospective trials assessing efficacy and safety of ustekinumab increased rates of severe infections have not been observed so far.

CASE PRESENTATION

Here, we report the case of a 64-year old woman presenting with chills, pain and swelling of her right foot with dark maculae at the sole, and elevated inflammatory markers. She had received a third dose of ustekinumab due to psoriatic arthritis three days before admission. Blood cultures revealed growth of Staphylococcus aureus and imaging showed a thickening of the aortic wall ventral the bifurcation above the right internal iliac artery, resembling an acute bacterial endarteritis. Without the evidence of aneurysms and in absence of foreign bodies, the decision for conservative management was made. The patient received four weeks of antibiotic therapy with intravenous flucloxacillin, followed by an oral regime with levofloxacin and rifampicin for an additional four weeks. Inflammatory markers resolved promptly and the patient was discharged in good health.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first report of a severe S. aureus infection in a patient receiving ustekinumab. Albeit ustekinumab is generally regarded as a safe drug, severe bacterial infections should always be included in the differential diagnosis of elevated inflammatory markers in patients receiving biologicals as these might present with nonspecific symptoms and fever might be absent. Any effort to detect deep-seated or metastatic infections should be made to prevent complications and to secure appropriate treatment. Although other risk factors for an invasive staphylococcal infection like psoriasis, recent corticosteroid injection, or prior hospitalisations were present, and therefore a directive causative link between the S. aureus bacteraemia and ustekinumab can not be drawn, we considered the reporting of this case worthwhile to alert clinicians as we believe that ongoing pharmacovigilance to detect increased risks for rare but severe infections beyond phase II and phase III trials in patients treated with biologicals is essential.

The cost-effectiveness of ustekinumab for moderate-to-severe psoriasis

Given its chronicity and impact on quality of life, psoriasis is a costly disease. As new and better treatments are developed, the cost of treating psoriasis has risen. In this drug profile, the authors discuss ustekinumab, its pharmacokinetics, safety profile, and direct and indirect costs to determine its cost-efficacy. The authors searched PubMed with specific search phrases for clinical trials investigating this issue over 5 years. Eleven articles analyzed cost-effectiveness of ustekinumab, and the references of these articles were included. Studies limited to 12 weeks reported that ustekinumab may not be cost-effective as it has high cost per injection and is costly when loading doses are required. Studies that went beyond 12 weeks documented that, with ustekinumab's infrequent dosing, it is cost-effective during the maintenance period.

New treatment paradigms in psoriatic arthritis: an update on new therapeutics approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this study is to give an overview of the new treatments approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

RECENT FINDINGS

FDA has approved three new drugs for PsA: Certolizumab-pegol: a PEGylated Fc-free tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi); ustekinumab: an anti interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23 mAb; and apremilast and oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor. On well designed and extensive developing programmes, all three drugs proved to be effective for the treatment of most PsA manifestations, including peripheral arthritis, skin involvement, enthesitis, dactylitis, quality of life and radiographic progression in patients failing traditional disease modifying drugs (DMARDs) and TNFi. Safety profile of all three drugs seems to be reassuring until now, although long-term data are still not available. Although Certolizumab-pegol is likely to be placed among the other TNFi, ustekinumab and apremilast, due to lower efficacy on arthritis, are being more frequently used as second-line therapy after TNFi failure, especially among rheumatologists.

SUMMARY

There are new therapeutic options approved for the treatment of PsA. For the first time, well proved effective therapies with a different mechanism of action than the inhibition of TNF alpha are available for the treatment of this progressive disease.

Epidemiology and treatment of psoriasis: a Brazilian perspective

Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated systemic disease that is influenced by genetic and environmental factors, is associated with comorbidities, and has a negative impact on the quality of life of affected individuals. The prevalence of psoriasis varies among different ethnic groups, but this topic has not been studied in Brazil to date. In this review, we evaluate the epidemiology and treatment of psoriasis from a Brazilian perspective. We focused on studies that involved Brazilian subjects. The prevalence of psoriasis in Brazil is estimated to be 2.5%, but no population study has been performed previously. Environmental factors, such as tropical climate, in association with genetic factors, such as miscegenation, may exert a beneficial impact on the course and frequency of psoriasis in Brazil. A number of studies have advanced our understanding of the cardiovascular, ophthalmic, and oral comorbidities that are associated with psoriasis. Concerns about biological therapy, such as endemic leprosy, human T-cell lymphotropic virus (HTLV), and tuberculosis infections, are discussed. The nonavailability of treatment options for psoriasis in the public health system contradicts the Brazilian Society of Dermatology guidelines, stimulating the judicialization of access to medicines in psoriasis care.