Impact of ixekizumab on facial psoriasis and related quality of life measures in moderate-to-severe psoriasis patients: 12-week results from two phase III trials

Effectiveness of guselkumab in patients with facial and/or genital psoriasis: Interim analysis results at Week 12 from the GULLIVER study

BACKGROUND

Facial (FP) and genital psoriasis (GP) significantly affect patients' quality of life. Despite the advances in treatments, limited data on efficacy and safety are available on these difficult-to-treat areas. Guselkumab is an interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitor which has been proven effective in treating patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this interim analysis was to report the efficacy and safety of guselkumab in the treatment of patients with FP and/or GP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

GULLIVER is a 52-week Italian observational study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of guselkumab in a real-life setting in patients with FP and/or GP. Adult patients with facial and/or genital moderate-to-severe psoriasis (sPGA score ≥ 3) were included. The primary endpoint of this analysis was the percentage of patients achieving a facial or genital sPGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear), at Week 12. The change in the score of the facial or genital sPGA components in patients with a score ≥3 for each sPGA component was assessed. PASI score in patients with a baseline PASI above or below 10 was evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall, 351 patients were included in the study; 83.3% of FP and 76.5% of GP patients achieved the primary endpoint. Similar response rates were observed for the facial or genital sPGA components in patients with a baseline facial or genital sPGA score ≥3 in each component. Among patients with a baseline PASI score >10, mean PASI score improved from 19.0 (SD 8.3) to 2.2 (SD 4.8). Forty-four AEs were observed in 32 patients; two mild and transient AEs (fatigue and nausea) were considered treatment related. No SAEs were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Guselkumab, showing to be effective and safe in treating FP and GP, may be a valid therapeutic option for patients with psoriasis localized in these difficult-to-treat areas.

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.

Ixekizumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: the first septennium

Ixekizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that specifically inhibits IL-17A. It has been approved for the treatment of adult and pediatric psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthropathies by the US FDA and the EMA. Phase III trials, post hoc analyses and real-life data have reported its efficacy, effectiveness and safety. This review summarizes the latest evidence on the clinical efficacy, pharmacology and safety profile of ixekizumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. A literature search was performed for articles published through December 2022. Ixekizumab is one of the most efficacious biologics for psoriasis, with a rapid onset of response, favorable long-term outcomes and an adequate safety profile.

Epidemiology of Psoriasis in Portugal: A Population-Based Study

INTRODUCTION

Psoriasis is a common, chronic, and inflammatory skin disorder with a high personal, social and economic burden and important implications for healthcare systems. The aim of this study was to provide an epidemiological characterization of individuals with psoriasis in Portugal.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A large observational, cross-sectional, nationwide, population-based survey study developed by the Portuguese Psoriasis Group of the Portuguese Society of Dermatology and Venereology (GPP-SPDV). A structured questionnaire was designed and applied by experienced interviewers to a random, representative sample of Portuguese individuals with psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis. Patients were considered to have psoriasis if they replied positively to one of the following questions: "Does any physician have ever diagnosed you with psoriasis?" or "Do you have a skin disorder characterized by scaling, reddish skin lesions located in the elbows/knees/scalp?".

RESULTS

A total of 6381 individuals were interviewed, of which 283 met the criteria for psoriasis, corresponding to a prevalence rate of 4.4% (95% CI 3.95 - 4.98). Out of the participants that met psoriasis criteria, 24% had suggestive signs/symptoms but did not have a clinical diagnosis established and were not being monitored by a physician. Although more than 70% of participants had active disease (scaling, erythema, or pruritus) and one third had joint symptoms, only 12% were on systemic treatment. Fifty percent of participants with psoriasis (n = 139) had relevant comorbidities (most frequently depression/anxiety and cardiometabolic diseases). Sixteen percent of participants with psoriasis (n = 46) reported that psoriasis interfered with their daily activities (median impact of 5 in a 0 - 10 scale) and 12% mentioned the disease had an impact in their sexual life (median impact of 5 in a 0 - 10 scale).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that the prevalence rate of psoriasis is likely to be high in Portugal, and several gaps exist at different levels of healthcare delivery to these patients, from diagnosis to treatment. This study provides important data for the future planning of interventions targeting the improvement of psoriasis care in Portugal.

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.

Quality of Life and Body Region Affected by Psoriasis: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Psoriasis is a chronic skin condition that affects approximately 1-3% of the world's population and is known to decrease patients' quality of life. However, it is yet to be ascertained whether the specific location of psoriatic lesions on the body influences one's quality of life.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted with a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases. Only non-case report and non-review studies with explicitly stated body regions affected by psoriasis were included in the review.

FINDINGS

Psoriatic patches and plaques in different areas of the body were not found to influence patients' quality of life to differing extents.

CONCLUSIONS

While the body of evidence is limited and presents unstandardized results, the results of this review point to the fact that all psoriatic patches and plaques decrease patients' quality of life, with neither one region doing so to a significantly greater extent than another.

Quality of Life and Body Region Affected by Psoriasis: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Psoriasis is a chronic skin condition that affects approximately 1-3% of the world's population and is known to decrease patients' quality of life. However, it is yet to be ascertained whether the specific location of psoriatic lesions on the body influences one's quality of life.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted with a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases. Only non-case report and non-review studies with explicitly stated body regions affected by psoriasis were included in the review.

FINDINGS

Psoriatic patches and plaques in different areas of the body were not found to influence patients' quality of life to differing extents.

CONCLUSIONS

While the body of evidence is limited and presents unstandardized results, the results of this review point to the fact that all psoriatic patches and plaques decrease patients' quality of life, with neither one region doing so to a significantly greater extent than another.

Drug safety evaluation of ixekizumab for psoriasis: a review of the current knowledge

INTRODUCTION

Since Anti-IL-17s availability, concerns about their safety have been raised due to the inhibition of physiological activities that IL-17A plays in the immune response against infections. Ixekizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody specifically targeting IL-17A approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

AREAS COVERED

The aim of this review is to evaluate the safety profile of ixekizumab in moderate to severe psoriasis patients. A compressive literature review included article since March 2022.

EXPERT OPINION

in our analysis, most of the reported AEs were mild or moderate and rarely required treatment discontinuation. Among the class specific AEs to consider during ixekizumab treatment, there are the risk of Candida spp infections and the risk of IBD, which both were reported more frequently than if compared with placebo or other biologics (etanercept, ustekinumab, guselkumab). However, the reported candidiasis resulted mild-to moderate, and easily managed. The risk of IBD (both exacerbation and de novo diagnosis) represents a class effect of IL-17 inhibitors, which should be well evaluated before considering starting ixekizumab treatment. the most common AEs were represented by nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, and injection-site reactions. The analysed studies confirmed the favourable safety profile of ixekizumab even in more recently published studies.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Disease response and patient-reported outcomes among initiators of ixekizumab

OBJECTIVES

There is limited real-world evidence on using ixekizumab in psoriasis patients. Therefore, we characterized patients with psoriasis initiating ixekizumab and report 6-month changes in disease and patient-reported outcomes.

METHODS

Adult patients with psoriasis who initiated ixekizumab and completed a 6-month follow-up visit were enrolled from the Corrona Psoriasis Registry. Disease characteristics and outcomes were assessed at ixekizumab initiation. Outcomes included the mean 6-month change in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), body surface area (BSA), Investigator Global Assessment (IGA), and IGA*BSA.

RESULTS

From baseline to follow-up in all patients (n = 136), means decreased for IGA*BSA (-45.5) and BSA (-12.4), and a higher % achieved an absolute PASI ≤ 5 (84.6%), BSA 0-3 (72.1%), and IGA 0/1 (50.7%). Within stratified groups, means decreased for PASI <12 for IGA*BSA (-21.1) and BSA (-6.3); PASI≥12 for IGA*BSA (-94.8) and BSA (-24.6); weight <100 kg for IGA*BSA (-45.1) and BSA (-12.4); weight ≥100 kg for IGA*BSA (-46.2) and BSA (-12.3); concomitant PsA for IGA*BSA (-56.0) and BSA (-15.3); and in no concomitant PsA for IGA*BSA (-36.9) and BSA (-10.0).

CONCLUSIONS

We provide real-world evidence on the benefits of ixekizumab for treating psoriasis, regardless of baseline disease severity, weight, or concomitant PsA.

Infectious Complications of Biological and Small Molecule Targeted Immunomodulatory Therapies

The past 2 decades have seen a revolution in our approach to therapeutic immunosuppression. We have moved from relying on broadly active traditional medications, such as prednisolone or methotrexate, toward more specific agents that often target a single receptor, cytokine, or cell type, using monoclonal antibodies, fusion proteins, or targeted small molecules. This change has transformed the treatment of many conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, cancers, asthma, and inflammatory bowel disease, but along with the benefits have come risks. Contrary to the hope that these more specific agents would have minimal and predictable infectious sequelae, infectious complications have emerged as a major stumbling block for many of these agents. Furthermore, the growing number and complexity of available biologic agents makes it difficult for clinicians to maintain current knowledge, and most review articles focus on a particular target disease or class of agent. In this article, we review the current state of knowledge about infectious complications of biologic and small molecule immunomodulatory agents, aiming to create a single resource relevant to a broad range of clinicians and researchers. For each of 19 classes of agent, we discuss the mechanism of action, the risk and types of infectious complications, and recommendations for prevention of infection.

Rapid Response of Biologic Treatments of Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis: A Comprehensive Investigation Using Bayesian and Frequentist Network Meta-analyses

INTRODUCTION

Rapid improvement of psoriasis is valued by patients and should be considered to be an important factor in treatment selection. We investigated Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) response rates within the first 12 weeks of treatment to compare the rapid response of 11 biologic therapies for moderate-to-severe psoriasis using Bayesian and Frequentist network meta-analyses (NMA).

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled trials for adult patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis treated with interleukin (IL)-17 (brodalumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab), IL-12/-23 (ustekinumab), IL-23 (guselkumab, risankizumab, tildrakizumab), or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, infliximab). Outcome measures extracted from 32 publications were ≥ 75, ≥ 90, or 100% improvement in PASI score (PASI  75, PASI 90, or PASI 100, respectively) at weeks 2, 4, 8, and 12 and DLQI    (0,1), where score (0,1) indicates no effect on patient's life, at week 12. Bayesian NMA (BNMA) used fixed-treatment effect and random-baseline effect, normal independent models. Frequentist NMA (fNMA) was conducted as sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the findings.

RESULTS

Based on BNMA and fNMA, brodalumab and ixekizumab showed the most rapid treatment effects on PASI 75 at weeks 2, 4, and 8 and on PASI 90 and PASI 100 at weeks 2, 4, 8, and 12; ixekizumab overlapped with risankizumab on PASI 75 at week 12. Brodalumab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab yielded higher DLQI (0,1) gains at week 12 compared to all of the other biologics studied. Additional measures of quality of life were not assessed in this report.

CONCLUSIONS

Ixekizumab and brodalumab provide the most rapid response and earliest clinical benefit at week 2 among all of the biologics studied, including other biologic treatments such as secukinumab, ustekinumab, guselkumab, adalimumab, and etanercept. BNMA and fNMA results showed similar relative effect estimates and treatment rankings.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

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.

Ixekizumab for the treatment of psoriasis: an update on new data since first approval

Introduction: Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated skin disease with a multifactorial etiology. Studies have shown that the inflammatory cytokine interleukin-17A (IL-17A) is a key mediator in the pathogenesis. Targeted biologics have changed the outcome for patients in a variety of diseases including psoriasis. Ixekizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against IL-17A and it has been approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, and recently also psoriatic arthritis. Areas covered: In this review, we summarize the latest clinical study results on ixekizumab. Long-term Phase III study data on efficacy and safety are now available for both plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Additionally, new indications for ixekizumab are under investigation. Expert commentary: Overall, the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab are promising. In plaque psoriasis, the efficacy of ixekizumab was superior to etanercept and ustekinumab, while the efficacy was comparable to adalimumab in psoriatic arthritis. The safety profile has also been found very tolerable and similar to other biologics; however, vigilance regarding non-invasive Candida infections is necessary. Also, caution is advised when treating patients with concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, since ixekizumab could cause exacerbations. Long-term studies in real-life treatment settings are needed to decide the actual potential and safety of ixekizumab.

Ixekizumab: A Review of Its Use for the Management of Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis

Objective: To review the efficacy, safety, and place in therapy of ixekizumab for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Data Sources: PubMed (1966 to July 2018) and clinicaltrials.gov were searched using the terms ixekizumab, LY2439821, interleukin-17, and psoriasis. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Human studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals in English were used. Data Synthesis: The efficacy and safety of ixekizumab has been primarily reported by 4 phase III trials (UNCOVER-1, UNCOVER-2, UNCOVER-3, and UNCOVER-J) and multiple post hoc analyses. The average proportions of patients achieving a 75%, 90%, and 100% reduction in their Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) were 89%, 70%, and 38%, respectively, after 12 weeks of therapy. PASI75 was maintained for up to 3 years in 80.5% of participants. Ixekizumab was statistically significantly more effective than ustekinumab, with 76.5%, compared with 59%, of patients achieving PASI90 in 52 weeks. The most common adverse events include nasopharyngitis (14.1%), upper respiratory tract infections (7.9%), and injection-site reactions (6.8%), which are similar to that for other biological agents. The risk of inflammatory bowel disease may be increased with ixekizumab. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This review summarizes and evaluates clinical data regarding the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab and discusses relevant differences compared with other biological agents used for the management of chronic plaque psoriasis. Conclusions: Ixekizumab is a highly efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

Biologics and Small Molecule Agents in Allergic and Immunologic Skin Diseases

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Biologics and small molecules are key therapeutic options in the treatment of chronic immunologic and allergic skin conditions. By directly targeting innate and inflammatory responses within the skin, including pro-inflammatory cytokines and cellular signaling pathways, these new agents have the potential to counteract the inflammatory cascade responsible for various conditions, including psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. Over the past decade, groundbreaking research identifying key cytokines and receptors involved in the pathogenesis of these diseases has allowed for the development of highly efficacious biologics and small molecules that are associated with unprecedented rates of skin clearance and favorable adverse event profiles.

RECENT FINDINGS

This narrative review evaluates new and upcoming biologic and small molecule agents for the treatment of two allergic/immunologic skin diseases-atopic dermatitis and psoriasis. Numerous small molecules and biologics targeting TNF-α, IL-12/23, IL-17 and IL-17R, and IL-23 are commercially available for the treatment of psoriasis, and newer agents are in various stages of development. Currently, dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that blocks IL-4R∝, is the only approved biologic for atopic dermatitis. Antibodies targeting IL-13 and IL-31 and small molecules that inhibit Janus kinase and pruritus-mediating receptors are currently being studied in clinical trials. Further investigations into the pathophysiology of atopic dermatitis will likely yield additional therapeutic options in the future. This article reviews recent literature on small molecules and biologics for the treatment of atopic dermatitis and psoriasis.