Challenges in the treatment of psoriasis with biologics: vaccination, history of malignancy, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, and pediatric psoriasis

Infections in the era of immunobiologicals

Immunobiologicals represent an innovative therapeutic option in dermatology. They are indicated in severe and refractory cases of different diseases when there is contraindication, intolerance, or failure of conventional systemic therapy and in cases with significant impairment of patient quality of life. The main immunobiologicals used in dermatology basically include inhibitors of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF), inhibitors of interleukin-12 and -23 (anti-IL12/23), inhibitors of interleukin-17 and its receptor (anti-IL17), inhibitors of interleukin-23 (anti-IL23), rituximab (anti-CD20 antibody), dupilumab (anti-IL4/IL13) and intravenous immunoglobulin. Their immunomodulatory action may be associated with an increase in the risk of infections in the short and long term, and each case must be assessed individually, according to the risk inherent to the drug, the patient general condition, and the need for precautions. This article will discuss the main risks of infection associated with the use of immunobiologicals, addressing the risk in immunocompetent and immunosuppressed patients, vaccination, fungal infections, tuberculosis, leprosy, and viral hepatitis, and how to manage the patient in the most diverse scenarios.

Risankizumab, a therapeutic alternative for psoriasis in people living with HIV

The management of psoriasis in individuals with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) presents a unique challenge, marked by a more severe progression and limited efficacy of first- and second-line treatments. Although conventional systemic therapies might be considered, these agents are immunosuppressants, making their use challenging in people living with HIV (PLHIV). Biologic agents are frequently used in individuals with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, but their efficacy and safety data in PLHIV are very limited, as this patient group tends to be excluded from clinical trials. Risankizumab is a selective interleukin-23 (IL-23) inhibitor that has demonstrated a favourable safety profile and high efficacy in long-term studies and clinical practice. This current case report presents two clinical cases of PLHIV with plaque psoriasis who were effectively treated with the biologic agent risankizumab, with no reported safety issues. Although there are limited data on the use of biologics in PLHIV, this case series suggests that IL-23 inhibitors, namely risankizumab, might be a valuable therapeutic option for this population. Additional research and larger studies are needed to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the long-term safety and efficacy of IL-23 inhibitors in individuals affected by HIV.

Long-Term Safety of Guselkumab in Patients with Psoriatic Disease: An Integrated Analysis of Eleven Phase II/III Clinical Studies in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis

INTRODUCTION

The benefit/risk profiles of biologics can be affected by comorbidities, certain demographic characteristics, and concomitant medications; therefore, it is important to evaluate the long-term safety profiles of biologics across broad patient populations. Guselkumab was well tolerated and efficacious across individual pivotal clinical studies in adults with moderate-to-severe psoriasis and/or active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the current analysis was to evaluate guselkumab safety in a large population of patients with psoriatic disease by pooling adverse event (AE) data from 11 phase II/III studies (seven in psoriasis; four in PsA).

METHODS

Guselkumab was generally administered as 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Week 0, Week 4, then every 8 weeks (Q8W) in psoriasis studies and at Week 0, Week 4, then every 4 weeks (Q4W) or Q8W in PsA studies. Safety data were summarized for the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 0-16 in psoriasis; Weeks 0-24 in PsA) and through the end of the reporting period (up to 5 years in psoriasis; up to 2 years in PsA). Using the integrated data, incidence rates of key AEs were determined post hoc, adjusted for duration of follow-up, and reported per 100 patient-years (PYs). AE rates were also determined in subgroups of patients defined by sex, age, body mass index (BMI), and prior biologic use.

RESULTS

During the placebo-controlled period, 1061 patients received placebo (395 PYs) and 2257 received guselkumab (856 PYs). Through the end of the reporting period, 4399 guselkumab-treated patients contributed 10,787 PYs of follow-up. During the placebo-controlled period, in the guselkumab and placebo groups, respectively, rates of AEs were 281 versus 272/100 PYs, and infections were 76.0 versus 72.2/100 PYs. Rates of serious AEs (5.6 vs. 7.8/100 PYs), AEs leading to discontinuation (4.9 vs. 6.6/100 PYs), serious infections (1.0 vs. 2.3/100 PYs), malignancy (0.59 vs. 0.25 patients/100 PYs), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; 0.35 vs. 0.25/100 PYs) were low and comparable between guselkumab and placebo. Among guselkumab-treated patients, safety event rates through the end of the reporting period were numerically lower than or comparable with rates observed during the placebo-controlled period: AEs, 164/100 PYs; infections, 61.2/100 PYs; serious AEs, 5.4/100 PYs; AEs leading to discontinuation, 1.8/100 PYs; serious infections, 1.0/100 PYs; malignancy, 0.6/100 PYs; and MACE, 0.3/100 PYs. No AEs of Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, or active tuberculosis were reported among guselkumab-treated patients. In the psoriasis studies, no opportunistic infections were reported among guselkumab-treated patients. Three AEs of opportunistic infections were reported in guselkumab-treated patients with PsA (0.14/100 PYs; all after Week 52 in DISCOVER-2). AE rates were largely consistent across subgroups of guselkumab-treated patients defined by sex, age, BMI, and prior biologic use.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis of 4399 guselkumab-treated patients with psoriatic disease followed for 10,787 PYs, guselkumab had a favorable AE profile. AE rates were similar between guselkumab- and placebo-treated patients and were consistent throughout long-term guselkumab treatment and across broad subgroups of patients with psoriatic disease.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATIONS

Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT01483599, NCT02207231, NCT02207244, NCT02203032, NCT02905331, NCT03090100, NCT02325219, NCT02319759, NCT03162796, NCT03158285, and NCT03796858.

The impact of psoriasis biologic therapy on HIV viral load and CD4+ cell counts in HIV-positive individuals: A real-world cohort study

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory disorder that also occurs in the setting of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Biological therapy has transformed the treatment landscape for psoriasis; however, individuals with HIV are excluded from clinical trials. The impact of biological therapy on blood parameters in HIV is unclear and is only observed in small case series.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of biological therapy in psoriasis vulgaris in individuals with well-controlled HIV on CD4⁺ cell counts, CD4⁺ proportion and HIV viral load over 12 months.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary referral centre in Sydney, Australia and included 36 HIV-positive individuals with psoriasis treated with biological therapy, compared with 144 age-, gender- and HAART-matched individuals without psoriasis seen between 2010 and 2022. Outcomes of interest included HIV viral load, CD4⁺ cell count and incidence of infections.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference was seen in baseline HIV viral load and CD4⁺ count between individuals with and without psoriasis. No significant change in CD4⁺ count or HIV viral load was seen over the 12-month period of analysis in the HIV cohort without psoriasis. The HIV cohort treated with biological therapy for psoriasis also did not demonstrate any significant change in HIV viral load and CD4⁺ counts over the 12-month period examined. Stratification by type of biological therapy used did not identify any significant changes in these parameters. Rates of infections and adverse events were also not significantly different between cohorts. It is possible that minor blips seen in the biologics cohort may be a risk factor for future virological failure, and future prospective longitudinal studies are required.

CONCLUSIONS

In individuals with well-controlled HIV, the use of biological therapy for psoriasis does not significantly impact HIV viral load, CD4⁺ cell count, CD4⁺ proportion and rates of infection over the first 12 months of therapy.

Biological Treatments for Pediatric Psoriasis: State of the Art and Future Perspectives

Psoriasis is a chronic systemic inflammatory disease that primarily affects the skin and is associated with multiple comorbidities with a considerable reduction in quality of life of affected patients. One-third of psoriasis cases begin in childhood and are associated with significant medical comorbidities such as obesity, metabolic syndrome, arthritis, and psychiatric disorders. In addition, because of its chronic nature and frequent relapses, psoriasis tends to require long-term treatment. Treatment of pediatric psoriasis usually involves the same methods used for adults. However, most treatments for pediatric psoriasis are used off-label, and research in this regard is still lacking. Targeted therapies involving the use of newly developed biologic drugs are also increasingly being applied to childhood psoriasis. This review summarizes the clinical features of pediatric psoriasis and focuses mainly on the updated concepts of pathogenesis and biological treatments of pediatric psoriasis.

Biologic Treatment of 4 HIV-Positive Patients: A Case Series and Literature Review

The management of psoriatic disease in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patients is challenging. Psoriasis in HIV-positive patients is often severe, progressive, and resistant to first- and second-line therapies, including topical treatments, phototherapy, highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), and oral retinoids. Other systemic agents used to treat psoriasis, such as methotrexate and cyclosporine, are immunosuppressants and thus many dermatologists may not feel comfortable prescribing them to HIV-positive patients who are already immunocompromised. Biologic agents, which target specific aspects of overactive immune pathways in psoriasis, have revolutionized the management of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. However, data is limited regarding their safety and efficacy in HIV-positive patients.

OBJECTIVE

Report four cases of HIV-positive patients managed on biologic therapy and summarize the cases of psoriasis in HIV-positive patients managed on biologic therapy that have been published in dermatologic literature to date.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase databases using the terms HIV and psoriasis or HIV and psoriatic arthritis combined with one of the eleven biologics currently approved for treating psoriasis.

RESULTS

We identified 48 cases of anti-psoriasis biologic therapy (including adalimumab, infliximab, etanercept, ustekinumab, and guselkumab) in HIV-positive patients and added four. While data is limited, the evidence available suggests biologic agents are safe and efficacious in moderate-to-severe psoriasis and may even have a favorable effect on CD4 and HIV viral counts when used with concomitant HAART.

CONCLUSION

Further research would be helpful to establish practical guidelines for the use of anti-psoriasis biologic therapy in the HIV population, including that of newer agents.

Retrospective analysis of patients with psoriasis receiving biological therapy: Real-life data

The aim of this study is to investigate the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients receiving biological therapy for psoriasis. All patients who received biological treatment for psoriasis were included in the study. Characteristics of patients and PASI responses' rates were evaluated at 6, 12, 16, 24, 36, and 52 weeks. One hundred and three patients enrolled. Of all, 28 patients were using adalimumab (27.2%), 26 were using secukinumab (25.2%), 22 were using infliximab (21.4%), 22 were using ustekinumab (21.4%), 5 were using ixekizumab (4.9%). PASI75 response rates at sixth and 52nd weeks; were 68.1% and 95% for infliximab, 64.3% and 100% for adalimumab, 77.3% and 100% for ustekinumab, 76.9% and 81.3% for secukinumab, respectively. The most common reason for biologic switching was secondary failure. Treatment failure was the main reason of switching therapies. In our study, no statistically significant difference was found between efficacies of biological drugs. It remains unclear in what order and how exactly biological agent switching should be done. There is a need for large-scale studies on the treatment response rates, and survival times of different biologics.