Secukinumab improves hand, foot and nail lesions in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: subanalysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, regimen-finding phase 2 trial

Secukinumab in the Treatment of Psoriasis: A Narrative Review on Early Treatment and Real-World Evidence

Psoriasis is a chronic, immune-mediated, inflammatory skin disease, associated with multiple comorbidities and psychological and psychiatric disorders. The quality of life of patients with this disease is severely compromised, especially in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Secukinumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody, was the first anti-interleukin (IL)-17 biologic approved for treating psoriasis. Secukinumab demonstrated long-lasting efficacy and a good safety profile in individuals with plaque psoriasis, and it is associated with an improvement in health-related quality of life. While there is evidence that early treatment with systemic therapy can affect disease progression and improve long-term outcomes in other autoimmune diseases, evidence is limited in psoriasis, especially in real-world settings. This review provides an overview of studies describing the effectiveness of secukinumab in the treatment of psoriasis summarizing the literature and focusing on real-world evidence and early intervention.

Secukinumab for children and adolescents with enthesitis-related arthritis and psoriatic arthritis: lessons from treatment in adults and the way forward

INTRODUCTION

Targeting IL-17A using Secukinumab, a humanized monoclonal immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1)/κ against IL-17A is a therapeutic option for immune-mediated disorders such as psoriasis and ankylosing spondylitis. The US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency have approved it for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, active psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and non-radiographic axial spondylarthritis. Recently it has also been approved for use in children with severe plaque psoriasis, active psoriatic arthritis, and enthesitis-related arthritis.

AREAS COVERED

This review focuses on the role of Secukinumab in the management of children and adolescents with enthesitis-related arthritis and psoriatic arthritis. We discuss the salient findings of pivotal RCTs and other studies supporting the use of Secukinumab in adults and children, in particular, focusing on its safety and efficacy.

EXPERT OPINION

Secukinumab is a therapeutic target for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and spondyloarthropathies in both adults and children. No major safety signals are observed with its use in short-term follow-up. Thus far, Secukinumab has not been found to significantly increase the risk of tuberculosis (TB).

Small-Molecule Inhibitors and Biologics for Palmoplantar Psoriasis and Palmoplantar Pustulosis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The comparative efficacy of biologics and small-molecule inhibitors in treating palmoplantar psoriasis (PP) and palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy of biologics and small-molecule inhibitors for the treatment of PP and PPP.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for eligible studies from inception to May 13, 2023. This NMA was conducted and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension Statement for Network Meta-Analyses guidelines. Frequentist random-effects models NMA was performed with the surface under the cumulative ranking curve calculated for ranking. Our primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a clear/minimal Palmoplantar Psoriasis/Pustulosis Physician Global Assessment score (PPPGA 0/1 or PPPPGA 0/1) response at 12-16 weeks. Secondary outcomes consisted of the percentage of overall improvement in palmoplantar score and of improvement ≥ 75%, at 12-16 weeks.

RESULTS

The study comprised a total of 29 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), involving 4798 psoriasis patients with palmoplantar diseases. For PP, 16 RCTs with nine different treatments, including adalimumab, apremilast, bimekizumab, etanercept, guselkumab, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and ustekinumab were included for the analysis. In the NMA of PP, secukinumab 300 mg ranked highest (odds ratio [OR] 33.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.37-256.86) in achieving PPPGA 0/1, followed by guselkumab 100 mg (OR 18.68, 95% CI 10.07-34.65). In the case of PPP, seven RCTs with six treatments, including apremilast, etanercept, guselkumab, imsidolimab, spesolimab, and ustekinumab, were included for the analysis. In the NMA of PPP, although no treatment demonstrated a significant difference compared to placebo in achieving PPPPGA 0/1, guselkumab 100 mg showed the greatest statistically significant improvement in the palmoplantar score (weighted mean difference 31.73, 95% CI 19.89-43.57) as a secondary outcome.

CONCLUSION

Among all available biologics and small-molecule inhibitors, secukinumab 300 mg and guselkumab 100 mg had the most favorable efficacy in treating PP and PPP, respectively.

Efficacy of anti-interleukin-17A biological agents for palmoplantar psoriasis and palmoplantar pustulosis: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The comparative efficacy of anti-IL (interleukin)-17A biological agents in palmoplantar psoriasis (PP) and palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) are not well established.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of different dosage regimens of anti-IL-17A biological agents compared with placebo in PP and PPP.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, clinicaltrials.gov, and Embase. Meta-analysis was performed for all outcomes of randomized controlled trials, while network meta-analysis was only performed for the primary outcome.

RESULTS

In total, 21 articles exploring the efficacy of 5 treatment options were included, 4 cohort studies were also reviewed. Meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant difference favoring anti-IL-17A biological agents versus placebo (OR = 6.84, 95 %[CI] [5.34, 8.76]). On-label secukinumab was identified as the most effective treatment option for patients with PP (OR = 33.50, 95 %[CI] [4.37,256.86]). PPP treated with secukinumab 300 mg showed benefit in terms of PPPASI 75 responses over 52 weeks.

CONCLUSION

IL-17A biological agents had better PP disease clearance compared with placebo and on-label secukinumab was identified as the most effective treatment option for PP patients. Secukinumab 300 mg showed benefit for PPP patients.

Bayesian network meta-analysis of head-to-head trials for complete resolution of nail psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Almost 50% of patients with skin psoriasis have concomitant nail involvement. The comparative effectiveness of the available biologics for nail psoriasis (NP) is still an area of contention because of limited data on nails.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy of biologics in achieving complete resolution of NP.

METHODS

We identified studies in PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus. The eligibility criteria included randomized controlled trial (RCTs) or cohort studies for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis with at least two arms of active comparator of biologic reporting at least one efficacy outcome of interest: that is the Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI), the modified NAPSI or the Physician's Global Assessment of Fingernail Psoriasis with a score of 0.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies comprising seven treatments met the inclusion criteria, and were included in the NMA. The NMA showed the odds of complete NP resolution were superior with ixekizumab [risk ratio (RR) 1.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73-3.10] compared with the treatment of reference (adalimumab). Brodalumab (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.14-7.40), guselkumab (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.40-1.80), infliximab (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.19-4.60) and ustekinumab (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.08-1.60) demonstrated worse therapeutic effect compared with adalimumab. According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, ixekizumab 80 mg every 4 weeks had the highest probability of being the best treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The interleukin-17A inhibitor ixekizumab has the highest rate of complete nail clearance and it can be considered the best-ranked therapy from the present evidence. This study is relevant to daily practice as it facilitates the decision when choosing between the wide variety of available biologics in patients for whom clearance of nail symptoms is the first concern.

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.

Efficacy of biologic agents for palmoplantar psoriasis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Palmoplantar psoriasis (PP) represents a localized type of disease. While controversy over its' classification exists, a hyperkeratotic type, a pustular type and palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) have been recognized. PP management is regularly supported by biologic agents. Our study aimed to review and synthesize available data regarding the efficacy of approved biologics for PP and PPP.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, and ClinicalTrilas.gov. Utilizing random-effects inverse-variance frequentist network meta-analyses (NMAs), we ranked interventions. The proportion of participants with cleared skin was the primary outcome. Fifty and 75% improvement in palmoplantar psoriasis area severity index (PPASI) were also explored (PPASI50, PPASI75).

RESULTS

In total, 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exploring the efficacy of on-label adalimumab, bimekizumab, etanercept, guselkumab, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and ustekinumab were included. Data for PP were synthesized. Every biologic agent examined, except from infliximab, outperformed placebo. On-label secukinumab exhibited the highest probability of inducing complete resolution. Ixekizumab and infliximab ranked best on inducing PPASI50 and PPASI75. Our review supports that guselkumab is effective for PPP.

CONCLUSIONS

Secukinumab, ixekizumab and infliximab are effective for PP. Research is warranted to produce evidence about the efficacy of biologics in PP and PPP.

Secukinumab is effective and safe in the long-term treatment of plaque psoriasis in a daily practice setting: Multicenter study in 384 Spanish patients

The aim of the study was to assess the long-term effectiveness and safety of secukinumab in Spanish patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis in a daily practice setting. Nationwide multicenter, observational, retrospective, non-interventional, single-cohort study including patients who initiated treatment with secukinumab in daily clinical practice conditions. Subjects were followed for a minimum of 3 months and a maximum of 24 months. Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI), Body Surface Area and Physician's Global Assessments were collected at baseline and months 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 during treatment. Adverse events and reasons for secukinumab withdrawal were collected and classified for analyses. A total of 384 patients were enrolled in the study. Median PASI declined rapidly from 14.3 at baseline to 2.7 at month 3, 2.1 at month 12, and remained low (2.8) at month 24. Within the group of patients with PASI ≥10 at baseline (n = 278), 58.3%, 60.4% and 56.5% achieved a PASI90 response at months 3, 12 and 24, respectively. As for absolute PASI, 86.5%, 69.5%, 42.7% and 37% achieved PASI <5, < 3, < 1 and 0, respectively, at month 3. Secukinumab was more effective in biologic-naïve patients and in those with lower Body Mass Index. Secukinumab presented a good long-term safety profile. Secukinumab was effective and safe in a routine clinical setting, in a large cohort of patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, in the short-, medium- and long-term (up to 24 months).

Exceptional response of skin symptoms to secukinumab treatment in a patient with SAPHO syndrome: Case report and literature review

RATIONALE

SAPHO syndrome is a rare clinical entity characterized by a wide range of dermatological and musculoskeletal manifestations. Treatment strategies are not standardized. Palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) is the most common rash in patients with SAPHO syndrome.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 24-year-old Chinese woman with no relevant medical or familial history had a 1-year history of cutaneous lesions with PPP and pain in the sternoclavicular joint.

DIAGNOSIS

Based on the diagnostic criteria for SAPHO syndrome proposed by Nguyen et al in 2012, we diagnosed SAPHO syndrome with severe PPP as the predominant manifestation.

INTERVENTIONS

Due to the limited therapeutic efficacy of methotrexate and cyclosporin, we started therapy with subcutaneous secukinumab 150 mg weekly for the first month, then 150 mg monthly thereafter.

OUTCOMES

After 4 weeks of secukinumab administration, the patient showed significant remission of pustular skin lesions, with almost no joint pain and no adverse reaction. Complete remission of skin symptoms was achieved after 3 months. Joint pain and adverse events have not reoccurred in follow-up thus far.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with SAPHO syndrome, we recommend personalized treatment, which may have excellent therapeutic efficacy in those with PPP or severe skin symptoms. Although data related to the use of IL-17 blockers for SAPHO syndrome are very limited, secukinumab provides a novel therapeutic option, especially for patients with PPP and severe skin lesions. Further prospective studies are needed to support our findings.

Fast and sustained Improvement of Patient-reported outcomes in psoriatic patients treated with secukinumab in a daily practice setting

Psoriasis is a chronic dermatological disease with great impact on patients' quality of life (QoL). The main objective of this study was to assess the impact of secukinumab treatment on different patient-reported outcomes (PROs) during a long-term follow-up in Spanish patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis under real-world conditions. Retrospective, observational, open-label, nationwide multicenter cohort study that included patients who initiated treatment with secukinumab in daily clinical practice conditions. PROs assessing disease impact and QoL included Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Patient's Global Psoriasis Assessment, Itch Numerical Rating Scale and EuroQoL Thermometer Visual Analogue Scale. Outcomes, including PROs and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), were assessed at months 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 during treatment. A total of 238 patients were enrolled in the study. Patients had a mean DLQI score of 14.9 at baseline; 78.3%, 73.7% and 71.7% of them achieved a DLQI 0/1 response at months 6, 12 and 24, respectively. DLQI score was lower in the long term for naïve patients. A sharp decrease in mean DLQI was observed during the first three months, reaching a plateau that was maintained until the end of follow-up. Similar findings were observed for the rest of QoL assessments. There was a close association between improvement in QoL and skin clearance (PASI), which progressively increased during follow-up. In this study, secukinumab sustainably improved patient's QoL during a 24-month follow-up, with strongest effects in patients naïve to biological therapies and with a direct correlation with PASI improvement. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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.

Nail Psoriasis: A Review of Effective Therapies and Recommendations for Management

Nail psoriasis has a prevalence that ranges from 10 to 82% and can significantly impact the quality of life of patients. Nail psoriasis is one of the most challenging areas to treat, and multiple therapies have been explored. Topical and injectable therapies are recommended for few-nail disease. Systemic therapies, including biologics, can be considered for patients with multiple and resistant nail disease, impaired quality of life, and severe skin and joint involvement, due to their long-term efficacy. Although outcome data are difficult to compare, interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitors may have superior short-term efficacy when compared to IL-23 inhibitors and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha inhibitors, although long-term efficacy is similar to TNF-alpha inhibitors. IL-23 inhibitors and TNF-alpha inhibitors have a similar efficacy for nail psoriasis.

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.

Management of Nail Psoriasis

Nail psoriasis is a chronic nail disorder that requires personalized treatment. General prophylactic measures are suggested for all patients. Topical treatment is considered when treating a few-nail disease, with involvement of 3 or fewer nails, without joint involvement and without (or with mild) skin psoriasis. The ideal formulation should be ointment, solution, or foam. When moderate to severe skin psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis coexists, systemic treatment is suggested. This also should be considered when more than 3 nails are affected or significant impairment of quality of life is present. Conventional systemic agents, biologics, and small molecules are highly efficacious.

Nail Psoriasis in Older Adults: Intralesional, Systemic, and Biological Therapy

Psoriasis may affect the skin, scalp, joints, and nails and is common in older adults. Intramatrical injections with triamcinolone acetonide are safe and effective in older individuals. Conventional systemic medications are relatively effective, but side effects, including laboratory abnormalities and drug interactions, are particularly common among older adults. Biologic medications have shown excellent efficacy in treating nail psoriasis. Their safety profile is favorable, but data assessing long-term safety are lacking. Randomized controlled trials in older adults exclusively are necessary to develop evidence-based treatment guidelines in this population.

Safety of secukinumab for the treatment of active ankylosing spondylitis

Introduction: Secukinumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody which targets and neutralizes interleukin (IL)-17A, a cytokine that plays an important role in the pathophysiology of ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Secukinumab is the first IL-17A inhibitor approved for the treatment of AS.Areas covered: This paper aimed to evaluate the role of IL-17 in human beings, and the blocking of this cytokine with secukinumab while reviewing its efficacy and safety in the treatment of AS from data of MEASURE clinical trials.Expert opinion: MEASURE clinical trials showed efficacy and safety of secukinumab in patients with AS. Mild infections were the most frequent adverse event observed. Mucocutaneous candidiasis was a relatively common side effect due to the role of IL-17A in mucocutaneous defense against extracellular organisms. Secukinumab remained generally well tolerated over the longer-term. The combination of efficacy and safety makes secukinumab a good option of treatment for patients with AS refractory to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Small molecule inhibitors and biologics in treating nail psoriasis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Various systemic immunomodulating therapies have been investigated to treat nail psoriasis, but the efficacy remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of small molecule inhibitors and biologics in treating nail psoriasis.

METHODS

Eligible studies in online databases were identified until March 10, 2020. To assess the efficacy of small molecule inhibitors and biologics, network meta-analyses with surface under the cumulative ranking curve of improvement in nail score at 10 to 16 and at 24 to 26 weeks, as well as 100% improvement of Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI), were performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies with a total of 13 treatment arms involving 15,673 patients with nail psoriasis were included. An network meta-analysis showed that tofacitinib (weighted mean difference, 56.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 35.87-77.48) and ixekizumab (weighted mean difference, 59.40; 95% CI, 45.87-72.93) presented the most improvement of nail score at 10 to 16 weeks and 24 to 26 weeks, respectively. For 100% improvement of the Nail Psoriasis Severity Index, ixekizumab showed the best efficacy among all treatments (odds ratio, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.74-5.10).

LIMITATIONS

Insufficiency of eligible data and no long-term follow-up data.

CONCLUSION

Tofacitinib and ixekizumab presented the best efficacy for treating nail psoriasis in 10 to 16 weeks and 24 to 26 weeks, respectively.

A review of secukinumab in psoriasis treatment

Psoriasis is a systemic immunologic disorder associated with decreased quality of life and numerous co-morbidities, including psoriatic arthritis and cardiovascular disease. Secukinumab, a fully human IgG1 monoclonal antibody, selectively binds IL-17A and is approved by the US FDA and European Medicines Agency for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. This review examines the efficacy and safety of secukinumab for the treatment of psoriasis using the literature retrieved from the PubMed database. In clinical trials, treatment with secukinumab led to rapid and sustained improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores, with PASI 90 response rates up to 68.5% at 5 years. Long-term clinical trial and real-world data have established secukinumab as a safe and effective treatment for psoriasis.

Small Molecules and Biologics in the Treatment of Nail Psoriasis

Nail psoriasis (PsO) is a disorder with profound impact on patients' quality of life. Several challenges and unmet needs remain in the treatment of nail PsO. Introduction of biologics and small molecules in the treatment of nail PsO has allowed for rapid control of the disease and high efficacy. The aim of this review was to present the published studies on nail PsO therapy with biologics and small molecules and illuminate the results in the studies where the design and outcome evaluation had nail PsO in the forefront.

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.

Latin American Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Systemic Treatment of Psoriasis SOLAPSO - Sociedad Latinoamericana de Psoriasis (Latin American Psoriasis Society)

This Clinical Practice Guideline on the systemic treatment of Psoriasis includes the recommendations elaborated by a panel of experts from the Latin American Psoriasis Society SOLAPSO, who assessed the quality of the available evidence using the GRADE system and the PICO process to guide the literature search. To answer each question, the experts discussed the results of randomized controlled trials, observational studies and metanalysis evaluating the interventions identified (non-biologics, biologics and phototherapy) in different populations of patients with moderate to severe plaque-psoriasis, which was summarized in Tables ad-hoc. The main end-points considered to assess efficacy were PASI 50, 75, 90 and 100, PGA 0-1 and significant improvement of health-related quality of life. Specific adverse events, either severe or leading to treatment interruption, were also evaluated. The 31 recommendations included in this CPG follow the structure proposed by GRADE: direction (for or against) and strength (strong or weak). The goal of this CPG is to improve the management of patients with psoriasis by recommending interventions of proved benefit and providing a reference standard for the treating physician. Adhering to the contents of this CPG does not guarantee therapeutic success. The final decision on the specific treatment is the responsibility of the physician based on the individual circumstances and considering the values, the preferences and the opinions of the patient or caregivers.

Efficacy of Guselkumab Compared With Adalimumab and Placebo for Psoriasis in Specific Body Regions: A Secondary Analysis of 2 Randomized Clinical Trials

Importance

Psoriasis of the scalp, palms and/or soles, and nails is challenging to treat.

Objective

To evaluate the effect of guselkumab on psoriasis in specific body regions.

Design, Setting, and Participants

VOYAGE 1 and VOYAGE 2 were, double-blind, placebo- and adalimumab-controlled studies of guselkumab conducted at 101 and 115 global sites, respectively, from November 3, 2014, to May 19, 2016. Patients had moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score ≥12, Investigator's Global Assessment [IGA] score ≥3, and ≥10% body surface area with psoriasis). This post hoc data analysis was performed from February 10 through November 15, 2017.

Exposures

Patients were randomized to guselkumab, 100 mg (weeks 0 and 4, then every 8 weeks); placebo followed by guselkumab, 100 mg, starting at week 16; or adalimumab (80 mg [week 0] and 40 mg [week 1, then every 2 weeks]).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Efficacy was assessed through week 24. End points included numbers of patients achieving scores of 0 or 1 (clear or near clear) or 0 (clear) on the scalp-specific IGA (ss-IGA), Physician's Global Assessment of the hands and/or feet (hf-PGA), and fingernail PGA (f-PGA) and percentage of improvement in target Nail Psoriasis Severity Index score.

Results

Of 1829 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 43.6 [12.4] years; 1300 [71.1%] male, 1498 [81.9%] white), 1576 (86.2%) had psoriasis of the scalp; 501 (27.4%), palms and/or soles; and 1049 (57.4%), fingernails. At baseline, 1512 (82.7%), 461 (25.2%), and 928 (50.7%) patients had a score of 2 or higher on the ss-IGA, hf-PGA, and f-PGA, respectively, and were included in the analysis. Guselkumab was superior to placebo based on the proportion of patients achieving an ss-IGA score of 0 or 1 (560 [81.8%] vs 43 [12.4%]) at week 16 and to adalimumab (582 [85.0%] vs 329 [68.5%]) at week 24 (both P < .001); 479 (69.9%) in the guselkumab group vs 270 (56.3%) in the adalimumab group achieved an ss-IGA score of 0 (all P < .001). An hf-PGA score of 0 or 1 was achieved by 154 patients (75.5%) in the guselkumab group vs 15 (14.2%) in the placebo group at week 16 and 164 (80.4%) in the guselkumab group vs 91 (60.3%) in the adalimumab group at week 24; 153 (75.0%) in the guselkumab group vs 76 (50.3%) in the adalimumab group achieved an hf-PGA score of 0 (all P < .001). An f-PGA score of 0 or 1 was achieved by 196 patients (46.7%) in the guselkumab group vs 32 (15.2%) in the placebo group at week 16 (P < .001) and 252 (60.0%) in the guselkumab group vs 191 (64.3%) in the adalimumab group at week 24 (P = .11); 115 (27.4%) in the guselkumab group vs 83 (27.9%) in the adalimumab group achieved an f-PGA score of 0 (P = .63).

Conclusions and Relevance

Compared with adalimumab, guselkumab was associated with significant improvement in psoriasis on the scalp and palms and/or soles; magnitude of improvement in fingernails did not differ between treatments. These results may help dermatologists make treatment decisions for patients with psoriasis in difficult-to-treat body regions.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02207231 and NCT02207244.

Recommendations for the definition, evaluation, and treatment of nail psoriasis in adult patients with no or mild skin psoriasis: A dermatologist and nail expert group consensus

Nail involvement in psoriasis is common, and the severity of it does not always parallel the intensity of cutaneous disease. We created a consensus group, of which the aim was to provide practical recommendations for the treatment of nail psoriasis in patients without skin psoriasis or with mild skin lesions with no indication for a systemic treatment. This collaborative process was conducted by an international panel of dermatologists with special expertise in nail disorders, using formal consensus methods. During this process, the panel strived to establish an agreement regarding the definition of nail psoriasis, the severity of nail psoriasis, and treatment response. Treatment recommendations are provided regarding nail psoriasis severity and matrix or bed involvement. Few-nail disease was considered as nail psoriasis affecting ≤3 nails. In the case of matrix involvement only, intralesional steroid injections were considered the treatment of choice. Topical steroids alone or in combination with topical vitamin D analogues were suggested for nail psoriasis limited to the nail bed. For the systemic treatment of nail psoriasis acitretin, methotrexate, cyclosporine, small molecules, and biologics may be employed.

Underdiagnosed and undertreated psoriasis: Nuances of treating psoriasis affecting the scalp, face, intertriginous areas, genitals, hands, feet, and nails

Psoriasis of the scalp, face, intertriginous areas, genitals, hands, feet, and nails is often underdiagnosed, and disease management can be challenging. Despite the small surface area commonly affected by psoriasis in these locations, patients have disproportionate levels of physical impairment and emotional distress. Limitations in current disease severity indices do not fully capture the impact of disease on a patient's quality of life, and, combined with limitations in current therapies, many patients do not receive proper or adequate care. In this review, we discuss the clinical manifestations of psoriasis in these less commonly diagnosed areas and its impact on patient quality of life. We also examine clinical studies evaluating the effectiveness of therapies on psoriasis in these regions. This article highlights the need to individualize treatment strategies for psoriasis based on the area of the body that is affected and the emerging role of biologic therapy in this regard.

Reporting of outcomes in randomized controlled trials on nail psoriasis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Harmonization of outcome measures is needed to increase the value of clinical trials on nail psoriasis.

OBJECTIVES

To provide the first step in core outcome set (COS) development for nail psoriasis.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to identify outcome instruments and corresponding outcome domains used in (ongoing) randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

Identified outcome domains included clinical signs, quality of life, symptoms and delivery of care. The Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI) was the most commonly used measure to assess clinical signs (74% of studies). Other outcome instruments used included the Nail Area Severity score, composite fingernail score, a Physician's Global Assessment, individual nail features or a combination of these. Heterogeneity in type and reporting (e.g. NAPSI 50, NAPSI 75) of outcome instruments was high and characteristics were often insufficiently reported. In total 43% of studies assessed quality of life, with 3% of studies using a nail psoriasis-specific tool. Assessment of symptoms and delivery of care was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Heterogeneity in the type and reporting of nail psoriasis outcome instruments needs to be addressed in the process towards COS development. Sufficient reporting of instrument characteristics should be encouraged. As nail psoriasis is generally assessed secondarily to psoriasis of the skin or joints, collaboration between different research groups in COS development is needed.

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.

Secukinumab: a review of the anti-IL-17A biologic for the treatment of psoriasis

Psoriasis is a systemic inflammatory disease associated with numerous comorbidities and a profound impact on patients' quality of life. While its complex immune pathogenesis is still not fully delineated, current evidence supports a fundamental role of the T-helper-17 (TH-17) pathway and its related interleukin-17 (IL-17) cytokine. Thus, new antipsoriatic therapies have been developed to block this key cytokine and its downstream effects. Secukinumab is a fully humanized, monoclonal anti-IL-17A antibody, and the first in its class to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. It has also been approved for the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. Its clinical efficacy in plaque psoriasis has been well demonstrated in numerous phase II and III clinical trials. In addition, it has shown superiority in clinical trials to current biologic agents including etanercept and ustekinumab, with a safe adverse event profile. In correlation with excellent skin improvements, secukinumab is also associated with significant improvements in health-related quality of life measures. Thus, secukinumab offers the potential for equal, or improved, therapeutic effects compared with other biologics, and is a valuable addition to our current antipsoriatic armamentarium.

The Efficacy of Biologic Therapy for the Management of Palmoplantar Psoriasis and Palmoplantar Pustulosis: A Systematic Review

Introduction

Palmoplantar psoriasis (PP) and palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) are diseases affecting the hands and/or feet that can cause marked physical discomfort and functional disability. The tumor necrosis factor-alpha antagonists adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab, the interleukin (IL)-17A inhibitors ixekizumab and secukinumab, and the IL-23 or IL-12/IL-23 inhibitors guselkumab and ustekinumab have been well studied for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Less is known about the efficacy and safety of these agents for the treatment of PP (hyperkeratotic and pustular forms) and PPP. The aim of this review was to investigate the efficacy of biologic therapy for the treatment of hyperkeratotic PP, pustular PP, and PPP.

Methods

A systematic search of the medical electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library) was conducted to identify studies or case reports which both used biologic therapy for the treatment of hyperkeratotic PP, pustular PP, and PPP and reported treatment outcomes.

Results

The systematic search identified 579 published articles, of which 44 were included in the analysis. Seven of the articles involved randomized placebo-controlled trials, two were open label trials, and the remaining were cohort studies, case series, or case reports. In the randomized controlled trials on the treatment of hyperkeratotic PP, adalimumab, guselkumab, infliximab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab each demonstrated superiority to placebo at 16, 16, 14, 12, and 12 or 16 weeks, respectively (p < 0.05). For the treatment of pustular PP, ustekinumab 45 mg was not superior to placebo at 12 and 16 weeks, respectively (p > 0.05), although an open label study demonstrated that four of five patients on a therapeutic regimen of ustekinumab 90 mg achieved clinical clearance at 16 weeks. For the treatment of PPP, etanercept and ustekinumab 45 mg were not superior to placebo at 12 and 16 weeks, respectively (p > 0.05). A combined analysis of studies for hyperkeratotic PP demonstrated that 94.7%, 90.0%, 82.5%, 89.1%, and 86.7% of patients experienced an improvement of at least 50% upon treatment with adalimumab, guselkumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and ustekinumab, respectively. In a combined analysis of case reports examining PPP, infliximab showed the greatest efficacy at 100.0% clinical improvement of patients from case reports, followed by ustekinumab at 58.8% clinical improvement. Few serious adverse events were reported, but several were reported in patients treated with infliximab or secukinumab.

Conclusion

Biologic therapy is effective and well-tolerated for the treatment of hyperkeratotic PP, but less data are available on the treatment of pustular PP or PPP. Adalimumab, guselkumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and ustekinumab all showed > 80% efficacy for the treatment of hyperkeratotic PP, while infliximab and ustekinumab showed moderate efficacy for the treatment of pustular PP, and infliximab was the most efficacious treatment for PPP.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13555-017-0207-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Nail psoriasis: clinical features, pathogenesis, differential diagnoses, and management

Psoriasis is the skin disease that most frequently affects the nails. Depending on the very nail structure involved, different clinical nail alterations can be observed. Irritation of the apical matrix results in psoriatic pits, mid-matrix involvement may cause leukonychia, whole matrix affection may lead to red lunulae or severe nail dystrophy, nail bed involvement may cause salmon spots, subungual hyperkeratosis, and splinter hemorrhages, and psoriasis of the distal nail bed and hyponychium causes onycholysis whereas that of the proximal nail fold causes psoriatic paronychia. The more extensive the involvement, the more severe is the nail destruction. Pustular psoriasis may be seen as yellow spots under the nail or, in case of acrodermatitis continua suppurativa, as an insidious progressive loss of the nail organ. Nail psoriasis has a severe impact on quality of life and may interfere with professional and other activities. Management includes patient counseling, avoidance of stress and strain to the nail apparatus, and different types of treatment. Topical therapy may be tried but is rarely sufficiently efficient. Perilesional injections with corticosteroids and methotrexate are often beneficial but may be painful and cannot be applied to many nails. All systemic treatments clearing widespread skin lesions usually also clear the nail lesions. Recently, biologicals were introduced into nail psoriasis treatment and found to be very effective. However, their use is restricted to severe cases due to high cost and potential systemic adverse effects.

Nail Psoriasis: A Review of Treatment Options

Nail psoriasis is often found in patients with plaque psoriasis and can greatly impact quality of life. This is particularly true in more severe cases, as it affects the structure and function of the patient's nail. Treatment for nail psoriasis is often challenging, involving topical medications, injections, and systematic therapies. This article aims to give an overview of the varied clinical presentations of nail psoriasis and the current treatments available for patients with this condition. Risks and efficacies of these treatments will be evaluated to determine the best treatment protocols.

Secukinumab in the treatment of psoriasis: an update

Biological drugs are pharmaceuticals manufactured using biotechnology methods that may target specific cytokines, cytokine receptors or surface molecules, and modulate the immunological response of the organism. Psoriasis is a common cutaneous disease in which biological drugs have been evaluated and widely accepted in clinical practice. Secukinumab is a monoclonal antibody targeting IL-17A which has been extensively researched in clinical trials and registered in treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. We performed a literature search in Pubmed database on the pharmacology of secukinumab and randomized clinical trials investigating its efficacy and safety in treating plaque psoriasis in comparison to placebo or biological drugs (etanercept, ustekinumab). The administration of secukinumab in psoriatic subjects resulted in subjective and objective disease parameters reduction while exhibiting high safety profile. Secukinumab is an effective drug with a favorable safety profile. It has already taken an important position in managing plaque psoriasis in clinical practice.

Efficacy and safety of interleukin-17 antagonists in patients with plaque psoriasis: a meta-analysis from phase 3 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The interleukin-17 (IL-17) cytokine pathway plays a key role in the development of psoriasis. Antibodies targeting IL-17 or blocking its receptor may be a new therapeutic approach for psoriasis. To assist treatment selection in daily practice, it is essential to understand the benefit and risk profile of IL-17 antagonists.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IL-17 antagonists in patients with psoriasis.

METHODS

We searched a number of databases for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before May 2016. The following outcomes were evaluated: Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75, 90, 100 response, Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 response, adverse events (AEs) and withdrawals. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.2 software.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs with 5951 patients were included. IL-17 antagonists achieved higher PASI 75, 90, 100 response rates and Dermatology Life Quality Index 0 or 1 response rates than placebo and a lower incidence of discontinuations due to lack of efficacy. In the safety analysis, no significant differences were found between the IL-17 antagonists and placebo in the proportion of patients with serious AEs, cardiovascular disease and discontinuations due to AEs. However, IL-17 antagonists were associated with a higher proportion of patients with any AEs and infections than placebo.

CONCLUSION

IL-17 antagonists were effective, with an acceptable safety profile, for patients with plaque psoriasis. Vigilance because of the potential for infection will be necessary for IL-17 antagonists.

Evidence and Suggested Therapeutic Approach in Psoriasis of Difficult-to-treat Areas: Palmoplantar Psoriasis, Nail Psoriasis, Scalp Psoriasis, and Intertriginous Psoriasis

Psoriasis is resistant to treatment and it shows frequent relapse; systemic treatment is often associated with toxicities, and long-term safety data are lacking for most of the newer drugs like biologics. Moreover, some body areas such as hands, feet, intertriginous areas, scalp, and nails are even more resistant. Frequently, systemic treatments are necessary considering the higher psychological impact on the patient. There is a lack of agreement on the best therapeutic modalities in the management of psoriasis involving difficult-to-treat locations. At present, there are no Indian guidelines for these conditions. Available literature has been reviewed extensively on the treatment of psoriasis involving difficult-to-treat locations; level of evidence has been evaluated as per the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 guideline, and therapeutic suggestions have been developed. Best care has been employed to consider socioeconomic, cultural, genetic, and ethnic factors to prepare a therapeutic suggestion that is appropriate and logical to be used among Indian population and people of similar ethnic and socioeconomic background.

Ixekizumab treatment improves fingernail psoriasis in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis: results from the randomized, controlled and open-label phases of UNCOVER-3

BACKGROUND

Fingernail psoriasis is difficult to treat.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to evaluate the effect of ixekizumab, a monoclonal antibody selectively targeting IL-17A, on fingernail psoriasis.

METHODS

This Phase 3, double-blind trial (UNCOVER-3) randomized patients to placebo, etanercept (50-mg twice weekly), or 80 mg ixekizumab as one injection every 4 (IXE Q4W) or 2 weeks (IXE Q2W) after a 160-mg starting dose. At Week 12, ixekizumab patients received open-label IXE Q4W through Week 60; placebo patients received a 160-mg starting ixekizumab dose and etanercept patients a 4-week placebo washout before starting IXE Q4W. Efficacy was assessed by mean per cent Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI) improvement at Weeks 12 and 60.

RESULTS

Of 1346 patients in the UNCOVER-3 trial, this subgroup analysis included only patients with baseline fingernail psoriasis: 116 (60.1%) placebo, 236 (61.8%) etanercept, 228 (59.1%) IXE Q4W and 229 (59.5%) IXE Q2W. At Week 12, greater mean per cent NAPSI improvements were achieved in IXE Q4W (36.7%) and IXE Q2W (35.2%) vs. placebo (-34.3%, P < 0.001 each comparison) and etanercept (20.0%, P = 0.048 vs. Q4W, P = 0.072 vs. Q2W). At Week 60, mean per cent NAPSI improvement was >80% regardless of initial treatment. At Week 12 (nonresponder imputation), complete resolution (NAPSI = 0) was achieved in 19.7% (IXE Q4W), 17.5% (IXE Q2W), 4.3% (placebo, P < 0.001 each comparison) and 10.2% (etanercept, P < 0.05 each comparison) of patients. By Week 60, >50% of patients achieved complete resolution.

CONCLUSIONS

At Week 12, significant improvements in fingernail psoriasis were achieved with ixekizumab therapy. With IXE Q4W maintenance dosing, additional improvement was demonstrated through 60 weeks, and >50% of patients achieved complete resolution. Registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01646177.

Secukinumab (AIN-457) for the treatment of Psoriasis

Secukinumab (also known as AIN-457) is a human monoclonal antibody targeting IL-17A, which has been recently FDA-approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis with coexistent moderate to severe plaque psoriasis based on clinical trials demonstrating excellent efficacy. This review will address the rationale for targeting the IL-23/Th17/IL-17 axis, the role of IL-17 and Th17 cells in psoriasis and other chronic inflammatory diseases, and will examine pre-clinical studies, pharmacologic properties, clinical efficacy, and the safety profile of secukinumab.