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

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.

Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oral systemic nonbiologic therapies for psoriasis patients

INTRODUCTION

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory immune condition. Treatments for psoriasis vary with disease severity, ranging from topicals to systemic biologic agents. The pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) properties of these therapies establish drug efficacy, toxicity, and optimal dosing to ensure therapeutic drug levels are sustained and adverse effects are minimized.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search was performed on PubMed, Google Scholar, and Ovid MEDLINE for PK and PD, efficacy, and safety data regarding oral systemic nonbiologic therapies utilized for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. The findings were organized into sections for each drug: oral acitretin, methotrexate, cyclosporine, apremilast, tofacitinib, and deucravacitinib.

EXPERT OPINION

Some psoriasis patients may not respond to initial therapy. Ongoing research is evaluating genetic polymorphisms that may predict an improved response to specific medications. However, financial and insurance barriers, as well as limited genetic polymorphisms correlated with treatment response, may restrict the implementation of genetic testing necessary to personalize treatments. How well psoriasis patients adhere to treatment may contribute greatly to variation in response. Therapeutic drug monitoring may help patients adhere to treatment, improve clinical response, and sustain disease control.

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.

Upadacitinib treatment withdrawal and retreatment in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: Results from a phase 2b, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by pruritic eczematous lesions. The effect of treatment withdrawal after response to upadacitinib oral treatment is not fully characterized.

OBJECTIVES

Assess the effect of upadacitinib withdrawal on skin clearance and itch improvement in adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD and evaluate the kinetics of recovery on rescue treatment.

METHODS

Data from a phase 2b randomized, placebo-controlled trial (NCT02925117) of upadacitinib in patients with moderate-to-severe AD were analysed. Patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive upadacitinib 7.5 mg, 15 mg, 30 mg or placebo, and then at Week 16, patients were re-randomized 1:1 to receive the same dose of upadacitinib (upadacitinib 30 mg for patients initialized to placebo) or placebo. From Week 20, those who experienced loss of response defined as Eczema Area and Severity Index <50% improvement from baseline (EASI 50) received rescue treatment with upadacitinib 30 mg.

RESULTS

Patients who withdrew from upadacitinib experienced a rapid loss of skin clearance response, while those who switched from placebo to upadacitinib gained response. Loss of skin clearance response occurred within 4 weeks and worsening of itch occurred within 5 days. In patients who originally received placebo or a lower dose of upadacitinib leading to a loss of EASI response, rescue treatment with upadacitinib 30 mg resulted in rapid recovery or improvement of both skin and itch responses; most patients who were re-randomized to placebo achieved EASI 75 and IGA 0/1 by 8 weeks of rescue treatment. No new safety risks were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous treatment with upadacitinib is suggested to maintain skin clearance and antipruritic effects.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

The effects of selected biologics and a small molecule on Health-Related Quality of Life in adult plaque psoriasis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) is commonly used to assess the quality of life of patients with skin diseases. Clinical trials confirm the positive effect of the use of biologics and new molecules on the quality of life of patients with plaque psoriasis.

MAIN OBJECTIVES

Investigation of the effect of infliximab, adalimumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab and tofacitinib on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) measured by the DLQI in adult plaque psoriatic patients with respect to the patients' race, type of used agent/placebo, agent's dosage and treatment duration as well as the DLQI score prior to and after commencement of treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Systematic literature searching for referential papers written in English using four databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov as well as and manual searching (Google) Cochran's (Q) and I2 tests were used for evaluation of heterogeneity or the degree of variation in the true effect size estimates between the analysed studies. The standardized mean difference (the SMD; Hedge's g score) was applied to measure the differences between the two means (i.e. two groups: treated vs non-treated or treated vs placebo). The data coding and Hedge's g values were calculated according to the guidance of MetaXL software version 5.3.

MAIN RESULTS

43 studies, in total 25,898 individuals, were evaluated by the DLQI and weighted mean scores were derived for the analysis. The mean DLQI scores ranged from 6.83 to 17.8 with the overall DLQI score of 12.12 (95%CI: 11.24 to 13.06). A random-effects model demonstrated significant considerable heterogeneity of the study results (I2 = 98%; p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Infliximab, adalimumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab and tofacitinib in adult plaque psoriatic patients improved HRQOL measured by the DLQI. The patients with lower quality of life before treatment obtained better results.

Emerging Therapeutic Options for Chronic Pruritus

Chronic pruritus, defined as an unpleasant sensation resulting in a need to scratch that lasts more than 6 weeks, is a prevalent and bothersome symptom associated with both cutaneous and systemic conditions. Due to complex pathogenesis and profuse contributing factors, chronic pruritus therapy remains challenging. Regardless of the well-established antipruritic properties of classic pharmacotherapy (topical therapy, phototherapy and systemic therapy), these methods often provide insufficient relief for affected individuals. Owing to the growing interest in the field of pruritic research, further experimental and clinical data have emerged, continuously supporting the possibility of instigating novel therapeutic measures. This review covers the most relevant current modalities remaining under investigation that possess promising perspectives of approval in the near future, especially opioidergic drugs (mu-opioid antagonists and kappa-opioid agonists), neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, biologic drugs, Janus kinase inhibitors, ileal bile acid transporter inhibitors, aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonists and histamine H₄ receptor antagonists.

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.

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.

Tofacitinib for the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are inflammatory immune-mediated conditions which can cause considerable disability and reduced quality of life. Management can be complex as clinical heterogeneity may lead to different treatment pathways. Tofacitinib is a novel, oral Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitor with proven efficacy in rheumatoid arthritis. Areas covered: This review analyzes recent studies of tofacitinib in psoriatic disease treatment. The relevant literature was identified using clinicaltrials.gov, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Tofacitinib efficacy was demonstrated in PsA by the OPAL Broaden and OPAL Beyond phase-III studies, and received FDA and EMA approval. Tofacitinib was superior to placebo for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the OPT Pivotal 1 and 2, OPT Retreatment studies, but FDA approval was declined for this indication based on issues of clinical efficacy and long-term safety. Expert commentary: Tofacitinib is an important oral drug for the treatment of PsA. However, the long-term safety data require further evaluation. Tofacitinib and other JAK inhibitors show potential to broaden the treatment options in PsA and other inflammatory conditions.

Whether Fire-needle Therapy Benefits Plaque Psoriasis: A Multicenter, Randomized, and Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To observe the clinical effectiveness and safety of fire-needle therapy, an external approach of Chinese medicine in treating plaque psoriasis.

METHODS

This study was a two-parallel-arm randomized controlled trial. A total of 151 participants with plaque psoriasis were randomly assigned to the fire-needle therapy group (treatment group, 76 cases) or the control group (75 cases) at a 1:1 allocation ratio using SAS software. All participants received Oral Huoxue Jiedu Decoction (, HXJDD) and applied externally vaseline cream twice a day. Participants in the treatment group received fire-needle therapy once weekly for 4 weeks plus HXJDD and vaseline cream applied the same as the control group. The primary outcome measure was Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score, and the secondary outcomes were Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQL), and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA), as well as Chinese medicine (CM) syndrome score and photos of target lesions. The indices were evaluated before and after treatment.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients in each group completed the study. The treatment group has not yet achieved significant improvement in PASI score (P>0.05) compared to the control group. However, significant differences were found between the two groups in relieving CM syndrome (P<0.05) and improving quality of life (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Fire-needle appears to be safe and may have benefit for psoriasis, the short-term treatment and small sample size limit the conclusions of this study. Further rigorous randomized controlled trials with longer treatment are recommended.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs among psoriasis patients treated with biologics, overall and by disease severity

AIMS

To describe healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs among biologic-treated psoriasis patients in the US, overall and by disease severity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

IQVIA PharMetrics Plus administrative claims data were linked with Modernizing Medicine Data Services Electronic Health Record data and used to select adult psoriasis patients between April 1, 2010 and December 31, 2014. Eligible patients were classified by disease severity (mild, moderate, severe) using a hierarchy of available clinical measures. One-year outcomes included all-cause and psoriasis-related outpatient, emergency department, inpatient, and pharmacy HCRU and costs.

RESULTS

This study identified 2,130 biologic-treated psoriasis patients: 282 (13%) had mild, 116 (5%) moderate, and 49 (2%) severe disease; 1,683 (79%) could not be classified. The mean age was 47.6 years; 45.4% were female. Relative to mild psoriasis patients, patients with moderate or severe disease had more median all-cause outpatient encounters (28.0 [mild] vs 32.0 [moderate], 36.0 [severe]), more median psoriasis-related outpatient encounters (6.0 [mild] vs 7.5 [moderate], 8.0 [severe]), and a higher proportion of overall claims for medications that were psoriasis-related (28% [mild] vs 37% [moderate], 34% [severe]). Relative to mild psoriasis patients, patients with moderate or severe disease had higher median all-cause total costs ($37.7k [mild] vs $42.3k [moderate], $49.3k [severe]), higher median psoriasis-related total costs ($32.7k [mild] vs $34.9k [moderate], $40.5k [severe]), higher median all-cause pharmacy costs ($33.9k [mild] vs $36.5k [moderate], $36.4k [severe]), and higher median psoriasis-related pharmacy costs ($32.2k [mild] vs $33.9k [moderate], $35.6k [severe]).

LIMITATIONS

The assessment of psoriasis disease severity may not have necessarily coincided with the timing of biologic use. The definition of disease severity prevented the assessment of temporality, and may have introduced selection bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Biologic-treated patients with moderate or severe psoriasis cost the healthcare system more than patients with mild psoriasis, primarily driven by higher pharmacy costs and more outpatient encounters.

Small molecule therapy for managing moderate to severe psoriatic arthritis

INTRODUCTION

The majority of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients experience a good clinical response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and biologic therapies (bDMARDs). However, treatment failure with these drugs can represent a relevant clinical problem. Moreover, in daily clinical practice, the appropriate identification of patients eligible for these agents can be conditioned by numerous aspects, mainly represented by comorbidities, such as history of malignancies, chronic and recurrent infectious diseases. Areas covered: We searched in the PUBMED database and review published data on the efficacy and safety profile of the small molecules, inhibitor of phosphodiesterase 4, apremilast, and of JAK/STAT pathways, tofacitinib, in PsA. Moreover, we report data on the other JAK inhibitor, baricitinib, and the A(3) adenosine receptors agonist, CF101, emerging by studies conducted in psoriasis patients. Expert opinion: In Psoriatic Arthritis, apremilast appears promising for PsA and recent studies have shown a good efficacy and an acceptable safety profile. Data on tofacitinib in PsA are limited. Studies on the small molecules, baricitinib and CF101 are still incomplete and limited to trials conducted in Rheumatoid Arthritis and in psoriasis. Further studies on small molecules and on their underlining mechanisms are advocated in PsA.