Oral pimecrolimus in the treatment of moderate to severe chronic plaque-type psoriasis: a double-blind, multicentre, randomized, dose-finding trial

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2022: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes an additional 12 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 179, and randomised participants to 62,339, 67.1% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.6 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (56%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (152) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (65/179) had high risk of bias, 24 unclear risk, and most (90) low risk. Most studies (138/179) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 49.16, 95% CI 20.49 to 117.95), bimekizumab (RR 27.86, 95% CI 23.56 to 32.94), ixekizumab (RR 27.35, 95% CI 23.15 to 32.29), risankizumab (RR 26.16, 95% CI 22.03 to 31.07). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab and ixekizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than secukinumab. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than brodalumab and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab), and anti-IL23 drugs except tildrakizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than ustekinumab, three anti-TNF alpha agents, and deucravacitinib. Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab. Adalimumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with very low- to moderate-certainty evidence for all the comparisons. The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.6 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was very low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2021: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes an additional 19 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 167, and randomised participants to 58,912, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.5 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (57%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (140) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (57/167) had high risk of bias; 23 unclear risk, and most (87) low risk. Most studies (127/167) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions, except anti-IL23. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23 and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 50.19, 95% CI 20.92 to 120.45), bimekizumab (RR 30.27, 95% CI 25.45 to 36.01), ixekizumab (RR 30.19, 95% CI 25.38 to 35.93), risankizumab (RR 28.75, 95% CI 24.03 to 34.39). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab and risankizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than other anti-IL17 drugs (secukinumab and brodalumab) and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab and brodalumab) and anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab) except tildrakizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents (adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept). Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab; adalimumab and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low- to moderate-certainty for all the comparisons (except methotrexate versus placebo, which was high-certainty). The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.5 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports from regulatory agencies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

For this living systematic review we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to September 2020: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers to the same date. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to eligible RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse events). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons, according to CINeMA, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer on treatment hierarchy: 0% (treatment is the worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (treatment is the best for effectiveness or safety).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 158 studies (18 new studies for the update) in our review (57,831 randomised participants, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (58%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 20 treatments. In all, 133 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (53/158) as being at high risk of bias; 25 were at an unclear risk, and 80 at low risk. Most studies (123/158) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report their source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in reaching PASI 90. At class level, in reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the non-biological systemic agents. At drug level, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, risankizumab and guselkumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab, and etanercept. Ustekinumab and adalimumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than etanercept; ustekinumab was more effective than certolizumab, and the clinical effectiveness of ustekinumab and adalimumab was similar. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and three non-biological drugs: fumaric acid esters (FAEs), ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab, and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar, except for ixekizumab which had a better chance of reaching PASI 90 compared with secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab. The clinical effectiveness of these seven drugs was: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 50.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 20.96 to 120.67, SUCRA = 93.6; high-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 32.48, 95% CI 27.13 to 38.87; SUCRA = 90.5; high-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.76, 95% CI 23.96 to 34.54; SUCRA = 84.6; high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86; SUCRA = 81.4; high-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 25.79, 95% CI 21.61 to 30.78; SUCRA = 76.2; high-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.52, 95% CI 21.25 to 30.64; SUCRA = 75; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 23.55, 95% CI 19.48 to 28.48; SUCRA = 68.4; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as mirikizumab, tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to moderate certainty for all the comparisons. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the evidence for all the interventions was of low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials directly comparing active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between non-biological systemic agents and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. This is the baseline update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2017, in preparation for this Cochrane Review becoming a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our research using the following databases to January 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and the conference proceedings of a number of dermatology meetings. We also searched five trials registers and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) reports (until June 2019). We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse effects (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse effects). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes, according to GRADE, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 140 studies (31 new studies for the update) in our review (51,749 randomised participants, 68% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (59%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 19 treatments. In all, 117 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (57/140) as being at high risk of bias; 42 were at an unclear risk, and 41 at low risk. Most studies (107/140) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report the source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90. At class level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents. At drug level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, infliximab, all of the anti-IL17 drugs (ixekizumab, secukinumab, bimekizumab and brodalumab) and the anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab, but not tildrakizumab) were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and 3 anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept. Adalimumab and ustekinumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than certolizumab and etanercept. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and between two conventional drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness for these seven drugs was similar: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 29.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 19.94 to 43.70, Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) = 88.5; moderate-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.12, 95% CI 23.17 to 34.12, SUCRA = 88.3, moderate-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 27.67, 95% CI 22.86 to 33.49, SUCRA = 87.5, high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86, SUCRA = 83.5, low-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.84, 95% CI 20.90 to 31.95; SUCRA = 81; moderate-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 23.97, 95% CI 20.03 to 28.70, SUCRA = 75.4; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 21.96, 95% CI 18.17 to 26.53, SUCRA = 68.7; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to very low certainty for just under half of the treatment estimates in total, and moderate for the others. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were very similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab were the best choices for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence (low-certainty evidence for bimekizumab). This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. Indeed, we found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, but the evidence for all the interventions was of very low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials comparing directly active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between conventional systemic and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Exploration of the Product of the 5-Point Investigator's Global Assessment and Body Surface Area (IGA × BSA) as a Practical Minimal Disease Activity Goal in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

In the treat-to-target era, psoriasis disease activity measures that can be easily performed in routine clinical practice are needed. This retrospective pooled analysis explored cutoff values of the product of the 5-point Investigator's Global Assessment and percentage of affected body surface area (IGA × BSA) correlating with achievement of minimal disease activity (MDA).

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of the phase 3 clinical trials ERASURE, FIXTURE, FEATURE, and JUNCTURE was conducted to determine associations between IGA × BSA and 2 MDA definitions (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index [PASI] 90 and Dermatology Life Quality Index [DLQI] 0/1, or PASI score ≤1 or BSA <3%) in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis receiving secukinumab 300 mg. For each definition of MDA, a range of possible cutoff values of IGA × BSA was examined at each time point. The optimal cutoff value was determined using Youden index (YI), calculated as (sensitivity + specificity - 1).

RESULTS

For MDA defined as PASI 90 and DLQI 0/1, optimal IGA × BSA cutoffs were 2.10 at week 12 (YI, 0.60; sensitivity, 0.78; specificity, 0.82), 1.02 at week 24 (YI, 0.55; sensitivity, 0.73; specificity, 0.82), and 1.00 at week 52 (YI, 0.65; sensitivity, 0.79; specificity, 0.86). For MDA defined as PASI score ≤1 or BSA <3%, optimal IGA × BSA cutoffs were 2.98 at week 12 (YI, 0.91; sensitivity, 0.99; specificity, 0.92), 2.80 at week 24 (YI, 0.94; sensitivity, 0.99; specificity, 0.95), and 3.00 at week 52 (YI, 0.96; sensitivity, 1.00; specificity, 0.96).

CONCLUSION

IGA × BSA could be a valid measure highly associated with achievement of MDA.

Differential effects of secukinumab vs. ustekinumab for treatment of psoriasis on quality of life, work productivity and activity impairment: a structural equation modelling analysis

BACKGROUND

The appearance and lifelong, chronic nature of psoriasis result in considerable burden to patients, such as sleep impairment, depressive symptoms, negative self-esteem and reduced work productivity.

OBJECTIVES

To examine direct and indirect (mediated) effects of secukinumab vs. ustekinumab on quality of life, work productivity and activity impairment based on psoriasis severity and symptoms.

METHODS

Analyses were based on data from the CLEAR study. Structural equation modelling examined the effects of secukinumab vs. ustekinumab on the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and on the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire using Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) severity and symptoms (pain, itching and scaling) as potential mediators. Analyses were conducted primarily for patients achieving a PASI 90 response (90% or greater reduction in PASI from baseline) at week 16 (repeated at week 52) and for PASI 50, 75 and 100.

RESULTS

Results at weeks 16 and 52 showed that the effect of treatment on change in DLQI score was mediated by the PASI 90 response and by improvements in itching, pain, and scaling. Achieving any PASI response as early as week 16 directly resulted in significantly better WPAI scores. At week 52, both PASI response and improvement in scaling directly resulted in significantly better WPAI scores. Pain, itching and scaling were correlated (r = 0·51-0·68); improvement in any of these had a significant effect (directly or indirectly) on WPAI. All results favoured secukinumab over ustekinumab.

CONCLUSIONS

The results underscore the important role of both PASI response and reduction in symptoms on improvements in health-related quality of life and work and daily activity in favour of secukinumab vs. ustekinumab.

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.

Efficacy of topical calcineurin inhibitors in psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Topical calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and pimecrolimus) are indicated for the treatment of atopic dermatitis but have also been studied in the treatment of psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE

To define the efficacy of topical calcineurin inhibitors in the treatment of psoriasis.

METHODS

We searched for English-language articles published since 1990 in PubMed, Ovid/Cochrane, and Embase using "tacrolimus," "pimecrolimus," or "topical calcineurin inhibitors" and "psoriasis."

RESULTS

Nine double-blind and 13 open studies demonstrated the efficacy of topical tacrolimus in psoriasis, especially for facial, genital, and intertrigious psoriasis, and four double-blind and one open study demonstrated the efficacy of topical pimecrolimus.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence (double-blind and open studies) is strong that topical tacrolimus and, to a lesser extent, pimecrolimus have efficacy in the treatment of psoriasis. Since these agents do not cause cutaneous atrophy, they likely have a special role in facial, genital, and intertriginous psoriasis. Further studies would help define their roles in psoriasis.

Macrocyclic drugs and clinical candidates: what can medicinal chemists learn from their properties?

Macrocycles are ideal in efforts to tackle "difficult" targets, but our understanding of what makes them cell permeable and orally bioavailable is limited. Analysis of approximately 100 macrocyclic drugs and clinical candidates revealed that macrocycles are predominantly used for infectious disease and in oncology and that most belong to the macrolide or cyclic peptide class. A significant number (N = 34) of these macrocycles are administered orally, revealing that oral bioavailability can be obtained at molecular weights up to and above 1 kDa and polar surface areas ranging toward 250 Å(2). Moreover, insight from a group of "de novo designed" oral macrocycles in clinical studies and understanding of how cyclosporin A and model cyclic hexapeptides cross cell membranes may unlock wider opportunities in drug discovery. However, the number of oral macrocycles is still low and it remains to be seen if they are outliers or if macrocycles will open up novel oral druggable space.

Clinical application of development of nonantibiotic macrolides that correct inflammation-driven immune dysfunction in inflammatory skin diseases

BACKGROUND

Inflammation-driven immune dysfunction supports the development of several chronic human disorders including skin diseases. Nonantibiotic macrolides have anti-inflammatory and/or immunomodulatory activity that suggests the exploitation of these in the treatment of skin diseases characterized by inflammatory disorders.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed an extensive review of the nonantibiotic macrolide literature published between 2005 and 2012, including cross-references of any retrieved articles. We also included some data from our own experience.

RESULTS

Calcineurin antagonists such as tacrolimus and ascomycins (e.g., pimecrolimus) act by inhibiting the activation of the nuclear factor for activated T cells (NFAT). There are new applications for these macrolides that have been available for several years and have been applied to skin and hair disorders such as atopic dermatitis, oral lichen planus, vitiligo, chronic autoimmune urticaria, rosacea, alopecia areata, pyoderma gangrenosum, Behcet's disease, neutrophilic dermatosis, and lupus erythematosus. We also reviewed new macrolides, like rapamycin, everolimus, and temsirolimus. In addition to the literature review, we report a novel class of nonantibiotic 14-member macrocycle with anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper summarizes the most important clinical studies and case reports dealing with the potential benefits of nonantibiotic macrolides which have opened new avenues in the development of anti-inflammatory strategies in the treatment of cutaneous disorders.

Pimecrolimus 1% cream for oral erosive lichen planus: a 6-week randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled study with a 6-week open-label extension to assess efficacy and safety

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of topical pimecrolimus 1% cream in the treatment of oral erosive lichen planus.

DESIGN

A 6-week randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled phase followed by a 6-week open-label phase.

SETTING

Outpatients of the Department of Dermatology, University of Utah.

PATIENTS

Twenty-one patients with oral erosive lichen planus were randomized and treated with either pimecrolimus 1% cream or vehicle cream.

INTERVENTION

Pimecrolimus 1% cream, or its vehicle, were applied twice daily for 6 weeks to each side of the mouth with a 2×2 inch gauze pad folded in half and placed directly on the erosive lesion.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Efficacy was based on clinical evaluation of Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) of the overall severity of the disease, erythema, measurement of the size of any target erosion in millimetres, and assessment of spontaneous pain. Blood levels of pimecrolimus were monitored in all subjects on day 0 and repeated on day 7.

RESULTS

Pimecrolimus 1% cream was superior to vehicle cream in reducing mean IGA, pain, and erosion size. For the vehicle group that entered the open-label phase, pimecrolimus 1% cream improved the mean IGA, pain, erosion size, and erythema. Pimecrolimus levels were detected in nine out of 10 of the pimecrolimus-treated subjects. These levels were consistently low. The pimecrolimus cream was well-tolerated. No clinically relevant, drug-related adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Pimecrolimus 1% cream was superior to vehicle in reducing pain, erythema, decreasing erosion size, and improving overall severity of disease when compared with vehicle treatment.

The safety and efficacy of pimecrolimus, 1%, cream for the treatment of Netherton syndrome: results from an exploratory study

BACKGROUND

Impaired skin integrity in patients with Netherton syndrome (NS) results in significant systemic absorption of topically applied medications. Some have advocated the administration of pimecrolimus, 1%, topical cream for the treatment of patients with NS. Insufficient data exist with regard to its safety, systemic absorption, and efficacy.

OBSERVATIONS

An exploratory study was conducted involving 3 children with NS who received twice-daily application of pimecrolimus, 1%, cream over 18 months. There were no notable abnormalities in hematologic or chemistry profiles. Blood levels of pimecrolimus ranged from 0.625 to 7.08 ng/mL, with peak levels reached during the first month in all 3 patients. Dramatic reductions were observed in the Netherton Area and Severity Assessment, Eczema Area and Severity Index, Investigator Global Evaluation of Disease, and pruritus scores compared with baseline levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of pimecrolimus, 1%, cream was well tolerated and demonstrated marked improvements in nearly all of the parameters evaluated. Patients treated with pimecrolimus responded rapidly, within the first month of treatment, and improvement persisted throughout the study period. In adult patients receiving oral pimecrolimus, blood levels as high as 54 ng/mL for 3 months have not shown clinically significant immunosuppression. Absorption of pimecrolimus, 1%, cream was detectable, but levels were much lower than expected even when applied to 50% of total body surface area. Larger studies are warranted to determine the safety and efficacy of pimecrolimus, 1%, cream in the treatment of NS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00208026.

Seborrhoeic keratoses appearing in sites of previous psoriasis plaques during treatment with efalizumab

A 56-year-old man with recalcitrant psoriasis was treated with efalizumab, resulting in complete clearing of his skin lesions. However, multiple brown patches and papules, in the exact distribution of the previous psoriasis plaques, appeared on his lower legs. The pathological diagnosis was seborrhoeic keratoses (SKs) with overlapping features of solar lentigo. A variety of cutaneous adverse events has been observed in patients with psoriasis treated with efalizumab. To our knowledge, appearance of SKs after such treatment has not previously been reported. This may be due to the clinical insignificance of these benign skin tumours. However, it may be speculated whether efalizumab has an unknown effect in triggering the development of SKs in patients with psoriasis, and if this could shed any light on the pathogenesis of SKs.

Nonstandard and off-label therapies for psoriasis

Although most psoriasis patients respond to standard therapies, many circumstances warrant the use of nonstandard or off-label treatments. For instance, patients with treatment-resistant psoriasis or those who have had multiple adverse effects to other therapies may be good candidates for off-label treatments. Similarly, patients with unusual and hard-to-treat forms of psoriasis such as pustular psoriasis and palmoplantar psoriasis or specific comorbidities may benefit from certain nonstandard therapies. Drugs that may be used as alternatives to standard therapies include mycophenolate mofetil, tacrolimus or pimecrolimus, isotretinoin, colchicine, sulfasalazine, paclitaxel, dapsone, azathioprine, and hydroxyurea. Other unconventional therapies include climatotherapy at the Dead Sea and grenz ray therapy.

Current and future management of psoriasis

Management of psoriasis begins with identification of the extent of cutaneous disease. However, a holistic, contractual approach to treatment is encouraged, with particular reference to psychosocial disability and quality-of-life issues. The presence of psoriasis on palms, soles, body folds, genitals, face, or nails, and concomitant joint disease, are also important when considering treatment options. An evidence-based approach is essential in delineating differences between the many available treatments. However, archaic approaches, especially combinational ones, are routinely used by some clinicians, with inadequate prospective or comparative evidence. Treatments currently available are: topical agents used predominantly for mild disease and for recalcitrant lesions in more severe disease; phototherapy for moderate disease; and systemic agents including photochemotherapy, oral agents, and newer injectable biological agents, which have revolutionised the management of severe psoriasis. Other innovative treatments are undergoing clinical studies, with the aim of maintaining safe, long-term control of the condition.

Pathogenesis and therapy of psoriasis

Psoriasis is one of the most common human skin diseases and is considered to have key genetic underpinnings. It is characterized by excessive growth and aberrant differentiation of keratinocytes, but is fully reversible with appropriate therapy. The trigger of the keratinocyte response is thought to be activation of the cellular immune system, with T cells, dendritic cells and various immune-related cytokines and chemokines implicated in pathogenesis. The newest therapies for psoriasis target its immune components and may predict potential treatments for other inflammatory human diseases.

Steroids versus other immune modulators in the management of allergic dermatoses

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The classic role of topical and systemic corticosteroids for allergic dermatoses is discussed, with special attention to the impact on the current clinical treatment paradigm by newer systemic and topical therapies. These products are reviewed and recommendations presented on how to effectively assimilate them into clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current knowledge about the etiopathogenesis of atopic dermatitis has resulted in drug development focused on agents with less toxicity than current topical and systemic corticosteroids. Some agents with ceramide/cholesterol/acid combinations demonstrate efficacy in restoring the dysfunctional skin barrier of atopic patients. Concerns resulting from the recent Federal Drug Administration announcement regarding a theoretical risk of cancer associated with topical calcineurin inhibitors are also addressed. Novel therapeutic entities are presented.

SUMMARY

Patients seeking relief from atopic dermatitis have historically had few really effective and safe therapeutic options. Topical calcineurin inhibitors represent an exciting new therapy for atopic dermatitis without the side-effect profile associated with topical corticosteroids. Nonsteroidal formulations incorporating glycyrrhetinic acid/telmesteine/Vitis vinifera extract and palmitoylethanolamide as 'active' ingredients recently entered the market, stressing antipruritic, antiinflammatory, and skin barrier repair. This confabulates against previously designed topical therapy paradigms. These new products may be used as monotherapy or alternatives to steroid agents.

Emerging drugs for psoriasis

Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory skin disease characterised by abnormal keratinocyte differentiation and proliferation. The immunopathogenesis is complex and novel evidence shows the involvement of both innate and adaptive immune response. Type 1 T cells and their effector cytokines play a pivotal role. Several drugs under preclinical and clinical development for psoriasis are directed against the immune response, targeting activation or proliferation of T cells, their trafficking and skin-homing, or effector cytokines. Among these, great attention has been given to TNF-alpha, following the demonstration of effectiveness of anti-TNF-alpha biologicals, and to IFN-gamma inducers. Another appealing approach concerns drugs capable of inducing immunological tolerance. Progress made in the recognition of intracellular events has prompted the development of small molecules and oligonucleotides that can inhibit specific molecular targets. There is, however, a plethora of other emerging drugs, clearly suggestive of the current interest for psoriasis, which are briefly described in this paper.

Discovery of Topical Calcineurin Inhibitors and Pharmacological Profile of Pimecrolimus

Using a newly developed model of allergic contact dermatitis in pigs, calcineurin inhibitors of the tacrolimus and ascomycin type were shown to have a highly anti-inflammatory action after topical application. These findings provided the first pharmacological evidence of the efficacy of this novel class of topical agents in the treatment of inflammatory skin diseases, and, thus, their potential to become the first alternative to corticosteroids in more than 40 years. As a result of a large research program into ascomycins, pimecrolimus (Elidel(R), SDZ ASM 981) was selected for development due to its favorable pharmacology and safety profile, alongside tacrolimus (Protopic(R), FK 506). In vitro, pimecrolimus inhibits the transcription and release of pro-inflammatory cytokines in T cells. Similar to the corticosteroids, betamethasone-17-valerate and dexamethasone, pimecrolimus is effective at nanomolar concentrations. Targeting mainly T cells, pimecrolimus has, however, a more specific mode of action. Moreover, in contrast to corticosteroids, pimecrolimus has no effect on Langerhans' cells, the professional antigen- presenting dendritic cells of the skin that are crucial for local immunosurveillance. When applied topically, pimecrolimus exerts a high and selective anti-inflammatory activity in the skin, shows minimal percutaneous absorption, and has a low potential to affect systemic immunoreactions. Pimecrolimus cream 1% has proven to be well tolerated, safe, and highly effective in clinical studies in patients with atopic dermatitis.

Calcineurininhibitoren zur topischen Therapie der Psoriasis

There are numerous possibilities for specific antiinflammatory therapy of psoriasis. One option is the use of calcineurin inhibitors. To date, only systemic administration of cyclosporine A is approved for this indication. Nonetheless cyclosporine A, tacrolimus and pimecrolimus can all be classed as effective anti-inflammatory agents for the therapy of psoriasis. Unfortunately, the vehicles currently available do not insure adequate topical delivery of these substances. Clinical efficacy of the preparations can be proven only when additional penetration-promoting measures are used or penetration-facilitating conditions exist. The entire group can be expected to play a greater role in the topical therapy of psoriasis if advances in vehicles and delivery systems are made.

PIMECROLIMUS: ABSORPTION, DISTRIBUTION, METABOLISM, AND EXCRETION IN HEALTHY VOLUNTEERS AFTER A SINGLE ORAL DOSE AND SUPPLEMENTARY INVESTIGATIONS IN VITRO

The absorption and disposition of pimecrolimus, a calcineurin inhibitor developed for the treatment of inflammatory skin diseases, was investigated in four healthy volunteers after a single oral dose of 15 mg of [(3)H]pimecrolimus. Supplementary information was obtained from in vitro experiments. Pimecrolimus was rapidly absorbed. After t(max) (1-3 h), its blood concentrations fell quickly to 3% of C(max) at 24 h, followed by a slow terminal elimination phase (average t(1/2) 62 h). Radioactivity in blood decreased more slowly (8% of C(max) at 24 h). The tissue and blood cell distribution of pimecrolimus was high. The metabolism of pimecrolimus in vivo, which could be well reproduced in vitro (human liver microsomes), was highly complex and involved multiple oxidative O-demethylations and hydroxylations. In blood, pimecrolimus was the major radiolabeled component up to 24 h (49% of radioactivity area under the concentration-time curve(0-24) h), accompanied by a large number of minor metabolites. The average fecal excretion of radioactivity between 0 and 240 h amounted to 78% of dose and represented predominantly a complex mixture of metabolites. In urine, 0 to 240 h, only about 2.5% of the dose and no parent drug was excreted. Hence, pimecrolimus was eliminated almost exclusively by oxidative metabolism. The biotransformation of pimecrolimus was largely catalyzed by CYP3A4/5. Metabolite pools generated in vitro showed low activity in a calcineurin-dependent T-cell activation assay. Hence, metabolites do not seem to contribute significantly to the pharmacological activity of pimecrolimus.

A randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial of ISA247 in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Use of current oral calcineurin inhibitors for the treatment of psoriasis is limited by toxicity.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the safety and efficacy of ISA247, a new oral calcineurin inhibitor, in plaque psoriasis patients.

METHODS

This 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study included 201 plaque psoriasis patients with > or = 10% body surface area involvement. Patients were randomized to placebo, ISA247 0.5 mg/kg/d, and ISA247 1.5 mg/kg/d groups. End points included a 2-point reduction in the Static Global Assessment score and a 75% reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index.

RESULTS

A 2-point SGA reduction was achieved in 0% (placebo), 15.6% (0.5 mg/kg/d), and 45.1% (1.5 mg/kg/d) (P < .0001). A 75% reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index was achieved in 0% (placebo), 18.2% (0.5 mg/kg/d), and 66.7% (1.5 mg/kg/day) (P < .0001). While serum creatinine increased in patients treated with ISA247 1.5 mg/kg/d, it remained within the normal range.

LIMITATIONS

Longer-term studies are needed to evaluate the effect of ISA247 on renal function.

CONCLUSION

ISA247 appears safe and effective for treating moderate to severe psoriasis.

Cytokine and Anti-Cytokine Therapies for Psoriasis and Atopic Dermatitis

Since the discovery of cytokines as key mediators in inflammation, targeting the cytokine network has represented a promising therapeutic approach. Psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, as T cell-mediated diseases with a strong cytokine component and a high unmet medical need, have moved into the focus of experimental therapies. Whereas pro-inflammatory cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha are overexpressed in both diseases, a type 1 cytokine pattern predominates in psoriasis and a type 2 cytokine pattern is of pathophysiological importance at least in the initial stages of atopic dermatitis. Strategies for intervention into the cytokine network have included antagonism of pro-inflammatory cytokines (e.g. TNFalpha, interleukin [IL]-1, IL-8, IL-12, IL-18, IL-23) with neutralizing antibodies and soluble receptors, application of recombinant cytokines (e.g. IL-4, IL-10, IL-11, interferon [IFN]-gamma) to shift the cytokine balance, and administration of small molecules to modulate cytokine expression or signaling. Results from the clinic have led to novel therapeutic options as well as a better understanding of the pathophysiology of inflammatory skin diseases. This review highlights the various therapeutic strategies, results from the clinic (that are in some cases preliminary), and insights that can be drawn from the more advanced clinical studies and the use of approved cytokine-directed therapies.

Safety and tolerability of 1% pimecrolimus cream among infants: experience with 1133 patients treated for up to 2 years

Pimecrolimus is a calcineurin inhibitor developed for the topical treatment of atopic dermatitis. During the clinical development of 1% pimecrolimus cream, 1133 patients 3 to 23 months of age with mild to severe atopic dermatitis were treated for up to 2 years. The objective of this review is to discuss the safety and tolerability of 1% pimecrolimus cream among infants, on the basis of the combined results from all studies (4 pharmacokinetic studies and 6 clinical trials) conducted among these patients. Pimecrolimus blood concentrations measured for 35 patients were consistently low (< or =1 ng/mL in >80% of samples), irrespective of the disease severity and extent, and remained low during intermittent treatment for up to 1 year. The level of systemic exposure to pimecrolimus among infants was comparable to that observed for older pediatric patients enrolled in the same studies and treated in the same way with 1% pimecrolimus cream, which indicated that young pediatric patients are not at higher risk of significant percutaneous absorption of topically applied pimecrolimus, despite their large skin surface area/body mass ratio. The 6 clinical trials included a total of 1098 infants, who were treated for periods ranging from 4 weeks to 2 years. Most of these patients (60%) had moderate to severe disease at baseline. The most frequently reported adverse events were common childhood disorders such as nasopharyngitis, pyrexia, upper respiratory tract infections, ear infections, and bronchitis. During the double-blind (DB) studies or DB phases of studies, the incidence rates for the most frequently reported adverse events were similar for patients who received 1% pimecrolimus cream and patients who received the vehicle, except for the incidence of teething, which was higher among the pimecrolimus-treated infants (relative risk: 2.02; 95% confidence interval: 1.32-3.27). Treatment with 1% pimecrolimus cream was not associated with an increase in the overall incidence of nonskin infections, compared with the vehicle (relative risk: 1.015; 95% confidence interval: 0.88-1.18). The incidence density (ID) rates for total bacterial, fungal, parasitic, and viral skin infections during the DB studies or DB phases of studies were comparable for patients treated with 1% pimecrolimus cream and patients who received the vehicle. The ID rate of herpes simplex virus infections was 0.8 cases per 1000 patient-months of follow-up monitoring among patients treated with 1% pimecrolimus cream and 1.7 cases per 1000 patient-months of follow-up monitoring among patients who received the vehicle. Considering all 1098 infants treated with 1% pimecrolimus cream in DB trials and open-label studies, the ID rate of clinically diagnosed eczema herpeticum was 1.3 cases per 1000 patient-months of follow-up monitoring. Burning and erythema were the most frequently reported application site reactions, with ID rates of 2.0 and 1.2 cases per 1000 patient-months of follow-up monitoring, respectively. No sign of immunosuppression was found among infants treated intermittently with 1% pimecrolimus cream for up to 2 years; they demonstrated normal immune responses to vaccinations and did not show increases in the incidence of systemic infections or skin infections over time.