Clinical response to alefacept: results of a phase 3 study of intramuscular administration of alefacept in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis

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.

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.

Transcriptome-Based Molecular Networks Uncovered Interplay Between Druggable Genes of CD8+ T Cells and Changes in Immune Cell Landscape in Patients With Pulmonary Tuberculosis

BACKGROUND

Tuberculosis (TB) is a major infectious disease, where incomplete information about host genetics and immune responses is hindering the development of transformative therapies. This study characterized the immune cell landscape and blood transcriptomic profile of patients with pulmonary TB (PTB) to identify the potential therapeutic biomarkers.

METHODS

The blood transcriptome profile of patients with PTB and controls were used for fractionating immune cell populations with the CIBERSORT algorithm and then to identify differentially expressed genes (DEGs) with R/Bioconductor packages. Later, systems biology investigations (such as semantic similarity, gene correlation, and graph theory parameters) were implemented to prioritize druggable genes contributing to the immune cell alterations in patients with TB. Finally, real time-PCR (RT-PCR) was used to confirm gene expression levels.

RESULTS

Patients with PTB had higher levels of four immune subpopulations like CD8⁺ T cells (P = 1.9 × 10^-8), natural killer (NK) cells resting (P = 6.3 × 10^-5), monocytes (P = 6.4 × 10^-6), and neutrophils (P = 1.6 × 10^-7). The functional enrichment of 624 DEGs identified in the blood transcriptome of patients with PTB revealed major dysregulation of T cell-related ontologies and pathways (q ≤ 0.05). Of the 96 DEGs shared between transcriptome and immune cell types, 39 overlapped with TB meta-profiling genetic signatures, and their semantic similarity analysis with the remaining 57 genes, yielded 45 new candidate TB markers. This study identified 9 CD8⁺ T cell-associated genes (ITK, CD2, CD6, CD247, ZAP70, CD3D, SH2D1A, CD3E, and IL7R) as potential therapeutic targets of PTB by combining computational druggability and co-expression (r² ≥ |0.7|) approaches.

CONCLUSION

The changes in immune cell proportion and the downregulation of T cell-related genes may provide new insights in developing therapeutic compounds against chronic TB.

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.

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.

Keratinocytes costimulate naive human T cells via CD2: a potential target to prevent the development of proinflammatory Th1 cells in the skin

The interplay between keratinocytes and immune cells, especially T cells, plays an important role in the pathogenesis of chronic inflammatory skin diseases. During psoriasis, keratinocytes attract T cells by releasing chemokines, while skin-infiltrating self-reactive T cells secrete proinflammatory cytokines, e.g., IFNγ and IL-17A, that cause epidermal hyperplasia. Similarly, in chronic graft-versus-host disease, allogenic IFNγ-producing Th1/Tc1 and IL-17-producing Th17/Tc17 cells are recruited by keratinocyte-derived chemokines and accumulate in the skin. However, whether keratinocytes act as nonprofessional antigen-presenting cells to directly activate naive human T cells in the epidermis remains unknown. Here, we demonstrate that under proinflammatory conditions, primary human keratinocytes indeed activate naive human T cells. This activation required cell contact and costimulatory signaling via CD58/CD2 and CD54/LFA-1. Naive T cells costimulated by keratinocytes selectively differentiated into Th1 and Th17 cells. In particular, keratinocyte-initiated Th1 differentiation was dependent on costimulation through CD58/CD2. The latter molecule initiated STAT1 signaling and IFNγ production in T cells. Costimulation of T cells by keratinocytes resulting in Th1 and Th17 differentiation represents a new explanation for the local enrichment of Th1 and Th17 cells in the skin of patients with a chronic inflammatory skin disease. Consequently, local interference with T cell–keratinocyte interactions may represent a novel strategy for the treatment of Th1 and Th17 cell-driven skin diseases.

In vitro Evidence That Combination Therapy With CD16-Bearing NK-92 Cells and FDA-Approved Alefacept Can Selectively Target the Latent HIV Reservoir in CD4+ CD2hi Memory T Cells

Elimination of the latent HIV reservoir remains the biggest hurdle to achieve HIV cure. In order to specifically eliminate HIV infected cells they must be distinguishable from uninfected cells. CD2 was recently identified as a potential marker enriched in the HIV-1 reservoir on CD4+ T cells, the largest, longest-lived and best-characterized constituent of the HIV reservoir. We previously proposed to repurpose FDA-approved alefacept, a humanized α-CD2 fusion protein, to reduce the HIV reservoir in CD2hi CD4+ memory T cells. Here, we show the first evidence that alefacept can specifically target and reduce CD2hi HIV infected cells in vitro. We explore a variety of natural killer (NK) cells as mediators of antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) including primary NK cells, expanded NK cells as well as the CD16 transduced NK-92 cell line which is currently under study in clinical trials as a treatment for cancer. We demonstrate that CD16.NK-92 has a natural preference to kill CD2hi CD45RA- memory T cells, specifically CD45RA- CD27+ central memory/transitional memory (TCM/TM) subset in both healthy and HIV+ patient samples as well as to reduce HIV DNA from HIV+ samples from donors well controlled on antiretroviral therapy. Lastly, alefacept can combine with CD16.NK-92 to decrease HIV DNA in some patient samples and thus may yield value as part of a strategy toward sustained HIV remission.

Quantitative evaluation to efficacy and safety of therapies for psoriasis: A network meta-analysis

Therapies treating psoriasis can be categorized into five classes according to their mechanism: anti-metabolites (AM), anti-interleukin-12/23 agents (anti-IL12/23), anti-interleukin-17 agents (anti-IL17), anti-T-cell agent (ANT), and anti-tumor necrosis factor-α agent (anti-TNF-α). This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to give a quantitative and systemic evaluation of safety and efficacy for the five kinds of therapies mentioned above. Odds ratios and mean differences were calculated to evaluate binary and continuous outcomes, respectively. Forest plots were conducted to show the performance of pair-wise comparison of above therapies in each outcome, and surface under the cumulative ranking curves was given to evaluate the relative ranking of above therapies in each outcome. Node splitting was conducted to evaluate the consistency between direct and indirect evidence. Direct comparisons from 65 studies (32,352 patients) were included in this NMA. Our results showed an excellent efficacy of anti-IL12/23 and anti-IL17. However, these two therapies and anti-TNF-α were revealed to have a high possibility to cause adverse effects (AEs) such as infections. Additionally, node splitting showed that no inconsistency appeared between the direct and indirect comparisons. Anti-IL12/23 was the most recommended therapy according to this NMA. Anti-IL17 had similar efficacy to anti-IL12/23 but should be applied with caution since it has poor performance in safety outcomes.

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.

Understanding the New Clinical Landscape for Psoriasis: A Comparative Review of Biologics

Background:

Encouraging results from clinical trials suggest that biologic therapies are effective treatments for psoriasis.

Objective:

The aim of our study was to evaluate the scientific evidence for the efficacy and safety of biologic drugs for psoriasis.

Methods:

The studies reviewed include data on the biologies alefacept, efalizumab, etanercept, and infliximab. This article reviews all data published in the dermatology literature listed in the MEDLINE database, as well as data presented as abstracts and posters at dermatology society meetings, including the annual meetings of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Results:

The majority of the studies used an improvement from baseline of 75% or more in the psoriasis area and severity index (PASI 75) as the primary measure of efficacy.

Conclusions:

Overall, biologics represent an important addition to the psoriatic therapies and have a great impact on the disease course and life quality of those afflicted with psoriasis.

Integrating Biologic Agents into Management of Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: A Consensus of the Canadian Psoriasis Expert Panel

Background:

Approximately 2% of people worldwide have psoriasis, with as many as 1 million people with psoriasis in Canada alone.1,2 The severity of psoriasis ranges from mild to severe. It can lead to substantial morbidity and psychological stress and have a profound negative impact on patient quality of life.3,4 Although available therapies reduce therapies reduce the extent and severity of the disease and improve quality of life,3 reports have indicated a patient preference for more aggressive therapy and a dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of current treatment options.5

Objective:

A Canadian Expert Panel, comprising Canadian dermatologists, convened in Toronto on 27 February 2004 to reach a consensus on unmet needs of patients treated with current therapies and how to include the pending biologic agents in and improve the current treatment algorithm for moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Current treatment recommendations suggest a stepwise strategy starting with topical agents followed by phototherapy and then systemic agents.3,6,7 The Panel evaluated the appropriate positioning of the biologic agents, once approved by Health Canada, for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

Methods:

The Panel reviewed available evidence and quality of these data on current therapies and from randomized, controlled clinical trials.8–14 Subsequently, consensus was achieved by small-group workshops followed by plenary discussion.

Results:

The Panel determined that biologic agents are an important addition to therapies currently available for moderate-to-severe psoriasis and proposed an alternative treatment algorithm to the current step wise paradigm.

Conclusion:

The Panel recommended a new treatment algorithm for moderate-to-severe psoriasis whereby all appropriate treatment options, including biologic agents, are considered together and patients' specific characteristics and needs are taken into account when selecting the most appropriate treatment option.

Tailored treatment options for patients with psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis: review of established and new biologic and small molecule therapies

The diverse clinical picture of PsA suggests the need to identify suitable therapies to address the different combinations of clinical manifestations. This review aimed to classify the available biologic agents and new small molecule inhibitors (licensed and nonlicensed) based on their proven efficacy in treating different clinical manifestations associated with psoriasis and PsA. This review presents the level of evidence of efficacy of different biologic treatments and small molecule inhibitors for certain clinical features of treatment of PsA and psoriasis, which was graded in categories I–IV. The literature searches were performed on the following classes of biologic agents and small molecules: TNF inhibitors (adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, golimumab, certolizumab), anti-IL12/IL23 (ustekinumab), anti-IL17 (secukinumab, brodalumab, ixekizumab), anti-IL6 (tocilizumab), T cell modulators (alefacept, efalizumab, abatacept, itolizumab), B cell depletion therapy (rituximab), phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor (apremilast) and Janus kinase inhibitor (tofacitinib). A comprehensive table including 17 different biologic agents and small molecule inhibitors previously tested in psoriasis and PsA was generated, including the level of evidence of their efficacy for each of the clinical features included in our review (axial and peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, and nail and skin disease). We also proposed a limited set of recommendations for a sequential biologic treatment algorithm for patients with PsA who failed the first anti-TNF therapy, based on the available literature data. There is good evidence that many of the biologic treatments initially tested in psoriasis are also effective in PsA. Further research into both prognostic biomarkers and patient stratification is required to allow clinicians the possibility to make better use of the various biologic treatment options available. This review showed that there are many potentially new treatments that are not included in the current guidelines that can be used for selected categories of patients based on their disease phenotype, clinician experience and access to new biologic therapies.

Can We Repurpose FDA-Approved Alefacept to Diminish the HIV Reservoir?

Current anti-retroviral treatment (ART) for HIV is effective in maintaining HIV at undetectable levels. However, cessation of ART results in immediate and brisk rebound of viremia to high levels. This rebound is driven by an HIV reservoir mainly enriched in memory CD4+ T cells. In order to provide any form of functional HIV Cure, elimination of this viral reservoir has become the focus of current HIV cure strategies. Alefacept was initially developed for the treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis. Alefacept is a chimeric fusion protein consisting of the CD2-binding portion of human leukocyte function antigen-3 (LFA3) linked to the Fc region of human IgG1 (LFA3-Fc). Alefacept was designed to inhibit memory T cell activation that contributes to the chronic autoimmune disease psoriasis by blocking the CD2 coreceptor. However, it was found to deplete memory T cells that express high levels of CD2 via NK cell-mediated antibody dependent cell cytotoxicity (ADCC) in vivo. Phase II and phase III clinical trials of alefacept with psoriasis patients demonstrated promising results and an excellent safety profile. Subsequently, alefacept has been successfully repurposed for other memory T cell-mediated autoimmune diseases including skin diseases other than psoriasis, organ transplantation and type I diabetes (T1D). Herein, we review our specific strategy to repurpose the FDA approved biologic alefacept to decrease and hopefully someday eliminate the HIV reservoir, for which CD2hi memory CD4+ T cells are a significant contributor.

Efficacy and safety of biologics in the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis: a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

We conducted a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials in moderate-to-severe psoriasis treated with biological agents, with a follow-up of 10-14 weeks. Overall, 41 studies, with mean Jadad score of 4.4, and 15,586 patients were included. For the efficacy outcomes PASI 50, 75 and 90 our findings are not conclusive to point what biological agent has the greatest response in short term follow-up. There were no statistical differences between placebo and biologics for the occurrence of infections and serious adverse events. Ustekinumab 45 mg showed lower withdrawal due to adverse events compared with the placebo. Based on data available up to now, it is not possible to determine which biological agent is the best for PASI 50, 75 or 90 after 10-14 weeks of treatment. At the same follow-up, overall safety seems to be the same for all biological agents and Ustekinumab 45 mg the most well tolerated drug. To better understand efficacy and safety, indirect meta-analysis comparing drug-to-drug is required since randomized placebo-controlled trials may not be feasible.

Cost effectiveness of biologic therapies for plaque psoriasis

BACKGROUND

During the last decade, the implementation of biologic agents has changed the therapeutic management of severe psoriasis. Biologic agents have clinically proven efficacy, but their use is associated with a much higher cost compared with traditional treatment options. Therefore, when assessing the use of these drugs for the treatment of psoriasis, it is important to consider their cost effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine and compare the cost effectiveness of biologic agents with regard to the cost per patient achieving a minimally important difference (MID) in the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and the cost per patient achieving a 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI-75).

METHODS

A PubMed literature search was conducted to identify studies describing the efficacy of all currently US FDA-approved biologic therapies. The cost effectiveness of each agent over a 12-week period was determined and a sensitivity analysis was performed. Based on clinical efficacy at 12 weeks, treatment paradigms were extrapolated to estimate cost-effectiveness ratios after 1 year of treatment. Pooled data on each biologic agent at different doses were compared in a one-way sensitivity analysis and in an extreme case scenario analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies were included in the analysis. Intravenous (IV) infliximab 3 mg/kg was the most cost-effective biologic agent with respect to both the cost per patient achieving PASI-75 and the cost per patient achieving a DLQI MID. The next most cost-effective agents in terms of cost per patient achieving PASI-75 were subcutaneous (SQ) adalimumab 40 mg administered every other week (eow) after an 80-mg loading dose, SQ adalimumab 40 mg eow, and IV infliximab 5 mg/kg. In terms of cost per patient achieving DLQI MID, IV infliximab 5 mg/kg, SQ etanercept 25 mg once weekly, SQ etanercept 50 mg once weekly, and SQ adalimumab 50 mg eow after an 80-mg loading dose were the next most cost-effective agents behind IV infliximab 3 mg/kg. For both costs per patient achieving DLQI MID and PASI-75, alefacept was the least cost-effective agent up to a 10% level of variation at all doses except 0.025 mg/kg once weekly.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by the use of efficacy data from 12-week clinical trials that did not compare treatments head to head to determine relative efficacy and may not be generalizable to longer treatment periods. Additionally, the estimated cost of treatment did not take into account indirect costs or variations in costs due to insurance company price contracting.

CONCLUSIONS

Biologic treatments that were most cost effective were so in respect to both the cost per patient achieving DLQI MID and per patient achieving PASI-75. This suggests that the same agents that are effectively clearing the disease are also effective in improving the patients' subjective assessment of dermatology-related quality of life.

Off-label biologic regimens in psoriasis: a systematic review of efficacy and safety of dose escalation, reduction, and interrupted biologic therapy

OBJECTIVES

While off-label dosing of biologic treatments may be necessary in selected psoriasis patients, no systematic review exists to date that synthesizes the efficacy and safety of these off-label dosing regimens. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate efficacy and safety of off-label dosing regimens (dose escalation, dose reduction, and interrupted treatment) with etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab, and alefacept for psoriasis treatment.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

We searched OVID Medline from January 1, 1990 through August 1, 2011 for prospective clinical trials that studied biologic therapy for psoriasis treatment in adults. Individual articles were screened for studies that examined escalated, reduced, or interrupted therapy with etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab, or alefacept.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 23 articles with 12,617 patients matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the systematic review. Data were examined for primary and secondary efficacy outcomes and adverse events including infections, malignancies, cardiovascular events, and anti-drug antibodies. The preponderance of data suggests that continuous treatment with anti-TNF agents and anti-IL12/23 agent was necessary for maintenance of disease control. Among non-responders, dose escalation with etanercept, adalimumab, ustekinumab, and alefacept typically resulted in greater efficacy than standard dosing. Dose reduction with etanercept and alefacept resulted in reduced efficacy. Withdrawal of the examined biologics led to an increase in disease activity; efficacy from retreatment did not result in equivalent initial response rates for most biologics. Safety data on off-label dosing regimens are limited.

CONCLUSION

Dose escalation in non-responders generally resulted in increased efficacy in the examined biologics used to treat moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Continuous treatment with anti-TNF agents and anti-IL12/23 agent results in superior efficacy over interrupted therapy. The decision to use off-label dosing needs to account for both benefits and risks and be individualized to patients' disease severity, quality of life, and existence of comorbidities.

Psoriasis responds to intralesional injections of alefacept and may predict systemic response to intramuscular alefacept: interim results of a single-arm, open-label study

BACKGROUND

Alefacept is a remittive treatment for generalized psoriasis but is rarely used due to its erratic efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if psoriasis plaques will respond to intralesional alefacept and if this predicts a systemic response to intramuscular (IM) alefacept.

METHODS

We describe a 25-week, single-center, open-label study. Patients received weekly intralesional alefacept of increasing concentrations into target plaques for 3 weeks followed by IM injections for 12 weeks and concluded with an observation period of 9 weeks. The psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) was used to assess the efficacy of IM alefacept.

RESULTS

Interim results are reported for the first seven patients enrolled. Two patients responded intralesionally to the most dilute 1:100 concentration of alefacept to sterile water and achieved a 59% and 100% improvement in PASI. Five patients did not respond intralesionally to the most dilute form of alefacept and none achieved PASI 75. Two of these five patients did not respond to any concentration and achieved a 26% and 38% improvement in PASI. Limitations to this study include a small sample size and being non-placebo-controlled.

CONCLUSION

Alefacept is effective intralesionally and may predict a systemic response - challenging the concept that biologics must work systemically.

Biologics in the Treatment of Psoriasis: Clinical and Economic Overview

Background:

The use of biologic medications for psoriasis is a recent therapeutic advance.

Objective:

To review clinical and economic data for biologic therapies in the treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis.

Methods:

Published meta-analyses and additional literature review identified randomized controlled trials. Analyses included the number needed to treat (NNT), the cost in Canadian dollars for the first year of treatment per the Canadian product monograph, and the estimated cost per responder achieving a 75% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI 75).

Results:

Pooled NNTs were 1.3 (infliximab), 1.5 (ustekinumab 90 mg), 1.6 (adalimumab and ustekinumab 45 mg), 2.3 (etanercept), 4.1 (efalizumab), and 5.6 (alefacept). The annual treatment cost per patient was $19,825 to $37,600. The cost per patient achieving a PASI 75 response at 12 weeks ranged from $8,330 (adalimumab) to $71,371 (alefacept).

Conclusion:

This analysis suggests favorable cost and benefits of biologic psoriasis therapies, particularly adalimumab, infliximab, and ustekinumab.

New treatments for psoriasis: Which biologic is best?

Psoriasis is a chronic, debilitating disease affecting not only the skin, but also having a significant impact on a patient's quality of life. The treatment of severe psoriasis is quite challenging due to the chronic, relapsing nature of the disease and the difficulties inherent in treatment planning. Though the biologics are perhaps the most promising of available psoriasis treatments, the decision to institute a given therapy may be fraught with complexity for the clinician. Patients now hear of these promising new treatments for psoriasis via print, television and radio advertising; they frequently come to their physician asking if they are eligible for any of these agents and, if so, 'which biologic is best?'. This paper attempts to determine the ideal biologic agent based upon several parameters: FDA- and EU-approved indications, therapeutic efficacy, impact on quality of life, cost-effectiveness, and safety profile. Certainly the physician is central to medical decision-making, though ultimately patient preference may play the largest role in determining the 'best' biologic agent. There is no single ideal biologic for all patients and a physician's job is to educate patients on the relative advantages and disadvantages of each agent. Through informed discussion, the clinician can help each individual patient decide which biologic agent is ideal for them.

The effect of topical corticosteroids in combination with alefacept on circulating T‐cell subsets in psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Novel therapies against psoriasis are emerging. Alefacept is such a treatment. It selectively targets the memory effector population of T cells and thereby diminishes the psoriatic plaques. In some cases, however, the use of alefacept as a monotherapy is not sufficient.

OBJECTIVE

In the present study we investigate the safety and efficacy of adding topical steroids to alefacept treatment during the initial 4 weeks.

METHODS

Peripheral blood was obtained from all patients and the presence of specific T-cell subsets was assessed by flow cytometry. Fourteen patients were included and treated with 15 mg alefacept intramuscularly for a period of 12 weeks. Each of them was randomized to use either betamethasone-dipropionate cream or a vehicle cream during the first 4 weeks of the alefacept course.

RESULTS

Additional topical corticosteroid treatment during the first 4 weeks of alefacept treatment does not have a beneficial effect on the clinical efficacy. Marked changes were seen in the absolute cell counts of various of the analysed T-cell subsets in peripheral blood after 12 weeks of alefacept, either with or without additional local steroid application. The CD45RO+, CD8+CD45RO+, CD8+CD161+, CD4+CD25+, CD4+CLA+ and CD8+CLA+ populations showed a statistically significant decrease immediately after the treatment period. Further analysis revealed that the addition of local steroid therapy to alefacept results in marked decreases of all T-cell subsets analysed in this study, in contrast to the addition of the vehiculum only.

CONCLUSION

Alefacept selectively targets the CD45RO+ lymphocyte population, as well as some other subpopulations of lymphocytes. This effect is independent of the use of additional topical therapy during the first 4 weeks. The extent of the decrease, on the contrary, is dependent on the use of corticosteroids.

Use of biologic therapeutics in difficult-to-treat psoriasis

BACKGROUND

A need for improved psoriasis management drove the development of four biologicals now approved for use in moderate to severe psoriasis: alefacept, efalizumab, etanercept, and infliximab.

OBJECTIVE

This review compares the recommended and practical use of biologicals in "difficult-to-treat" psoriasis. Difficult-to-treat patients, a subpopulation of particular interest to caregivers and regulators, are those for whom conventional options are unavailable, contraindicated, intolerable, or ineffective.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite guidance recommending that biologicals be considered among first-line antipsoriasis treatments, formulary inclusion may be influenced by the biologicals' success in controlling difficult-to-treat psoriasis. Findings from the Clinical Experience Acquired with Raptiva (CLEAR) randomized controlled trial (RCT) established efalizumab's equal efficacy in difficult-to-treat and moderate to severe psoriasis. The CLEAR data were cited in support of a regulatory recommendation to include efalizumab in Canadian provincial formularies. For some other biologicals, evidence regarding efficacy in difficult-to-treat psoriasis remains equivocal. Additional RCTs are needed to define appropriate roles for specific biologicals in difficult-to-treat patients.

Alefacept in the treatment of psoriasis

Alefacept is the first biologic agent approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of psoriasis. To date, more than 1000 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis have been enrolled in phase III clinical trials of alefacept. More than 30% of patients treated with 2 courses of alefacept reached a Physician's Global Assessment of clear to almost clear, and approximately 40% and 70% of patients achieved a Psoriasis Area Severity Index score of 75 and 50 after the same regimen. Alefacept is well tolerated, and there have been no reports of significant systemic toxicity or serious treatment-related adverse events.

Safety and efficacy of alefacept, efalizumab, etanercept and infliximab in treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The relatively recent introduction of biological agents to treat psoriasis presents clinicians with the need to objectively compare and contrast these agents to allow more effective treatment of their patients.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of biological agents in the treatment of plaque psoriasis.

METHODS

(i)

DATA SOURCES

Four parallel systematic reviews conducted through July 2006, including peer-reviewed data and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports. (ii)

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized, controlled, double-blind, monotherapy trials of alefacept (n = 3), efalizumab (n = 5), etanercept (n = 4) and infliximab (n = 4); 16 studies comprising 7931 patients met inclusion criteria. (iii)

DATA EXTRACTION

Efficacy was measured by Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 achievement after 10-14 weeks of treatment, using intention-to-treat analysis. Safety was evaluated by the incidence of one or more adverse event(s) (AEs) and serious adverse event(s) (SAEs) during 10-30 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

Pooled relative risk (RR) and number needed to treat (NNT) of PASI 75 achievement compared with placebo was computed using Mantel-Haenszel methods and the random effects model. All biological agents for psoriasis were efficacious (P < 0.001); however, there was a graded response for achievement of PASI 75: infliximab (RR = 17.40, NNT = 2), etanercept (RR = 11.73, NNT = 3), efalizumab (RR = 7.34, NNT = 4) and alefacept (RR = 3.70, NNT = 8). The risk of one or more AEs was evaluated by RR and number needed to harm (NNH). This was increased in the alefacept (RR = 1.09, P = 0.03, NNH = 15), efalizumab (RR = 1.15, P < 0.001, NNH = 9) and infliximab (RR = 1.18, P < 0.001, NNH = 9) groups compared with placebo. SAEs were increased in a sensitivity analysis of four efalizumab trials (n = 2443, RR = 1.92, P = 0.03, NNH = 60).

CONCLUSIONS

The decreasing rank order for pooled efficacy was infliximab, etanercept, efalizumab and alefacept when compared with placebo. Pooling safety data revealed a previously unreported increased risk of AEs for alefacept, efalizumab and infliximab.

The added therapeutic efficacy and safety of alefacept in combination with other (systemic) anti-psoriatics in refractory psoriasis

OBJECTIVE

Alefacept is a biologic treatment for psoriasis, with a selective effect on memory effector T cells. Few data are available on the combination of alefacept with either topical or systemic anti-psoriatics. We studied the effect of alefacept combination treatment on clinical disease severity scores and on circulating T-cell subsets.

METHODS

Twelve patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis were included and treated with alefacept for a period of 12 weeks. Patients were allowed to continue the anti-psoriatic therapies they used prior to the study. Severity of disease and expression of T-cell markers CD4, CD8, CD45RA, CD45RO, CD94, CD161, CD25, and CLA were assessed at baseline and after treatment.

RESULTS

Seven of 12 included patients used a concomitant systemic therapy: either methotrexate (n = 4), acitretin (n = 2) or cyclosporine (n = 1). PASI reductions in this group after 12 and 24 weeks were 40% and 55%, respectively. Several lymphocyte subsets showed a reduction in circulating numbers. These decreases were independent of the use of an additional systemic psoriasis therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The concomitant use of systemic anti-psoriatic medication in combination with alefacept has a noteworthy impact on efficacy results. No differences in circulating psoriasis-relevant T-cell populations between patients with or without an additional systemic treatment were seen.

Explorative immunohistochemical study to evaluate the addition of a topical corticosteroid in the early phase of alefacept treatment for psoriasis

The aim of this study was to explore the additional effect of betamethasone dipropionate cream in the early phase of an intramuscular (IM) alefacept course, on plaque severity and on modulating T-cell subsets, cells expressing NK-receptors, epidermal proliferation and keratinocyte differentiation in lesional psoriatic skin. Therefore, sixteen patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis received 15 mg alefacept IM for 12 weeks, followed by a 12-week follow-up period. The first 4 weeks, patients were randomized 1:1 to either betamethasone dipropionate, or the vehicle cream, once daily. Plaque severity (SUM) was assessed and serial biopsies were immunohistochemically stained for T-cell subsets (CD3, CD4, CD8, CD45RO, CD45RA, CD2, CD25, GITR), cells expressing NK-receptors (CD94 and CD161), epidermal proliferation (Ki67) and differentiation (K10), which were quantified using manual and digital image analysis. Alefacept monotherapy resulted in statistically significant improvement in plaque severity. Subsequently, immunohistochemical assessments on T-cell subsets, epidermal proliferation (Ki67) and keratinization (K10) revealed marked time-related improvements with respect to the mentioned parameters, without significant differences between both treatment regimens. Alefacept monotherapy induces improvement of plaque severity, which is accompanied by a reduction in activated (CD2+, CD25+, CD45RO+) dermal CD4+ and activated epidermal CD8+ T cells, epidermal proliferation and differentiation. Once daily treatment with betamethasone dipropionate cream during the first 4 weeks of an intramuscular alefacept course did not provide substantial additional clinical and immunohistochemical improvement.

Repigmentation of vitiligo with punch grafting and narrow-band UV-B (311 nm)--a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Phototherapy is already established as an effective mode of therapy in vitiligo. An evidence-based study was carried out of the effect of narrow-band (311 nm) ultraviolet-B (NB-UV-B) radiation in 66 surgically treated patients with recalcitrant vitiligo in whom autologous mini-punch grafting was deployed.

METHODS

A total of 2613 grafts were placed over 108 lesions on 17 regions in 66 individuals (39 females and 27 males) with stable, refractory vitiligo. The age range was 21-48 years. Postsurgically, they were exposed to a suberythemal dose of NB-UV-B (311 nm). Different parameters of surgical repigmentation were documented.

RESULTS

Successful repigmentation was achieved in 57 (86.36%) cases. The appearance of repigmentation (AOR) time in different regions varied between 14 and 32 days, with an overall average of approximately 20.6 days. Maximum pigment spread (MPS) reached 12 mm with an average of 6.5 mm. The relationship between the donor graft area and area of surgical repigmentation was also calculated. Cobblestoning was the most common (31.8%) complication, but improved with time and/or interference.

CONCLUSIONS

Punch grafting in combination with phototherapy (NB-UV-B, 311 nm) was found to be an easy, safe, inexpensive, and effective method of repigmenting static and stubborn vitiligo. Different facets of punch grafting-induced and phototherapy-aided surgical repigmentation were taken into consideration. The area of repigmentation, MPS, and relationship between the donor graft area and area of surgical repigmentation were documented.

Recommendations for incorporating biologicals into management of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: individualized patient approaches

Psoriasis is a T-cell mediated skin disease that affects approximately 2% of the population worldwide. Despite the prevalence of the disease and long-standing efforts to develop strategies to treat it, there is a need for safe and effective therapies to treat psoriasis, particularly the more severe forms. Biological agents such as alefacept, efalizumab, etanercept, and infliximab have been recognized as a class of treatment distinct from other forms of therapy in the treatment algorithm of psoriasis. Recent national and international consensus meetings have developed statements that position biological agents as an important addition to the treatment armamentarium for moderate to severe psoriasis, along with phototherapy and traditional systemic agents. There has been consensus that treatment should be individualized to each patient's needs and circumstances. Biological agents offer the hope of safe, effective, long-term management of moderate to severe psoriasis. As new agents receive approval from Health Canada, the available range of therapeutic options for treating this chronic disease will broaden. A Canadian Psoriasis Expert Panel recently convened in February 2005 to analyze, based on a series of clinical case scenarios, the indications, contraindications, and considerations for and against each of the four biological agents, derived from product labelling, where available, and from the efficacy and safety data from phase 3 and earlier clinical trials, as well as post-marketing reports. The Panel has formulated a set of recommendations for incorporating these biological agents into the current treatment paradigm of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and has identified the preferred biological agents for each patient based on individual needs and circumstances.

Cost-effectiveness of moderate-to-severe psoriasis treatment

Psoriasis is a common, chronic inflammatory disease that can cause as much disability as cancer, diabetes or other major medical illnesses. Traditional therapies for treating moderate-to-severe psoriasis include phototherapy, methotrexate, oral retinoids and ciclosporin. New biological treatments provide further therapeutic options, but add to the already considerable cost of managing psoriasis. Expert panels have published guidelines for the use of biological agents in managing moderate-to-severe psoriasis; however, few if any of these guidelines appropriately consider the cost-effectiveness of treatment options. When considering cost-effectiveness in addition to safety and efficacy, ultraviolet Type B phototherapy seems to be the best first-line agent for the control of moderate-to-severe psoriasis, despite a small potential for cumulative toxicity. The biologics should be considered as second-line agents alongside the traditional systemic treatments when phototherapy proves to be ineffective or is otherwise contraindicated, such as in patients with psoriatic arthritis.

The cost-effectiveness and cost of treatment failures associated with systemic psoriasis therapies

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is difficult at times to treat and treatment failures are not uncommon regardless of approach. With the advent of expensive biologic therapies for psoriasis there is increasing discussion on the cost efficacy of a given systemic or biologic agent. An alternative and overlooked aspect of cost efficacy is the cost that accrues from treatment failures.

METHODS

We review the literature and develop a model to analyze the cost-effectiveness and the cost of treatment failures per success for various systemic psoriasis agents using a 12-week treatment period.

RESULTS

For continuous-dose agents, the cost-effectiveness results are: methotrexate $623, acitretin $2729, cyclosporine $2969, nUVB $3692, PUVA $4668, etanercept $16 312, and efalizumab $17 196. The cost of expected treatment failures to achieve one success for the same agents were: methotrexate $187, cyclosporine $505, PUVA $767, nUVB $1034, acitretin $1310, etanercept $8319, and efalizumab $12 897.

CONCLUSIONS

Methotrexate appears to be the most cost-effective agent for the treatment of severe psoriasis. However, greater efficacy can be achieved with cyclosporine and PUVA, albeit at a greater cost. Because of the high cost of treatment failures, access to a wide array of therapies and combination regimens should not be discouraged by physicians or insurers.

Traditional therapies in the management of moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis: an assessment of the benefits and risks

Psoriasis is a chronic, recurrent disease that affects between 1% and 3% of the population. Patients with moderate to severe disease generally require phototherapy (e.g. narrowband ultraviolet B radiation), photochemotherapy (oral psoralen plus ultraviolet A radiation) or systemic agents (e.g. ciclosporin, methotrexate, oral retinoids, fumaric acid esters) to control their disease adequately. In general, these therapeutic modalities have proven to be highly effective in the treatment of psoriasis. However, potentially serious toxicities can limit their long-term use. Given that there is no standard therapeutic approach for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, the benefits and risks of phototherapy, photochemotherapy and systemic therapy must be weighed carefully for each patient, and treatment individualized accordingly. This review summarizes the benefits and risks of traditional, nonbiological therapies for moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis.

Integrating Biologic Agents into Management of Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: A Consensus of the Canadian Psoriasis Expert Panel

BACKGROUND

Approximately 2% of people worldwide have psoriasis, with as many as 1 million people with psoriasis in Canada alone.1,2 The severity of psoriasis ranges from mild to severe. It can lead to substantial morbidity and psychological stress and have a profound negative impact on patient quality of life.3,4 Although available therapies reduce therapies reduce the extent and severity of the disease and improve quality of life,3 reports have indicated a patient preference for more aggressive therapy and a dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of current treatment options.5

OBJECTIVE

A Canadian Expert Panel, comprising Canadian dermatologists, convened in Toronto on 27 February 2004 to reach a consensus on unmet needs of patients treated with current therapies and how to include the pending biologic agents in and improve the current treatment algorithm for moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Current treatment recommendations suggest a stepwise strategy starting with topical agents followed by phototherapy and then systemic agents.3,6,7 The Panel evaluated the appropriate positioning of the biologic agents, once approved by Health Canada, for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

METHODS

The Panel reviewed available evidence and quality of these data on current therapies and from randomized, controlled clinical trials.8-14 Subsequently, consensus was achieved by small-group workshops followed by plenary discussion.

RESULTS

The Panel determined that biologic agents are an important addition to therapies currently available for moderate-to-severe psoriasis and proposed an alternative treatment algorithm to the current step wise paradigm.

CONCLUSION

The Panel recommended a new treatment algorithm for moderate-to-severe psoriasis whereby all appropriate treatment options, including biologic agents, are considered together and patients' specific characteristics and needs are taken into account when selecting the most appropriate treatment option.

Alefacept for the treatment of psoriasis: A review of the current literature and practical suggestions for everyday clinical use

Alefacept is the first biologic therapy approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the management of patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis. Alefacept is a fully human fusion protein with a dual mechanism of action inhibiting T-cell activation as well as selectively reducing memory T cells. More than 2000 psoriasis patients have been treated with alefacept in clinical trials. These studies reveal an excellent clinical response, with 33% of patients achieving a Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) score of 75 and 57% of patients achieving a PASI 50 after one course of alefacept. Patients achieving both PASI 75 and PASI 50 have significant improvements in their quality of life. The best responders can have long remissions, and there is a tendency toward continued improvement with subsequent courses of alefacept. The safety profile over the short and intermediate term is excellent. Preliminary data regarding alternate dosing regimens, transitioning patients from conventional systemics to alefacept, and combining alefacept with ultraviolet light therapy will be highlighted. We also will discuss our practical approach to patient selection, CD4 monitoring, management of infections while on alefacept, as well as decisions regarding retreatment and combination therapy.

Alefacept: a review of the literature and practical guidelines for management

Alefacept is the first biologic agent approved for the treatment of chronic, moderate to severe plaque-type psoriasis. It is a fully human fusion toxin, which binds to CD2, blocks costimulatory signaling, and selectively induces apoptosis of activated memory T cells involved in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. Alefacept has a slow onset of action, peaking approximately 18 weeks after the first injection of a 12-week course. However, it has several important advantages over the existing conventional immunosuppressive therapies for psoriasis: it is associated with long remissions without the need for maintenance therapy; its efficacy improves with subsequent courses; and it has a high safety profile. This review summarizes the mechanism of action of alefacept and the results of the clinical trials, with special emphasis on efficacy, pharmacodynamic effects on circulating lymphocytes, and safety and tolerability. Current guidelines based on the best available data to date are also presented.

Biological therapies in the systemic management of psoriasis: International Consensus Conference

Psoriasis is a chronic, immune-mediated disorder that usually requires long-term treatment for control. Approximately 25% of patients have moderate to severe disease and require phototherapy, systemic therapy or both. Despite the availability of numerous therapeutic options, the long-term management of psoriasis can be complicated by treatment-related limitations. With advances in molecular research and technology, several biological therapies are in various stages of development and approval for psoriasis. Biological therapies are designed to modulate key steps in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. Collectively, biologicals have been evaluated in thousands of patients with psoriasis and have demonstrated significant benefit with favourable safety and tolerability profiles. The limitations of current psoriasis therapies, the value of biological therapies for psoriasis, and guidance regarding the incorporation of biological therapies into clinical practice are discussed.