Effect of tofacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, on haematological parameters during 12 weeks of psoriasis treatment

Oral Psoriasis Therapies

Oral psoriasis therapies include both older traditional immunosuppressants, such as methotrexate, cyclosporine, and acitretin, as well as newer, more targeted agents, such as apremilast, deucravacitinib, and oral interleukin-23 receptor antagonists. Patients may prefer oral therapies to injectable therapies based on the route of administration. Both older and newer oral psoriasis therapies can be utilized effectively in the treatment of psoriasis. Here, we will review oral agents used in the treatment of psoriasis as well as provide commentary on their role in our current, evolving psoriasis treatment paradigm.

Inhibition of the JAK-STAT Pathway in the Treatment of Psoriasis: A Review of the Literature

Psoriasis is a highly prevalent dermatological disease associated with an increased systemic inflammatory response. In addition, joint involvement is also present in around 20% of patients. Therefore, treatment modalities used in this condition should be simultaneously effective at improving skin manifestations, reducing inflammation, and addressing psoriatic arthritis when present. Twenty years ago, the introduction of biologic treatments for psoriasis was a turning point in the management of this condition, offering an effective and reasonably safe option for patients whose disease could not be adequately controlled with conventional therapies. At the moment, Janus Kinase inhibitors (JAKis) are a new class of promising molecules in the management of psoriasis. They are orally administered and can show benefits in patients who failed biologic therapy. We conducted a scoping review in order to identify randomized-controlled trials that investigated different JAKis in patients with plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, with an emphasis on molecules that have been approved by the European Medicines Agency and the Food and Drug Administration. The added value of this study is that it collected information about JAKis approved for two different indications, plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, in order to provide an integrated understanding of the range of effects that JAKis have on the whole spectrum of psoriasis manifestations.

Tofacitinib for the treatment of severe rare skin diseases: a narrative review

PURPOSE

Autoimmune bullous diseases, connective tissue diseases, and vasculitis represent a group of severe rare skin diseases. While glucocorticoids and immunosuppressive agents serve as standard treatments for these diseases, their efficacy is limited due to adverse side effects, indicating the need for alternative approaches. Biologics have been used in the management of some rare skin diseases. However, the use of biologics is associated with concerns, such as infection risk and high costs, prompting the quest for efficacious and cost-effective alternatives. This study discusses the safety issues associated with tofacitinib and its potential in treating rare skin diseases.

METHODS

This narrative review focuses on the pharmacodynamic properties of tofacitinib and its impact on the JAK/STAT pathway. In addition, we present a comprehensive discussion of the effects and mechanism of action of tofacitinib for each severe rare skin disease.

RESULTS

This role of tofacitinib in treating severe rare skin diseases has been discussed, shedding light on its promising prospects as a treatment modality. Few reports of serious adverse events are available in patients treated with tofacitinib.

CONCLUSION

We explored the mechanism of action, efficacy, and safety considerations of tofacitinib and found that it can be used as a treatment option for rare skin diseases. However, multicenter clinical studies are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors.

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.

Tofacitinib for new-onset adult patients with anti-melanoma differentiation-associated 5 gene antibody positive dermatomyositis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in adult anti-melanoma differentiation-associated 5 gene (Anti-MDA5) antibody-positive dermatomyositis (DM) patients and evaluate the effects of tofacitinib on peripheral lymphocyte subsets.

METHODS

An open-label study was conducted of 15 new-onset, untreated adult patients with anti-MDA5-positive DM for tofacitinib with a dose of 5mg twice per day. The primary outcome was defined by the total improvement score after treatment for 6 months, classified according to the 2016 American College of Rheumatology/ European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) response criteria for adult DM and polymyositis. Secondary outcomes after 6 months treatment comprised the change in predicted forced vital capacity, the percentage of predicted carbon monoxide diffusion capacity, ferritin level and peripheral blood lymphocyte subsets measured by flow cytometry.

RESULTS

Disease responses occurred in 10 patients (71.4%) after 6 months. The median total improvement score was 43.75 (41.875-59.375). Two patients achieved major improvement, seven achieved moderate and one minimal. The serum ferritin level (p = 0.008), DLCO% (p = 0.009) was improved and a marked increase in total lymphocyte cells (p = 0.045) and CD8+ T cells (p = 0.006) was measured after 6 months treatment compared to baseline.

CONCLUSION

Tofacitinib demonstrates efficacy for new-onset, untreated adult patients with anti-MDA5-positive DM and stimulates proliferation of peripheral lymphocyte subsets (especially total lymphocyte cells and CD8+ T cells) after 6 months treatment. Further studies are warranted to validate the current findings. Key Points • Treatment of anti-melanoma differentiation-associated 5 gene antibody positive dermatomyositis is always challenging. • This prospective, open-label clinical trial demonstrates tofacitinib is an effective and safe agent for new-onset adult patients with anti-MDA5-positive DM. • Tofacitinib treatment results in an increase in peripheral lymphocyte numbers, especially CD8+ T cells at 6 months compared with pre-treatment levels.

First-in-human study of deucravacitinib: A selective, potent, allosteric small-molecule inhibitor of tyrosine kinase 2

This randomized, double-blind, single- and multiple-ascending dose study assessed the pharmacokinetics (PKs), pharmacodynamics, and safety of deucravacitinib (Sotyktu™), a selective and potent small-molecule inhibitor of tyrosine kinase 2, in 100 (75 active, 25 placebo) healthy volunteers (NCT02534636). Deucravacitinib was rapidly absorbed, with a half-life of 8-15 h, and 1.4-1.9-fold accumulation after multiple dosing. Deucravacitinib inhibited interleukin (IL)-12/IL-18-induced interferon (IFN)γ production ex vivo in a dose- and concentration-dependent manner. Following in vivo challenge with IFNα-2a, deucravacitinib demonstrated dose-dependent inhibition of lymphocyte count decreases and expression of 53 IFN-regulated genes. There were no serious adverse events (AEs); the overall frequency of AEs was similar in the deucravacitinib (64%) and placebo (68%) groups. In this first-in-human study, deucravacitinib inhibited IL-12/IL-23 and type I IFN pathways in healthy volunteers, with favorable PK and safety profiles. Deucravacitinib is a promising therapeutic option for immune-mediated diseases, including Crohn's disease, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and systemic lupus erythematosus.

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.

Clinical and immunological study of Tofacitinib and Baricitinib in refractory Blau syndrome: case report and literature review

Blau syndrome (BS) is an autoinflammatory disorder characterized by non-caseating granulomatous dermatitis, arthritis, and uveitis. We present a case of refractory and severe BS that was treated with the Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKINIBS), Tofacitinib (TOFA) and then Baricitinib (BARI). Our aim was to describe the clinical and immunological outcomes after treatment with JAKINIBS. Blood tests and serum samples were obtained during follow-up with TOFA and BARI. We assessed their effects on clinical outcomes, acute phase reactants, absolute lymphocyte counts (ALCs), lymphocyte subset counts, immunoglobulins, and cytokine levels. A review of the literature on the use of JAKINIBS for the treatment of uveitis and sarcoidosis was also conducted. TOFA led to a rapid and maintained disease control and a steroid-sparing effect. A decrease from baseline was observed in ALC, CD3+, CD4+, CD8+, and natural killer (NK) cell counts. B-cells were stable. Serum levels of interleukin (IL)-4 and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) increased, whereas IL-2, IL-6, IL-10, and IL-17 maintained stable. TOFA was discontinued after 19 months due to significant lymphopenia. The initiation of BARI allowed maintaining adequate control of disease activity with an adequate safety profile. The literature review showed seven patients with uveitis and five with sarcoidosis treated with JAKINIBS. No cases of BS treated with JAKINIBS were found. We report the successful use of JAKINIBS in a patient with refractory and severe BS.

Protective Effect of CP690550 in MPTP-Induced Parkinson's Like Behavioural, Biochemical and Histological Alterations in Mice

Janus-activated kinases (JAKs) are well known to play a physiological as well as pathological role in several disease conditions such as autoimmune disorders. The present study evaluated the therapeutic potential of CP690550 (pan-JAK inhibitor) in 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tertahydropyridine (MPTP) model of Parkinson's disease. Intrastriatal administration of MPTP (30 micromol in 2 microl) produced a significant alteration in behavioural (bar test and block test). Biochemical investigations in serum and brain homogenate revealed a significant alteration in the JAK-mediated cytokine levels. MPTP administration also showed significant imbalance of inflammatory (increased TNF-α, IL-6 and NF-κb) versus anti-inflammatory cytokines (decreased IL-10 levels). MPTP-treated brain sections revealed alteration in the tissue architecture as well as undifferentiated bodies of varying contour and lesions. Chronic administration of CP690550 (3 and 10 mg/kg, po) for 7 days significantly reversed the behavioural, biochemical and histological alterations induced by MPTP. In conclusion, the findings of the present study govern the possible therapeutic potential of CP690550 in MPTP-treated mice and thus highlight the therapeutic potential of JAK inhibitors in treatment of Parkinson's disease.

Discovery of a Colon-Targeted Azo Prodrug of Tofacitinib through the Establishment of Colon-Specific Delivery Systems Constructed by 5-ASA-PABA-MAC and 5-ASA-PABA-Diamine for the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis

To mitigate the systemic adverse effects of tofacitinib, 5-ASA-PABA-MAC and 5-ASA-PABA-diamine colon-specific delivery systems were constructed, and tofacitinib azo prodrugs 9 and 20a-20g were synthesized accordingly. The release studies suggested that these systems could effectively release tofacitinib in vitro, and the 5-ASA-PABA-diamine system could successfully realize the colon targeting of tofacitinib in vivo. Specifically, compound 20g displayed a 3.67-fold decrease of plasma AUC_{(tofacitinib, 0-∞)} and a 9.61-fold increase of colonic AUC_{(tofacitinib, 0-12h)}, compared with tofacitinib at a molar equivalent oral dose. Moreover, mouse models suggested that compound 20g (1.5 mg/kg) could achieve roughly the same efficacy against ulcerative colitis compared with tofacitinib (10 mg/kg) and did not impair natural killer cells. These results demonstrated the feasibility of compound 20g as an effective alternative to mitigate the systemic adverse effects of tofacitinib, and 5-ASA-PABA-MAC and 5-ASA-PABA-diamine systems were proven to be effective for colon-specific drug delivery.

Jakinibs of All Trades: Inhibiting Cytokine Signaling in Immune-Mediated Pathologies

Over the last 25 years, inhibition of Janus kinases (JAKs) has been pursued as a modality for treating various immune and inflammatory disorders. While the clinical development of JAK inhibitors (jakinibs) began with the investigation of their use in allogeneic transplantation, their widest successful application came in autoimmune and allergic diseases. Multiple molecules have now been approved for diseases ranging from rheumatoid and juvenile arthritis to ulcerative colitis, atopic dermatitis, graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD) and other inflammatory pathologies in 80 countries around the world. Moreover, two jakinibs have also shown surprising efficacy in the treatment of hospitalized coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) patients, indicating additional roles for jakinibs in infectious diseases, cytokine storms and other hyperinflammatory syndromes. Jakinibs, as a class of pharmaceutics, continue to expand in clinical applications and with the development of more selective JAK-targeting and organ-selective delivery. Importantly, jakinib safety and pharmacokinetics have been investigated alongside clinical development, further cementing the potential benefits and limits of jakinib use. This review covers jakinibs that are approved or are under late phase investigation, focusing on clinical applications, pharmacokinetic and safety profiles, and future opportunities and challenges.

Hit the Road JAK! The Role of New Oral Treatment in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Crohn disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) are considered chronic disorders of the gastrointestinal tract, lifelong medication often being necessary. Furthermore, they have significant implications on the quality of life. In the past few years, major advances have been achieved concerning the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. These advances are expanding the possibilities for managing these patients. Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent the most auspicious treatment to date because they consist of drugs that are orally administered, with a short half-life and low antigenicity. In addition, they seem to concurrently lessen various proinflammatory routes. In fact, tofacitinib has already been approved in patients with UC, both naïve and with prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. In CD, the results with tofacitinib have been less impressive. Several other JAK inhibitors are currently being investigated. However, given the wide spectrum of immunosuppressive effects, special attention has been given to the safety profile of these drugs, namely with regard to the occurrence of thromboembolic events, opportunistic infections, and malignancy. In this article, we review key evidence on the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors concerning both UC and CD.

JAK inhibitors for asthma

Asthma is an inflammatory disease of the airways characterized by intermittent episodes of wheezing, chest tightness, and cough. Many of the inflammatory pathways implicated in asthma involve cytokines and growth factors that activate Janus kinases (JAKs). The discovery of the JAK/signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) signaling pathway was a major breakthrough that revolutionized our understanding of cell growth and differentiation. JAK inhibitors are under active investigation for immune and inflammatory diseases, and they have demonstrated clinical efficacy in diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and atopic dermatitis. Substantial preclinical data support the idea that inhibiting JAKs will ameliorate airway inflammation and hyperreactivity in asthma. Here, we review the rationale for use of JAK inhibitors in different asthma endotypes as well as the preclinical and early clinical evidence supporting such use. We review preclinical data from the use of systemic and inhaled JAK inhibitors in animal models of asthma and safety data based on the use of JAK inhibitors in other diseases. We conclude that JAK inhibitors have the potential to usher in a new era of anti-inflammatory treatment for asthma.

Role of Janus Kinase Inhibitors in Therapy of Psoriasis

Janus kinases inhibitors are molecules that target Janus kinases-signal transducers and activators of transcription (JAK/STAT). They inhibit this intracellular signal pathway, blocking the gene transcription of crucial proinflammatory cytokines that play a central role in the pathogenesis of many inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, including psoriasis. This process reduces psoriatic inflammation. The JAK inhibitors are divided into two generations. The first generation of JAK inhibitors blocks two or more different Janus kinases. The second generation is more specified and blocks only one type of Janus kinase and has less side effects than the first generation. Tofacitinib, ruxolitinib and baricitinib belong to first generation JAK inhibitors and decernotinib and filgotinib belong to second group. This narrative review summarizes the role of Janus kinase inhibitors in the therapy of psoriasis. Oral JAK inhibitors show promise for efficacy and safety in the treatment of psoriasis. Studies to date do not indicate that JAK inhibitors are superior to recent biologic drugs in terms of efficacy. However, JAK inhibitors, due to their lack of increased incidence of side effects compared to other biologic drugs, can be included in the psoriasis treatment algorithm because they are orally taken. Nevertheless, further studies are needed to evaluate long-term treatment effects with these drugs.

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.

Alopecia areata: a review on diagnosis, immunological etiopathogenesis and treatment options

Patients suffering from alopecia areata (AA) can lose hair in focal regions, the complete scalp, including eyelashes and eyebrows, or even the entire body. The exact pathology is not yet known, but the most described theory is a collapse of the immune privilege system, which can be found in some specific regions of the body. Different treatment options, local and systemic, are available, but none of them have been proven to be effective in the long term as well for every treatment there should be considered for the possible side effects. In many cases, treated or non-treated, relapse often occurs. The prognosis is uncertain and is negatively influenced by the subtypes alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis and characteristics such as associated nail lesions, hair loss for more than 10 years and a positive familial history. The unpredictable course of the disease also makes it a mental struggle and AA patients are more often associated with depression and anxiety compared to the healthy population. Research into immunology and genetics, more particularly in the field of dendritic cells (DC), is recommended for AA as there is evidence of the possible role of DC in the treatment of other autoimmune diseases such as multiple Sclerosis and cancer. Promising therapies for the future treatment of AA are JAK-STAT inhibitors and PRP.

New and Emerging Therapies for Alopecia Areata

Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune condition that affects up to 2% of the general population. Currently available treatment options for AA are of limited efficacy and can be associated with adverse effects. The advancement in understanding of the genetic and molecular mechanisms of AA has led to the development of novel treatment options, with the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor class of drugs at the forefront of ongoing clinical trials. Platelet-rich plasma, fecal transplants, and cytokine-targeted therapy with ustekinumab and dupilumab have also been shown to regrow hair in patients with AA in individual case reports or small studies. Several other novel therapies have preliminary data or are being tested in clinical trials.

JAK Inhibitors Safety in Ulcerative Colitis: Practical Implications

Janus kinase inhibitors [JAKi] are a new class of small molecule drugs that modulate inflammatory pathways by blocking one or more JAK receptors, and are increasingly being used in the treatment of immune-mediated diseases. Tofacitinib, a non-selective JAKi, is now approved for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis [UC] that is refractory or intolerant to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors [TNFi]. Whereas tofacitinib is associated with the advantages of oral administration, rapid onset of action, and lack of immunogenicity over TNFi, there are many safety considerations to take into account such as the risk of thromboembolism, infections, and hyperlipidaemia: each with specific nuances pertaining to prevention and monitoring strategies. Considerations such as pregnancy, breastfeeding, and history of malignancy also are to be navigated with utmost caution, given that very few data are available for guidance. With the use of JAKi in the real world progressively over time, safety implications will become more lucid, including caveats pertaining to JAK selectivity and gut-selective JAKi, as well as mechanistic data pertaining to adverse effects. This Viewpoint serves as a practical guide for clinicians managing inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] patients to navigate safety concerns around JAKi, including preventive and monitoring strategies.

Biologics in Dermatology: Off-Label Indications

Skin and subcutaneous diseases affect millions of people worldwide, causing significant morbidity. Biologics are becoming increasingly useful for the treatment of many skin diseases, particularly as alternatives for patients who have failed to tolerate or respond to conventional systemic therapies. Biological therapies provide a targeted approach to treatment through interaction with specific components of the underlying immune and inflammatory disease processes. Advances in the understanding of disease pathophysiology for inflammatory skin diseases and in drug development have ushered in biologic therapies in dermatology. Biologic therapies are molecules that target specific proteins implicated in immune-mediated disease. This review article highlights the increasing evidence base for biologics in dermatology for off-label use.

Filgotinib, a JAK1 Inhibitor, Modulates Disease-Related Biomarkers in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from Two Randomized, Controlled Phase 2b Trials

INTRODUCTION

The Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor therapeutic class has shown significant clinical benefit in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We sought to gain insight into the mode of action and immunological effects of filgotinib, a JAK1 selective inhibitor, in active RA by analyzing secreted and cell-based biomarkers key to RA pathophysiology in two phase 2b trials of filgotinib in active RA.

METHODS

Immune cell subsets and 34 serum biomarkers were analyzed longitudinally over 12 weeks using blood samples collected from patients with active RA receiving filgotinib (100 or 200 mg once daily) or placebo (PBO) in the two phase 2b trials (DARWIN 1, on a background of methotrexate, and DARWIN 2, as monotherapy).

RESULTS

Consistently across both studies, filgotinib treatment decreased multiple immune response biomarkers that have key roles in RA for immune response, and decreased markers that promote matrix degradation, angiogenesis, leukocyte adhesion, and recruitment. Filgotinib did not significantly modulate T and natural killer (NK) lymphoid subsets, but slightly increased B cell numbers after 12 weeks. Multiple correlations were observed for changes in biomarkers with disease activity score 28-CRP. MIP1β showed modest predictivity at baseline for ACR50 response at 12 weeks in the 100 mg filgotinib dose across both studies (AUROC, 0.65 and 0.67, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Filgotinib regulates biomarkers from multiple pathways, indicative of direct and indirect network effects on the immune system and the stromal response. These effects were not associated with reductions of major circulating lymphoid populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01888874, NCT01894516.

New insights into the novel anti-inflammatory mode of action of glucocorticoids

Inflammation is a physiological intrinsic host response to injury meant for removal of noxious stimuli and maintenance of homeostasis. It is a defensive body mechanism that involves immune cells, blood vessels and molecular mediators of inflammation. Glucocorticoids (GCs) are steroidal hormones responsible for regulation of homeostatic and metabolic functions of body. Synthetic GCs are the most useful anti-inflammatory drugs used for the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), allergies, multiple sclerosis, tendinitis, lupus, atopic dermatitis, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis whereas, the long term use of GCs are associated with many side effects. The anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive (desired) effects of GCs are usually mediated by transrepression mechanism whereas; the metabolic and toxic (undesired) effects are usually manifested by transactivation mechanism. Though GCs are most potent anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive drugs, the common problem associated with their use is GC resistance. Several research studies are rising to comprehend these mechanisms, which would be helpful in improving the GC resistance in asthma and COPD patients. This review aims to focus on identification of new drug targets in inflammation which will be helpful in the resolution of inflammation. The ample understanding of GC mechanisms of action helps in the development of novel anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of inflammatory and autoimmune disease with reduced side effects and minimal toxicity.

Systemic Treatment of Psoriasis with JAK Inhibitors: A Review

Psoriasis is a prevalent chronic inflammatory disease. The inflammatory response is driven by T cells and mediated by multiple cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor and the interleukins IL-17 and IL-23. Moderate-to-severe psoriasis is treated systemically, using either biologics or conventional treatments with small-molecule drugs. The newer biologics are very effective and well tolerated, but not all patients respond to treatment with biologics, so there is a need for new treatment options for psoriasis. Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are a new drug class that may be of use in this respect. These inhibitors are already on the market for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ulcerative colitis. They block the intracellular signal pathway mediated by JAK and signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) proteins, thereby inhibiting gene transcription of proinflammatory cytokines. JAK inhibitors are currently being tested as potential treatments for psoriasis. They have shown clinical efficacy as measured by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 response in both phase 2 and 3 trials, and appear to be well tolerated overall. This review provides an overview of the mechanisms underlying the actions of JAK inhibitors in psoriasis, together with the results of clinical trials testing their efficacies when used to treat the disease.

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.

Frontiers in alopecia areata pathobiology research

This current review explores selected and as yet insufficiently investigated frontiers in current alopecia areata (AA) pathobiology research, with an emphasis on potential "new" players in AA pathobiology that deserve more systematic exploration and therapeutic targeting. Indeed, new evidence suggests that CD8⁺ T cells, which have long been thought to be the central players in AA pathobiology, are not the only drivers of disease. Instead, subsets of natural killer (NK) and so-called "unconventional" T cells (invariant NK T cells, γδ T cells, classic NK cells, and type 1 innate lymphoid cells), all of which can produce large amounts of IFN-γ, might also drive AA pathobiology independent of classical, autoantigen-dependent CD8⁺ T-cell functions. Another important new frontier is the role of regulatory lymphocyte subsets, such as regulatory T cells, γδ regulatory T cells, NKT10 cells, and perifollicular mast cells, in maintaining physiologic hair follicle immune privilege (IP); the extent to which these functions are defective in patients with AA; and how this IP-protective role could be restored therapeutically in patients with established AA. Broadening our AA research horizon along the lines suggested above promises not only to open the door to innovative and even more effective immunotherapy strategies for AA but will also likely be relevant for other autoimmune disorders in which pathobiology, ectopic MHC class I expression, and IP collapse play an important role.

Gaps in Ambulatory Patient Safety for Immunosuppressive Specialty Medications

OBJECTIVES

New specialty drugs such as biologics are now available in record numbers, presenting increased safety risks for people with immune-mediated diseases. However, comprehensive assessments of patient safety for these drugs are lacking. We examined performance on key patient safety measures, such as screening for latent tuberculosis (LTBI), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV), for new users of a broad group of specialty medications.

METHODS

Data were extracted via electronic health record data warehouses of a large university health system using structured queries, and extensive chart review was performed to confirm measure elements. We included all new users of immunosuppressive specialty drugs between 2013 and 2017. We assessed screening for LTBI, HBV, and HCV from 12 months before through 60 days after medication initiation, and calculated performance on a composite measure that required screening for all three infections. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess differences in screening across specialties, adjusting for patient race, sex, age, and comorbidities.

RESULTS

Among 2027 patients, the most common drugs prescribed were adalimumab (32%), etanercept (24%), infliximab (19%), and ustekinumab (9%). Overall, 62% of patients were screened for LTBI, 42% for HBV, and 33% for HCV. Only 26% of patients were screened appropriately for all three infections. Screening patterns differed significantly according to treating specialty.

CONCLUSIONS

We found gaps in ambulatory safety for patients treated with immunosuppressive specialty drugs for diverse inflammatory conditions across all relevant treating specialties. More robust safety protocols are urgently needed to prevent serious patient safety events in this high-risk population.

Janus Kinase Inhibitors for the Treatment of Severe Alopecia Areata: An Open-Label Comparative Study

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Alopecia areata (AA) is a common autoimmune disorder characterized by patchy hair loss. There are many treatments available for AA. However, treatments of severe forms of AA are not satisfactory. Recently, oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors were found to be effective for the treatment of severe AA variants. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> The aim of this work was to evaluate and compare the efficacy, side effects, and durability of two oral JAK inhibitor medications (ruxolitinib and tofacitinib) in the treatment of severe AA. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> This study included 75 patients with AA with more than 30% scalp hair loss, alopecia totalis, and alopecia universalis randomized into 2 groups. The first group (<i>n</i> = 38) received ruxolitinib 20 mg twice daily, and the second group (<i>n</i> = 37) received oral tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily. The treatment continued for 6 months followed by 3 months of follow-up off therapy. Efficacy of treatment was assessed by monitoring the change in the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Both tofacitinib and ruxolitinib induced remarkable hair regrowth, with a mean change in SALT score of 93.8 ± 3.25 in the ruxolitinib group and 95.2 ± 2.69 in the tofacitinib group. However, the ruxolitinib group showed a shorter duration for initial hair regrowth. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding hair regrowth at the end of the 6-month treatment and relapse rate at the end of the 3-month follow-up. Around two thirds of cases experienced relapse. Both drugs were well tolerated, with no reported serious adverse effects. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Both ruxolitinib and tofacitinib could be considered effective and well-tolerated treatments for extensive AA.

Genomic alterations driving psoriasis pathogenesis

Psoriasis is an immune mediated inflammatory skin disease with complex etiology involving interplay between environmental and genetic risk factors as disease initiating event. Enhanced understanding on genetic risk factors, differentially expressed genes, deregulated proteins and pathway-targeted therapeutics have established multiple axis of psoriasis pathogenesis. So far, loci in 424 genes are reported to be associated with psoriasis alongside copy number variations and epigenetic alterations. From clinical perspective, presence of specific genetic trigger(s) in individual psoriasis patient could aid in devising a personalized therapeutic strategy. Therefore, the review presents an updates on reported genomic alterations and their subsequent course of cutaneous inflammations that potentially drive to psoriasis.

Dual Inhibition of TYK2 and JAK1 for the Treatment of Autoimmune Diseases: Discovery of (( S)-2,2-Difluorocyclopropyl)((1 R,5 S)-3-(2-((1-methyl-1 H-pyrazol-4-yl)amino)pyrimidin-4-yl)-3,8-diazabicyclo[3.2.1]octan-8-yl)methanone (PF-06700841)

Cytokine signaling is an important characteristic of autoimmune diseases. Many pro-inflammatory cytokines signal through the Janus kinase (JAK)/Signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) pathway. JAK1 is important for the γ-common chain cytokines, interleukin (IL)-6, and type-I interferon (IFN) family, while TYK2 in addition to type-I IFN signaling also plays a role in IL-23 and IL-12 signaling. Intervention with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) or JAK1 inhibitors has demonstrated efficacy in Phase III psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and rheumatoid arthritis studies, leading to multiple drug approvals. We hypothesized that a dual JAK1/TYK2 inhibitor will provide additional efficacy, while managing risk by optimizing selectivity against JAK2 driven hematopoietic changes. Our program began with a conformationally constrained piperazinyl-pyrimidine Type 1 ATP site inhibitor, subsequent work led to the discovery of PF-06700841 (compound 23), which is in Phase II clinical development (NCT02969018, NCT02958865, NCT03395184, and NCT02974868).

Evaluation of a Janus kinase 1 inhibitor, PF-04965842, in healthy subjects: A phase 1, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation study

AIMS

To determine the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the Janus kinase 1-selective inhibitor, PF-04965842.

METHODS

This was a phase 1, first-in-human, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, combination single- and multiple-dose escalation, parallel design study in healthy subjects (http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01835197). Subjects received a single dose of placebo or 3, 10, 30, 100, 200, 400 or 800 mg PF-04965842 (single ascending dose phase) and placebo or 30 mg once daily (QD), 100 mg QD, 200 mg QD, 400 mg QD, 100 mg twice daily (BID) or 200 mg BID PF-04965842 for 10 consecutive days (multiple ascending dose phase). The primary objective was to determine the safety and tolerability of PF-04965842.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine subjects were randomized and received study treatments. There were no deaths or serious adverse events. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events were headache (n = 13), diarrhoea (n = 11) and nausea (n = 11). PF-04965842 was absorbed rapidly (median time at which maximum plasma concentration occurred generally ≤1 h following either single- or multiple-dose administration) and eliminated rapidly (mean t_½ 2.8-5.2 h after 10 days of QD or BID administration in the multiple ascending dose phase). Increases in maximum plasma concentration and area under the concentration-time curve were dose proportional up to 200 mg (single or total daily doses) with an apparent trend towards greater than proportional increases with higher doses. Less than 4.4% of the dose was recovered unchanged in urine. Changes in pharmacodynamic biomarkers were consistent with the known effects of Janus kinase signalling inhibition.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support further evaluation of PF-04965842 for clinical use in patients with inflammatory diseases.

Reversibility of peripheral blood leukocyte phenotypic and functional changes after exposure to and withdrawal from tofacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, in healthy volunteers

This study evaluated the short-term effects of tofacitinib treatment on peripheral blood leukocyte phenotype and function, and the reversibility of any such effects following treatment withdrawal in healthy volunteers. Cytomegalovirus (CMV)-seropositive subjects received oral tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily for 4 weeks and were followed for 4 weeks after drug withdrawal. There were slight increases in total lymphocyte and total T-cell counts during tofacitinib treatment, and B-cell counts increased by up to 26%. There were no significant changes in granulocyte or monocyte counts, or granulocyte function. Naïve and central memory T-cell counts increased during treatment, while all subsets of activated T cells were decreased by up to 69%. T-cell subsets other than effector memory cluster of differentiation (CD)4+, activated naïve CD4+ and effector CD8+ T-cell counts and B-cell counts, normalized 4 weeks after withdrawal. Following ex vivo activation, measures of CMV-specific T-cell responses, and antigen non-specific T-cell-mediated cytotoxicity and interferon (IFN)-γ production, decreased slightly. These T-cell functional changes were most pronounced at Day 15, partially normalized while still on tofacitinib and returned to baseline after drug withdrawal. Total natural killer (NK)-cell counts decreased by 33%, returning towards baseline after drug withdrawal. NK-cell function decreased during tofacitinib treatment, but without a consistent time course across measured parameters. However, markers of NK-cell-mediated cytotoxicity, antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and IFN-γ production were decreased up to 42% 1 month after drug withdrawal. CMV DNA was not detectable in whole blood, and there were no cases of herpes zoster reactivation. No new safety concerns arose. In conclusion, the effect of short-term tofacitinib treatment on leukocyte composition and function in healthy CMV+ volunteers is modest and largely reversible 4 weeks after withdrawal.

Jak3 deficiency blocks innate lymphoid cell development

Loss-of-function mutations in the tyrosine kinase JAK3 cause autosomal recessive severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID). Defects in this form of SCID are restricted to the immune system, which led to the development of immunosuppressive JAK inhibitors. We find that the B6.Cg-Nr1d1^tm1Ven/LazJ mouse line purchased from Jackson Laboratories harbors a spontaneous mutation in Jak3, generating a SCID phenotype and an inability to generate antigen-independent professional cytokine-producing innate lymphoid cells (ILCs). Mechanistically, Jak3 deficiency blocks ILC differentiation in the bone marrow at the ILC precursor and the pre-NK cell progenitor. We further demonstrate that the pan-JAK inhibitor tofacitinib and the specific JAK3 inhibitor PF-06651600 impair the ability of human intraepithelial ILC1 (iILC1) to produce IFN-γ, without affecting ILC3 production of IL-22. Both inhibitors impaired the proliferation of iILC1 and ILC3 and differentiation of human ILC in vitro. Tofacitinib is currently approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severely active rheumatoid arthritis. Both tofacitinib and PF-06651600 are currently in clinical trials for several other immune-mediated conditions. Our data suggest that therapeutic inhibition of JAK may also impact ILCs and, to some extent, underlie clinical efficacy.

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.

The Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics, and Pharmacodynamics of a TYK2/JAK1 Inhibitor (PF-06700841) in Healthy Subjects and Patients With Plaque Psoriasis

The safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of PF-06700841 were assessed in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single- and multiple-dose escalation, parallel-group study in healthy subjects and patients with plaque psoriasis. The single ascending dose (1, 3, 10, 30, 100, or 200 mg) and multiple ascending dose (MAD; PF-06700841; up to 175 mg once daily or 50 mg twice daily for 10 days) periods included 54 healthy participants. In addition, 30 patients with psoriasis received PF-06700841 30 or 100 mg or placebo once daily for 28 days. Single PF-06700841 doses were rapidly absorbed, with peak plasma concentrations ≤ 1 hour, proportional exposure up to 100 mg, and mean half-life 3.8-7.5 hours. On day 10 of MAD, plasma concentrations peaked at ≤1.5 hours postdose (10-175 mg once daily). Elimination half-life was 4.9-10.7 hours; steady state was reached by day 8. In psoriasis patients on day 28, peak plasma concentrations occurred at 1-2 hours. Biomarkers IP-10 and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein were reduced and returned to near baseline levels after dosing. Maximal mean percent change from baseline in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores for PF-06700841 30 mg once daily and 100 mg once daily were -67.92% and -96.31%, respectively, in week 4. All adverse events were mild/moderate. PF-06700841 was safe and well tolerated up to 200 mg once daily in healthy subjects and 100 mg once daily in patients with psoriasis, suggesting potential therapeutic utility in plaque psoriasis and other inflammatory diseases.

Emerging therapies for atopic dermatitis: JAK inhibitors

The Janus kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription pathway is a conserved master regulator of immunity and myeloproliferation. Advanced understanding of this pathway has led to development of targeted inhibitors of Janus kinases (Jakinibs). As a class, JAK inhibitors effectively treat a multitude of hematologic and inflammatory diseases. Given such success, use of JAK inhibitors for mitigation of atopic dermatitis is under active investigation. Herein, we review the evolving data on the safety and efficacy of JAK inhibitors in treatment of atopic dermatitis. Although it is still early in the study of JAK inhibitors for atopic dermatitis, evidence identifies JAK inhibitors as effective alternatives to conventional therapies. Nonetheless, multiple large safety and efficacy trials are needed before widespread use of JAK inhibitors can be advocated for atopic dermatitis.

Tofacitinib for the treatment of psoriasis

INTRODUCTION

The identification of a number of psoriasis-susceptibility genes and a better understanding of the pathogenesis of the intracellular metabolic pathways, have generated new perspectives on psoriasis treatment, in particular new compounds that inhibit certain intracellular proteins involved in the immune response. In contrast to biologic agents, these compounds block intracellular targets such as transcriptional factors or enzymes.

AREAS COVERED

Tofacitinib is a small molecule that acts as a reversible, competitive inhibitor of ATP in the ATP binding site of JAK proteins, determining their inactivation, thus prevents the downstream activation of the STAT proteins, which are then unable to up-regulate the pro-inflammatory genes implicated in psoriasis. The authors present an overview of Phases I - III clinical trials of tofacitinib for psoriasis based on peer-reviewed literature.

EXPERT OPINION

In clinical practice, it is important to assess the response of psoriasis to tofacitinib and identify possible clinical, genetic, and immune biomarkers to predict the response. Comorbidities associated with psoriasis, in particular metabolic syndrome and obesity, are also an important aspect of using tofacitinib in clinical practice. There are some evidences that a drug such as tofacitinib could be used to improve not only psoriasis, but also some of its important comorbidities.