A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Injection Site Reactions in Randomized-Controlled Trials of Biologic Injections

Multiple-Dose Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, Safety, and Tolerability of Subcutaneous Rusfertide, a Hepcidin Mimetic, in Healthy Subjects

Rusfertide, a peptide hepcidin mimetic, has shown efficacy in polycythemia vera. This trial investigated the multiple-dose pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of once-weekly rusfertide 60 mg for 5 weeks in healthy subjects. Subjects were randomized to subcutaneous injection in the abdomen, upper arm, or thigh. Eighteen subjects were enrolled, and 15 completed the study. Geometric mean peak rusfertide plasma concentrations (Cmax) following the first dose were 547, 387, and 560 ng/mL following injection in the abdomen, thigh, and arm, respectively (P = .0054). There was no difference between injection sites in the rusfertide area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) following the first dose (P ≥ .179) or in the Cmax or AUC during the dosing interval following the last dose (P ≥ .238). Geometric mean accumulation (Dose 5/Dose 1) for AUC and Cmax was 1.5 and 1.2, respectively, and similar across injection sites. Mechanism-based decreases in serum iron, transferrin-iron saturation, hemoglobin, and hematocrit were noted following multiple doses. There were no differences between injection sites in the pharmacodynamic effect as measured by change from baseline in hematocrit values. There were no serious adverse events. Treatment-emergent adverse events in 2 or more subjects were injection-site reactions (erythema, induration, pruritus), fatigue, and headache. There were no clinically relevant findings in the safety laboratory parameters, vital signs, electrocardiograms, or physical examination. While a higher incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was noted in these healthy participants following multiple doses of 60 mg, rusfertide was generally well tolerated. There were no clinically meaningful differences in rusfertide pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics between injection sites.

Demographics, Disease Characteristics, and Treatment Patterns of Patients with Plaque Psoriasis Treated with Biological Drugs: The Experience of a Single-Centre Study in Poland

Objectives: This study is a retrospective analysis of patients with plaque psoriasis treated with biological drugs at a single center in Poland. We sought to evaluate patient demographics, disease characteristics, comorbidity burden, and treatment patterns in this cohort. Methods: Data were collected from the medical records of patients with plaque psoriasis who received biological treatments. In total, data from 1 January 2013 to 2 August 2024 were analyzed, encompassing 159 patients. The variables analyzed included age, disease duration, affected areas, prior treatments, and treatment outcomes. Results: The mean age at the start of biological treatment was 48 years (range: 10-73 years), with an average psoriasis duration of 18.2 years (range: 1-51 years). Obesity was noted in 39% of patients. Psoriasis lesions commonly affected the scalp (74.66%) and nails (64.38%). Methotrexate was the most commonly used systemic therapy prior to biologics (86.30%). Risankizumab and adalimumab were the most frequently prescribed biologics. Secondary treatment failure led to the highest discontinuation rates with tildrakizumab, whereas bimekizumab, guselkumab, risankizumab, and secukinumab showed the lowest rates. Conclusions: Biological drugs play a pivotal role in managing plaque psoriasis, particularly for patients with comorbidities and in treating challenging areas such as the scalp and nails. Risankizumab and adalimumab were prominent in prescription patterns. Future research involving larger cohorts and prospective designs is needed to deepen understanding and optimize treatment strategies for plaque psoriasis in Poland.

Biologics in allergology and clinical immunology: Update on therapies for atopic diseases, urticaria, and angioedema and on safety aspects focusing on hypersensitivity reactions

The development of targeted therapies for atopic diseases, urticaria, and angioedema with biologics is progressing rapidly: New "targets" of clinical-therapeutic relevance have been identified, the corresponding targeted antibodies developed, tested in clinical trials, and approved for therapy. These include the anti-IgE antibody omalizumab (also effective and approved for the treatment of urticaria), the anti-IL-4/13 receptor-specific antibody dupilumab, the two anti-IL-13 antibodies lebrikizumab and tralokinumab, the anti-TSLP antibody tezepelumab, the two anti-IL-5 antibodies mepolizumab and reslizumab, and the anti-IL5 receptor-specific antibody benralizumab for the treatment of atopic diseases. For the treatment of hereditary angioedema, C1 inhibitor and the antibody lanadelumab (directed against kallikrein) have also long been approved as biologics in addition to low-molecular substances. Other therapeutic antibodies are in various stages of development. Furthermore, the range of indications for some very effective biologics has been successfully expanded to include additional diseases. In this context, the first results on biologic therapy of food allergy and eosinophilic esophagitis are interesting. Biologics that address different target structures are also increasingly being administered in combination, either simultaneously or sequentially, in order to achieve optimal efficacy. A developing area is the use of biologics in children and the observation of immunological and non-immunological side effects. In some cases, new unexpected side effects and hypersensitivity reactions have emerged, which in turn raise pathomechanistic questions, such as conjunctivitis with dupilumab therapy, which only appears to occur in the treatment of atopic dermatitis but not in the treatment of other atopic diseases. In dermatology, paradoxical reactions have been described under therapy with some biologics. And immune reactions of type alpha to epsilon to biologics (hypersensitivity reactions) continue to be a clinically relevant problem, whereby the selection of an alternative therapeutic agent is a challenge and the diagnostics that support this have not yet been sufficiently incorporated into routine work.

Injection site reactions resulting from the use of biological therapy in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis

INTRODUCTION

Biological medications have significantly improved the prognosis of psoriasis patients. All biological drugs (except infliximab) for psoriasis require subcutaneous (SC) administration. Adverse events of biologic drug treatment include injection site reactions. ISRs are a local phenomenon characterized by swelling, erythema, pruritus, and pain around the injection site.

AREAS COVERED

We conducted a review to analyze the differences between the ISRs of various biologics approved for psoriasis. Specifically, the review focused on anti-TNF-α, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL-17, and anti-IL-23 drugs.

EXPERT OPINION

Etanercept and adalimumab have reported ISR rates of 37% and 20%, respectively, with erythema, pruritus, pain, and irritation being the most common. Citrate free (CF) solution and thinner needles have reduced ISR associated with adalimumab. Ustekinumab showed a low risk of ISR. Regarding secukinumab and ixekizumab, pain was found to be the most common ISR. The introduction of CF ixekizumab formulation has shown promise in reducing ISRs associated with ixekizumab. The risk of ISR appears insignificant with bimekizumab, brodalumab, and anti-IL23 drugs, with ISR rates ranging from less than 1% to 7.1%. The choice of biologic agent should consider ISR risk. Education on injection techniques and the use of single-dose autoinjectors/pens can mitigate ISR risk.

Adverse events associated with inclisiran: a real-world disproportionality analysis based on the FAERS database

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials have reported some safety profiles in inclisiran, but adverse events in real-world remain insufficient. We aim to evaluate the safety of inclisiran in real-world by collecting the data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database.

METHODS

Disproportionality analysis was performed by utilizing both Frequency method and Bayesian method to mine adverse event signals of inclisiran. A positive signal was deemed significant when adverse event met the criteria of the aforementioned methods simultaneously.

RESULTS

We gathered a total of 2309 adverse event reports. Among these cases, adverse events were more common in females and ≥ 65 years age group. After data analysis, 51 positive signals from 11 system organ classes were identified, involving "Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders," "General disorders and administration site conditions," "Gastrointestinal disorders," etc. At the preferred term level, the top three frequently reported adverse events were arthralgia, injection site pain and myalgia. We also found some uncommon but significantly strong adverse event signals (bladder discomfort and sinus pain) which should be taken prudently.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we analyzed the real-world adverse events of inclisiran more comprehensively and reported some new adverse events, hoping that can offer more safety information for clinical medication.

Patient self-reported experience and satisfaction with golimumab and etanercept treatments for rheumatic diseases: A cohort study

Golimumab and etanercept both exhibit good efficacy in treating rheumatic diseases, while the patient self-reported measurement of treatment improvement and injection experience lacks sufficient evidence. Hence, this study aimed to compare the satisfaction with disease improvement and injection experience and the level of injection site reactions (ISRs) between golimumab-treated and etanercept-treated patients with rheumatic diseases. A total of 312 patients with rheumatic diseases were serially enrolled. Among them, 158 patients received golimumab (golimumab group); the other 154 patients were treated with etanercept (etanercept group) according to the actual disease status, physician advice, and patient willingness. Satisfaction with disease improvement was assessed using the 7-point Likert scale; satisfaction with injection experience and level of ISRs were both determined by the 5-point Likert scale. Satisfaction degrees with global injection experience (P = .025), injection device (P = .008), injection frequency (P = .010), and injection convenience (P = .003) were superior in the golimumab group to the etanercept group, while satisfaction degrees with global disease improvement, symptom relief, and speed of action did not vary (all P > .050) between the 2 groups. Discomfort (P = .005), swelling (P < .001), pain (P = .028), and burning (P = .035) levels were lower in the golimumab group than in the etanercept group. In addition, among 56 patients with a history of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor treatment before golimumab, 40 (71.4%) patients preferred golimumab to other tumor necrosis factor inhibitor. After switching to golimumab treatment, the level of ISRs in most patients was reduced or comparable. Golimumab achieves a satisfying injection experience and relieves the level of ISRs over etanercept in patients with rheumatic diseases.