Tofacitinib (CP-690,550), an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, improves patient-reported outcomes in a phase 2b, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis

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.

A systematic review of 454 randomized controlled trials using the Dermatology Life Quality Index: experience in 69 diseases and 43 countries

BACKGROUND

Over 29 years of clinical application, the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) has remained the most used patient-reported outcome (PRO) in dermatology due to its robustness, simplicity and ease of use.

OBJECTIVES

To generate further evidence of the DLQI's utility in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to cover all diseases and interventions.

METHODS

The methodology followed PRISMA guidelines and included seven bibliographical databases, searching articles published from 1 January 1994 until 16 November 2021. Articles were reviewed independently by two assessors, and an adjudicator resolved any opinion differences.

RESULTS

Of 3220 screened publications, 454 articles meeting the eligibility criteria for inclusion, describing research on 198 190 patients, were analysed. DLQI scores were primary endpoints in 24 (5.3%) of studies. Most studies were of psoriasis (54.1%), although 69 different diseases were studied. Most study drugs were systemic (85.1%), with biologics comprising 55.9% of all pharmacological interventions. Topical treatments comprised 17.0% of total pharmacological interventions. Nonpharmacological interventions, mainly laser therapy and ultraviolet radiation treatment, comprised 12.2% of the total number of interventions. The majority of studies (63.7%) were multicentric, with trials conducted in at least 42 different countries; 40.2% were conducted in multiple countries. The minimal clinically importance difference (MCID) was reported in the analysis of 15.0% of studies, but only 1.3% considered full score meaning banding of the DLQI. Forty-seven (10.4%) of the studies investigated statistical correlation of the DLQI with clinical severity assessment or other PRO/quality of life tools; and 61-86% of studies had within-group scores differences greater than the MCID in 'active treatment arms'. The Jadad risk-of-bias scale showed that bias was generally low, as 91.8% of the studies had Jadad scores of ≥ 3; only 0.4% of studies showed a high risk of bias from randomization. Thirteen per cent had a high risk of bias from blinding and 10.1% had a high risk of bias from unknown outcomes of all participants in the studies. In 18.5% of the studies the authors declared that they followed an intention-to-treat protocol; imputation for missing DLQI data was used in 34.4% of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review provides a wealth of evidence of the use of the DLQI in clinical trials to inform researchers' and -clinicians' decisions for its further use. Recommendations are also made for improving the reporting of data from future RCTs using the DLQI.

SOCS-JAK-STAT inhibitors and SOCS mimetics as treatment options for autoimmune uveitis, psoriasis, lupus, and autoimmune encephalitis

Autoimmune diseases arise from atypical immune responses that attack self-tissue epitopes, and their development is intricately connected to the disruption of the JAK-STAT signaling pathway, where SOCS proteins play crucial roles. Conditions such as autoimmune uveitis, psoriasis, lupus, and autoimmune encephalitis exhibit immune system dysfunctions associated with JAK-STAT signaling dysregulation. Emerging therapeutic strategies utilize JAK-STAT inhibitors and SOCS mimetics to modulate immune responses and alleviate autoimmune manifestations. Although more research and clinical studies are required to assess their effectiveness, safety profiles, and potential for personalized therapeutic approaches in autoimmune conditions, JAK-STAT inhibitors and SOCS mimetics show promise as potential treatment options. This review explores the action, effectiveness, safety profiles, and future prospects of JAK inhibitors and SOCS mimetics as therapeutic agents for psoriasis, autoimmune uveitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and autoimmune encephalitis. The findings underscore the importance of investigating these targeted therapies to advance treatment options for individuals suffering from autoimmune diseases.

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.

Real-Life Effectiveness of Apremilast for the Treatment of Psoriasis in Belgium: Results From the Observational OTELO Study

INTRODUCTION

Apremilast is approved for the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. However, data on the efficacy and safety of apremilast in clinical practice are limited. We assessed the real-world use and effectiveness of apremilast in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis visiting dermatologist practices in Belgium, from the perspectives of the patient and the physician.

METHODS

This prospective observational study enrolled adults aged 18 years or more initiating apremilast between 6 April 2017 and 30 June 2018, per Belgian reimbursement criteria. Primary outcome was the Patient Benefit Index for Skin Diseases (PBI-S). Secondary outcomes included the Patient Global Assessment (PtGA), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), and body surface area (BSA). Patients were followed up for up to 18 months.

RESULTS

Overall, 122 enrolled patients received at least one dose of apremilast, of which 89 received treatment for more than 150 days and were included in the reference population. Treatment goals most frequently identified (at least 70% of patients) as "very important" in the PBI-S were related to physical impairments. After 6 months of apremilast treatment, 61-78% of patients reported they had achieved these goals; only 12.5% assessed their disease as severe (PtGA, 53.6% at apremilast initiation) and over half reported a DLQI score of 5 or less, indicating improved quality of life. As assessed by the physician, 68.4% and 35.1% of patients achieved at least a 50% and 75% reduction in PASI, respectively, at month 6. Apremilast was well tolerated with no new safety signals identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Our real-world data indicate that apremilast fulfils the expectations of Belgian patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, and from the perspectives of both the patient and physician, apremilast has a positive impact on their disease.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03097003.

Studies on the anti-psoriasis effects and its mechanism of a dual JAK2/FLT3 inhibitor flonoltinib maleate

Psoriasis is a chronic, inflammatory autoimmune disease mediated by T cells, and characterized with abnormal proliferation and differentiation of keratinocytes, and inflammatory infiltration. The Janus kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway has been identified to play essential roles in mediating various of biological processes, and is closely related to autoimmune diseases. Dendritic cells (DCs) are important antigen presenting cells and play an important regulatory role in T cells. The proliferation, differentiation and function of DCs are regulated by JAK and FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) signal pathways. Flonoltinib maleate (FM), a high selectivity dual JAK2/FLT3 inhibitor with IC50 values of 0.8 nM and 15 nM for JAK2 and FLT3, respectively, was developed by our laboratory. Moreover, FM was a potent JAK2 inhibitor with 863-fold and 696-fold selectivity over JAK1 and JAK3, respectively. In this study, the anti-psoriasis activity of FM was evaluated both in vitro and in vivo. FM effectively inhibited the proliferation of HaCaT, the inflammatory keratinocyte induced by M5 and markedly suppressed the generation and differentiation of DCs from bone marrow (BM), and inhibited the expression of FLT3 in DCs in vitro. FM effectively inhibited the ear thickening and improved the pathological changes of the ear in interleukin (IL)-23-induced psoriasis-like acanthosis mouse model. Further in keratin 14-vascular endothelial growth factor (K14-VEGF) transgenic homozygous mice model, FM could obviously improve the psoriatic symptom and pathological changes, significantly inhibit the generations of Th1 and Th17 cells in the spleen, and the accumulations of DCs in the ears. FM could also significantly reduce the expression of various inflammatory factors both in C57BL/6 and K14-VEGF mice ears, and the serum of K14-VEGF mice. Mechanism revealed that FM effectively suppressed the phosphorylation of JAK2, STAT3 and STAT5 in inflammatory keratinocytes and the mice ears of C57BL/6 and K14-VEGF, as well as the phosphorylation of FLT3 in K14-VEGF mice ears. In conclusion, FM plays an excellent anti-psoriasis activity, including inhibiting keratinocyte proliferation and regulating inflammatory response through inhibiting JAK2 and FLT3 signaling pathway.

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.

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.

JAK-inhibitors. New players in the field of immune-mediated diseases, beyond rheumatoid arthritis

Janus kinase (JAK)/signal transducers and activators of transcription (STATs) are a group of molecules associated with one of the major pathways through which many cytokines exert and integrate their function, and as such they are increasingly recognized as playing critical role in the pathogenesis subserving various immune-mediated diseases, including RA, PsA, SpAs, IBD, skin disorders (e.g. alopecia areata, atopic dermatitis), single-gene disorders like interferonopathies, and others. JAKs are the key initiating players of the JAK/STAT pathway. Upon binding of their respective effector molecules (cytokines, IFNs, growth factors and others) to type I and type II receptors, JAKs are activated, and through phosphorylation of themselves and of other molecules (including STATs), they mediate signal transduction to the nucleus. A class of drugs—called JAK inhibitors or JAKinibs—that block one or more JAKs has been developed in the last decade, and now numbers >20 members. Although, so far, JAK inhibitors have been marketed only for RA and PsA, these drugs have been tested in phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials for other inflammatory conditions and beyond. In this review, we summarize the clinical data, including efficacy and safety, available for JAK inhibitors used in some immune-mediated conditions other than RA.

Tofacitinib in the management of active psoriatic arthritis: patient selection and perspectives

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). It provides an alternative option for patients who have had an inadequate response and tolerance to other disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). It has demonstrated comparable efficacy to biologics, is effective in the management of treatment resistant disease, and is reported to improve enthesitis, dactylitis, and radiographic progression. Tofacitinib is also associated with an increased risk of serious infections, malignancy, and laboratory abnormalities. There is currently a large armamentarium of therapies for psoriatic arthritis, and choosing among treatments can be challenging. Due to this wide selection, a thorough assessment of psoriatic disease phenotype, patient preference, disease presentation, and comorbidities is critical. This review addresses key considerations in patient selection for the treatment of PsA with tofacitinib.

Itch: an under-recognized problem in psoriasis

Psoriasis has historically been considered a nonpruritic dermatosis, in contrast with atopic dermatitis. Thus, itch has often been underappreciated and overlooked in psoriasis. However, increasing evidence over the past decade has shown that itch can be one of the most prevalent and burdensome symptoms associated with psoriasis, affecting almost every patient to some degree. Itch can involve the entire body, although it predominantly affects the legs, hands, back, body and especially the scalp. Uncontrolled itch can significantly impact all aspects of the well-being and quality of life of the patient. While there has been some progress in trying to better understand the pathophysiology of itch in psoriasis, more research effort and interest are needed. This under-recognition of itch in psoriasis is clearly reflected in the dearth of treatment options targeting itch despite significant advancement in treating the lesions themselves. Recently, however, clinical studies have begun to include itch as a study outcome. The resulting data have demonstrated concomitant antipruritic benefits and improved Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores with mainstay treatments for psoriasis, such as topical corticosteroids and vitamin D analogs, phototherapies, and various systemics and biologics. This article takes a closer look at this debilitating symptom, reviewing the available epidemiology data for psoriatic itch, presenting the current understanding of psoriatic itch pathophysiology and highlighting important clinical data for various treatment options for itch. Practical considerations for increasing the recognition of itch as well as improving its management in psoriasis are also provided.

Tofacitinib for the treatment of lichen planopilaris: A case series

Lichen planopilaris (LPP) is an inflammatory cicatricial alopecia for which many different therapies are attempted with varying success. The Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, tofacitinib, has been shown to be effective in treating the noncicatricial alopecia, alopecia areata. As in alopecia areata, upregulation of interferon and JAK signaling may play a role in LPP. We retrospectively reviewed the cases of 10 patients with recalcitrant LPP who were treated with oral tofacitinib. Patients received oral tofacitinib 5 mg twice or three times daily for 2-19 months as either monotherapy or adjunctive therapy to other ongoing treatments including intralesional triamcinolone, hydroxychloroquine, and tacrolimus ointment. Eight patients had clinical improvement in LPP with tofacitinib as either monotherapy (4/10) or adjunctive therapy (4/10). LPP Activity Index (LPPAI) before and after treatment was measured in seven patients and was significantly different (6.22 before treatment, 3.08 after treatment; p value = .0014). Reduction in LPPAI ranged from 30 to 94%. One patient complained of 10 pound (4.5 kg) weight gain after 12 months on tofacitinib. No other adverse effects were reported. Treatment with oral tofacitinib either as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy can lead to measurable improvement in recalcitrant LPP.

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.

Alopecia Areata: An Update on Treatment Options for Children

Pediatric alopecia areata is a spectrum of autoimmune non-scarring alopecia in which some patients lose small patches of hair from their scalp but others lose more or all of the hair from the scalp and body, including eyebrows and eyelashes. Few studies have looked at therapies for this disorder in children, so much of the data are derived from adult literature and describe off-label use of medication. Generally, topical therapies consisting of topical steroids and topical irritating compounds/contact sensitizers are used. Systemic therapies that block the immune system, including Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, have also been used in this disease. This paper reviews the data on therapy for alopecia areata in pediatric patients.

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.

Treatment of plaque psoriasis with an ointment formulation of the Janus kinase inhibitor, tofacitinib: a Phase 2b randomized clinical trial

Background

Most psoriasis patients have mild to moderate disease, commonly treated topically. Current topical agents have limited efficacy and undesirable side effects associated with long-term use. Tofacitinib is a small molecule Janus kinase inhibitor investigated for the topical treatment of psoriasis.

Methods

This was a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, vehicle-controlled Phase 2b study of tofacitinib ointment (2 % and 1 %) applied once (QD) or twice (BID) daily in adults with mild to moderate plaque psoriasis. Primary endpoint: proportion of patients with Calculated Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA-C) clear or almost clear and ≥2 grade improvement from baseline at Weeks 8 and 12. Secondary endpoints: proportion of patients with PGA-C clear or almost clear; proportion achieving Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response; percent change from baseline in PASI and body surface area; change from baseline in Itch Severity Item (ISI). Adverse events (AEs) were monitored and clinical laboratory parameters measured.

Results

Overall, 435 patients were randomized and 430 patients received treatment. The proportion of patients with PGA-C clear or almost clear and ≥2 grade improvement from baseline at Week 8 was 18.6 % for 2 % tofacitinib QD (80 % confidence interval [CI] for difference from vehicle: 3.8, 18.2 %) and 22.5 % for 2 % tofacitinib BID (80 % CI: 3.1, 18.5 %); this was significantly higher vs vehicle for both dosage regimens. No significant difference vs vehicle was seen at Week 12. Significantly more patients achieved PGA-C clear or almost clear with 2 % tofacitinib QD and BID and 1 % tofacitinib QD (not BID) at Week 8, and with 2 % tofacitinib BID at Week 12. Pruritus was significantly reduced vs vehicle with 2 % and 1 % tofacitinib BID (starting Day 2), and 2 % tofacitinib QD (starting Day 3). Overall, 44.2 % of patients experienced AEs, 8.1 % experienced application site AEs, and 2.3 % experienced serious AEs. The highest incidence of AEs (including application site AEs) was in the vehicle QD group.

Conclusions

In adults with mild to moderate plaque psoriasis, 2 % tofacitinib ointment QD and BID showed greater efficacy than vehicle at Week 8, but not Week 12, with an acceptable safety and local tolerability profile.

Trial registration

NCT01831466 registered March 28, 2013.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12895-016-0051-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effect of tofacitinib withdrawal and re-treatment on patient-reported outcomes: results from a Phase 3 study in patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor being investigated for psoriasis. A Phase 3 withdrawal/re-treatment study (NCT01186744; OPT Retreatment) showed tofacitinib re-treatment was effective in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the effects of tofacitinib withdrawal/re-treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and disease symptoms measured by patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

METHODS

The study was divided into initial treatment, treatment withdrawal, and re-treatment periods. Initial treatment: patients were randomized to receive tofacitinib 5 (n = 331) or 10 mg (n = 335) BID for 24 weeks. Treatment withdrawal: patients who achieved both ≥ 75% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score from baseline and Physician's Global Assessment of 'clear'/'almost clear' at Week (W)24 received placebo (withdrawal) or the previous dose (continuous treatment). Re-treatment: at relapse (> 50% loss of W24 PASI response) or at W40, patients received their initial tofacitinib dose. PROs included: Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Itch Severity Item (ISI), Short Form-36 (SF-36) and Patient's Global Assessment (PtGA).

RESULTS

After initial treatment with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID, substantial and significant improvements were reported for mean DLQI (baseline: 12.6 and 12.6; W24: 5.1 and 2.6) and ISI (baseline: 6.7 and 6.9; W24: 2.9 and 1.6). Patients continuously treated with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID maintained those improvements through Week 56 (DLQI: 3.0 and 2.1; ISI: 2.3 and 1.4). By W40, patients withdrawn from tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID showed worsening in DLQI (5.0 and 6.2) and ISI (3.7 and 4.0) scores; improvements were regained upon re-treatment (W56, DLQI: 3.4 and 2.4; ISI: 2.2 and 1.6). Similar results were reported for PtGA and SF-36.

CONCLUSION

Continuous tofacitinib treatment provided sustained improvement in HRQoL and disease symptoms. Patients randomized to treatment withdrawal lost initial improvements. Upon re-treatment, improvements were recaptured to levels comparable to those seen with continuous treatment.

Efficacy of tofacitinib in treatment of alopecia universalis in two patients

BACKGROUND

Autoimmune-triggered non-scarring hair loss is a feature of alopecia areata (AA). Initially patchy and often self-limited, severe hair loss forms include the complete loss of scalp hair or alopecia totalis (AT) and complete loss of all hair or alopecia universalis (AU). For AT and AU a reliable treatment has remained elusive. The targeted kinase inhibitor tofacitinib, in current use for treatment of other immune diseases, has been hypothesized as a viable option for AA, AT and AU therapy and a few case reports support this.

OBJECTIVE

Our study aims to provide evidence for the effectiveness of tofacitinib in the treatment of AU.

METHODS

Two patients diagnosed with long-term AU were prescribed tofacitinib citrate at a dosage of 5 mg twice daily and observed for eight months.

RESULTS

In the first patient, beard growth was significant by 3 months of treatment. By 6 months of treatment, hair growth was apparent throughout the entire body. By 8 months of treatment, scalp hair continued to grow longer and thicker. In addition, eyelashes and eyebrows were established. In the second patient, a noticeable increase in scalp hair was present just 1 month into treatment. By 4 months into treatment, significant scalp regrowth was observed as well as eyelash, eyebrow and beard regrowth. Axillary hair regrowth and isolated leg hair was noted by 8 months.

CONCLUSION

In our patients, tofacitinib successfully alleviated AU in the absence of significant adverse side-effects. We recommend that further study be required to establish safety and confirm efficacy.

Tofacitinib versus etanercept or placebo in patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis: patient-reported outcomes from a Phase 3 study

BACKGROUND

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor that is being investigated for psoriasis. Psoriasis impacts on physical and psychological well-being; improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with etanercept in psoriasis are well documented.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate HRQoL with tofacitinib, vs. placebo or etanercept, in the Phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority, Oral-treatment Psoriasis Trial (OPT) Compare Study (NCT01241591).

METHODS

Adults with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis were randomized 3:3:3:1 to tofacitinib 10 or 5 mg twice daily (BID), etanercept 50 mg twice weekly or placebo, for 12 weeks. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) included Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Itch Severity Item and Patient Global Assessment of psoriasis.

RESULTS

At baseline, 83.4% (911/1092) of patients had a DLQI score ranging between 6 and 30, indicating a substantial burden of disease. By Week 12, 47.3%, 43.6% and 30.9% of patients in the tofacitinib 10 mg BID, etanercept and tofacitinib 5 mg BID groups, respectively, had a DLQI score of 0 or 1 (no effect of psoriasis on QoL) vs. 7.8% for placebo (all P < 0.0001). Tofacitinib significantly reduced itch vs. placebo (P < 0.05 both doses) and etanercept (P < 0.0001 both doses) within 1 day of starting treatment. Furthermore, reductions in itch were greater with tofacitinib 10 mg BID, vs. etanercept, at Weeks 2-12 (all time points P < 0.05). At Week 2, an Itch Severity Item score of 'little or no itch' was more frequent with tofacitinib 10 mg (68.6%) vs. etanercept (57.4%) and placebo (12.2%), and the PtGA response rate was significantly greater with tofacitinib 10 mg vs. placebo (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Oral tofacitinib provided significant improvements across multiple PROs by Week 12. Improvements with tofacitinib 10 mg BID were comparable to etanercept, and improvements in itch were greater and more rapid with tofacitinib 10 mg BID.

Oral tofacitinib for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis

New treatments for psoriasis have been developed based on increasing knowledge of the underlying pathogenesis of the disease. The development of very safe and highly effective biologics has revolutionized the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Biologics are not perfect, however, as they are delivered parenterally, immunogenic, and costly. Small molecule agents, with molecular weights of less than 1 kDa, are being developed and hold the advantage of being administered orally. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor that has been developed to disrupt the aberrant JAK-STAT pathway that contributes to the pathogenesis of psoriasis. Phase II and Phase III clinical trial results for tofacitinib are encouraging, demonstrating substantial efficacy and satisfactory safety in the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis. An effective oral treatment without the organ toxicities of methotrexate and cyclosporine, tofacitinib is a promising alternative to biologics in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

Tofacitinib versus etanercept or placebo in moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis: a phase 3 randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

New therapeutic options are needed for patients with psoriasis. Tofacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, is being investigated as a treatment for moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis. In this study, we aimed to compare two tofacitinib doses with high-dose etanercept or placebo in this patient population.

METHODS

In this phase 3, randomised, multicentre, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, 12-week, non-inferiority trial, adult patients with chronic stable plaque psoriasis (for ≥12 months) who were candidates for systemic or phototherapy and had a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score of 12 or higher and a Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) of moderate or severe, and had failed to respond to, had a contraindication to, or were intolerant to at least one conventional systemic therapy, were enrolled from 122 investigational dermatology centres worldwide. Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 3:3:3:1 ratio to receive tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily at about 12 h intervals, etanercept 50 mg subcutaneously twice weekly at about 3-4 day intervals, or placebo. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated randomisation schedule, and all patients and study personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The co-primary endpoints were the proportion of patients at week 12 with at least a 75% reduction in the PASI score from baseline (PASI75 response) and the proportion of patients achieving a PGA score of "clear" or "almost clear" (PGA response), analysed in the full analysis set (all patients who were randomised and received at least one dose of study drug). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01241591.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 29, 2010, and Sept 13, 2012, we enrolled 1106 eligible adult patients with chronic plaque psoriasis and randomly assigned them to the four treatment groups (330 to tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily, 332 to tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily, 336 to etanercept 50 mg twice weekly, and 108 to placebo). Of these patients, 1101 actually received their assigned study medication (329 in the tofactinib 5 mg group, 330 in the tofacitinib 10 mg group, 335 in the etanercept group, and 107 in the placebo group). At week 12, PASI75 responses were recorded in 130 (39·5%) of 329 patients in the tofacitinib 5 mg group, 210 (63·6%) of 330 in the tofacitinib 10 mg group, 197 (58·8%) of 335 in the etanercept group, and six (5·6%) of 107 in the placebo group. A PGA response was achieved by 155 (47·1%) of 329 patients in the tofacitinib 5 mg group, 225 (68·2%) of 330 in the tofacitinib 10 mg group, 222 (66·3%) of 335 in the etanercept group, and 16 (15·0%) of 107 in the placebo group. The rate of adverse events was similar across the four groups, with serious adverse events occurring in seven (2%) of 329 patients in the tofacitinib 5 mg group, five (2%) of 330 in the tofacitinib 10 mg group, seven (2%) of 335 in the etanercept group, and two (2%) of 107 in the placebo group. Three (1%) of 329 patients in the tofacitinib 5 mg group, ten (3%) of 330 in the tofacitinib 10 mg group, 11 (3%) of 335 in the etanercept group, and four (4%) of 107 patients in the placebo group discontinued their assigned treatment because of adverse events.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, the 10 mg twice daily dose of tofacitinib was non-inferior to etanercept 50 mg twice weekly and was superior to placebo, but the 5 mg twice daily dose did not show non-inferiority to etanercept 50 mg twice weekly. The adverse event rates over 12 weeks were similar for tofacitinib and etanercept. This study indicates that in the future tofacitinib could provide a convenient and well-tolerated therapeutic option for patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

FUNDING

Pfizer Inc.

JAK3/STAT6 Stimulates Bone Marrow-Derived Fibroblast Activation in Renal Fibrosis

Renal fibrosis is a final common manifestation of CKD resulting in progressive loss of kidney function. Bone marrow-derived fibroblast precursors contribute significantly to the pathogenesis of renal fibrosis. However, the signaling mechanisms underlying the activation of bone marrow-derived fibroblast precursors in the kidney are not fully understood. In this study, we investigated the role of the Janus kinase 3 (JAK3)/signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT6) signaling pathway in the activation of bone marrow-derived fibroblasts. In cultured mouse monocytes, IL-4 or IL-13 activated STAT6 and induced expression of α-smooth muscle actin and extracellular matrix proteins (fibronectin and collagen I), which was abolished by a JAK3 inhibitor (CP690,550) in a dose-dependent manner or blocked in the absence of STAT6. In vivo, STAT6 was activated in interstitial cells of the obstructed kidney, an effect that was abolished by CP690,550. Mice treated with CP690,550 accumulated fewer bone marrow-derived fibroblasts in the obstructed kidneys compared with vehicle-treated mice. Treatment with CP690,550 also significantly reduced myofibroblast transformation, matrix protein expression, fibrosis development, and apoptosis in obstructed kidneys. Furthermore, STAT6-deficient mice accumulated fewer bone marrow-derived fibroblasts in the obstructed kidneys, produced less extracellular matrix protein, and developed much less fibrosis. Finally, wild-type mice engrafted with STAT6(-/-) bone marrow cells displayed fewer bone marrow-derived fibroblasts in the obstructed kidneys and showed less severe renal fibrosis compared with wild-type mice engrafted with STAT6(+/+) bone marrow cells. Our results demonstrate that JAK3/STAT6 has an important role in bone marrow-derived fibroblast activation, extracellular matrix production, and interstitial fibrosis development.

Randomized trial of tofacitinib in active ulcerative colitis: analysis of efficacy based on patient-reported outcomes

Background

Tofacitinib, a novel, oral Janus kinase inhibitor, demonstrated a dose-dependent efficacy for induction of clinical response and remission in patients with active ulcerative colitis (UC). The objective of the current study was to determine the effect of tofacitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

Methods

Eligible patients (≥18 years of age) with a diagnosis of active UC (total Mayo score of 6-12 points and moderately-to-severely active disease on sigmoidoscopy) were randomized in a 2:2:2:3:3 ratio to receive oral tofacitinib 0.5 mg, 3 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg, or placebo twice daily (BID) for 8 weeks. PROs were assessed by the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) and the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patient-Reported Treatment Impact (IBD PRTI) survey.

Results

At Week 8, mean IBDQ total scores had improved relative to baseline across all five treatment groups (baseline range 123.2-134.5; Week 8 range 149.6-175.4). Improvement from baseline was significantly greater (P = 0.001) for tofacitinib 15 mg BID versus placebo. For tofacitinib 15 mg BID, most patients reported satisfaction or extreme satisfaction, definite preference for tofacitinib, and definite willingness to use tofacitinib again on the IBD PRTI at week 8. Patients achieving endoscopic remission (Mayo endoscopy score of 0) had significantly higher IBDQ scores and favorable PRTI scores than those not achieving endoscopic remission.

Conclusions

Short-term treatment with tofacitinib BID was associated with dose-dependent improvement in health-related quality of life and patient preferences for tofacitinib. The results complement previously reported efficacy and safety data for the Phase II study. (NCT 00787202, November 6, 2008).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12876-015-0239-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The JAK-STAT pathway: impact on human disease and therapeutic intervention

The Janus kinase (JAK)-signal transducer of activators of transcription (STAT) pathway is now recognized as an evolutionarily conserved signaling pathway employed by diverse cytokines, interferons, growth factors, and related molecules. This pathway provides an elegant and remarkably straightforward mechanism whereby extracellular factors control gene expression. It thus serves as a fundamental paradigm for how cells sense environmental cues and interpret these signals to regulate cell growth and differentiation. Genetic mutations and polymorphisms are functionally relevant to a variety of human diseases, especially cancer and immune-related conditions. The clinical relevance of the pathway has been confirmed by the emergence of a new class of therapeutics that targets JAKs.

Systemic therapies for psoriasis: an evidence-based update

BACKGROUND

The treatment of psoriasis has evolved over the years, with the focus now largely on the use of biologic agents. With treatment options expanding, evidence-based studies to guide physicians' treatment decisions become increasingly important.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to review current literature to provide an evidence-based update on systemic therapies for psoriasis.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted from 1 January 2012 through 1 July 2013 to identify all randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews of systemic psoriasis treatments.

RESULTS

A total of 46 publications were identified and reviewed. Randomized clinical trials for the treatment of psoriasis focused heavily on biologic agents, both currently approved agents and anti-interleukin (IL)-17 agents in development. The anti-IL-17 agents appear effective according to phase II clinical trials. Several new oral agents are being studied, and, although they do not appear as effective as the biologic agents, they may be an option as an alternative to traditional oral agents, with more favorable safety profiles. Several systematic reviews focused on efficacy among the biologics, with infliximab consistently superior to the others, and etanercept the least effective of the tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors. Longer-term safety data on biologics is now available and encouraging.

LIMITATIONS

Current studies of traditional oral therapies are lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Current studies continue to support the use of biologic agents in the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, with better efficacy and safety profiles than traditional systemic agents. Newer anti-IL-17 agents and several new oral agents are in development and have shown promise in clinical trials.

JAK inhibitors: treatment efficacy and safety profile in patients with psoriasis

Janus kinase (JAK) pathways are key mediators in the immunopathogenesis of psoriasis. Psoriasis treatment has evolved with the advent of targeted therapies, which inhibit specific components of the psoriasis proinflammatory cascade. JAK inhibitors have been studied in early phase trials for psoriasis patients, and the data are promising for these agents as potential treatment options. Tofacitinib, an oral or topically administered JAK1 and JAK3 inhibitor, and ruxolitinib, a topical JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor, have been most extensively studied in psoriasis, and both improved clinical symptoms of psoriasis. Additional JAK1 or JAK3 inhibitors are being studied in clinical trials. In phase III trials for rheumatoid arthritis, tofacitinib was efficacious in patients with inadequate responses to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, methotrexate monotherapy, or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The results of phase III trials are pending for these therapies in psoriasis, and these agents may represent important alternatives for patients with inadequate responses to currently available agents. Further investigations with long-term clinical trials are necessary to verify their utility in psoriasis treatment and assess their safety in this patient population.

Current and potential immune therapies and vaccines in the management of psoriasis

Psoriasis is a chronic, immune skin disease associated with significant morbidity. Development of psoriasis is influenced by numerous genes, one allele is HLA-CW*0602. Other genes and single nucleotide polymorphisms affect immunologic pathways and antimicrobial peptide synthesis. Dendritic cells initiate psoriasis by activating T-cells toward a Th1 and Th17 response, with increased cytokines including TNF-α, IL-6, -12, -17, -22, and -23. IL-22 appears to promote keratinocyte dedifferentiation and increased antimicrobial peptide synthesis while TNF-α and IL-17 induce leukocyte localization within the psoriatic plaque. These recent insights identifying key cytokine pathways have led to the development of inhibitors with significant efficacy in the treatment of psoriasis. While a strategy for vaccine modulation of the immune response in psoriasis is in progress, with new technology they may provide a cost-effective long-term treatment that may induce tolerance or targeted self-inhibition for patients with autoimmune disorders, such as psoriasis.

Clinical utility of the oral JAK inhibitor tofacitinib in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Immune/inflammatory cells act in rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-affected patients by synthesizing several inflammatory mediators, including cytokines that initiate intracellular signaling. Recently, small molecule inhibitors of transduction and transcription signals that influence the intracellular pathways (such as the Janus kinase [JAK] family of tyrosine kinases) have been tested for RA treatment. Four members of the JAK family are known: JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and TyK2. JAK1/JAK3 constitutively binds to the cytoplasmic portion of the cytokine receptor – the common gamma chain – that represents a common subunit of several cytokines involved in T-cell and natural killer cell development, as well as in B-cell activation. Tofacitinib is an oral JAK inhibitor that is now available and effective in RA treatment, as shown in multiple Phase II and Phase III clinical trials. However, long-term safety data and comparisons with other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and small molecule inhibitors are necessary to better determine the role of tofacitinib in RA.

Immunotargeting in the management of psoriasis

The treatment of psoriasis has been revolutionized since the introduction of biologic therapies. Prior to their introduction, it was unclear if psoriasis was primarily a keratinocyte signaling dysfunction or an autoimmune T-cell mediated pathway. Nonspecific T-cell targeting treatments had been used with some success, but they were limited by a narrow therapeutic index. The nonspecific nature of these agents was fraught with side effects, and the efficacy of these treatments pales in comparison to current treatments. The initial biologic molecules, alefacept and efalizumab, were not specific for any T-cell driven pathway, and neither are currently available in the USA. The successors to these early therapies have shown high efficacy and low side effects in psoriasis and other autoimmune diseases through the specific targeting of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α). Since the initial use of antitumor necrosis factor agents, a renaissance in our understanding of psoriasis has been underway, leading to the elucidation of the T-helper 17 (Th17) from the Th1 pathway. With each new treatment, the pathogenesis for psoriasis continues to be more defined, allowing for improved targeted therapies and the ability to achieve new milestones in efficacy.

Psoriatic arthritis: recent progress in pathophysiology and drug development

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is the second most common inflammatory arthropathy, after rheumatoid arthritis diagnosis, in early arthritis clinics. Most patients have established psoriasis, often for years, prior to the onset of joint pain and swelling; in addition, associated features of nail disease, dactylitis, enthesitis, spondylitis or uveitis may be present. Psoriasis may not be immediately apparent, as small or patchy lesions may occur in the scalp or perineum. PsA presents as a symmetrical polyarthritis, similar to rheumatoid arthritis, or an asymmetrical oligoarthritis with a predilection for the distal interphalangeal joints. Spinal involvement is similar, although not identical, to ankylosing spondylitis. Joint damage occurs early; up to 50% of PsA patients have an 11% annual erosion rate in the first 2 years of disease duration, suggesting it is not a benign condition. There have been significant advances in our understanding of PsA pathogenesis in recent years, in the areas of genetics and molecular biology, implicating both the innate and the adaptive immune systems. This has lead to the introduction of evidence-based targeted therapy, primarily with tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) agents. Therapy with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, such as methotrexate and leflunomide, remains the first-choice therapeutic intervention, even though there are few randomised controlled trials with these agents. In contrast, a number of successful studies of TNFi agents demonstrate excellent efficacy, in combination with methotrexate, and several novel agents are currently in development for the treatment of PsA.