Matching-adjusted indirect comparison: secukinumab versus infliximab in biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis

Comparative Effectiveness of Bimekizumab and Risankizumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis at 52 Weeks Assessed Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison

INTRODUCTION

The relative efficacy of bimekizumab and risankizumab in patients with PsA who were biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug naïve (bDMARD naïve) or with previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR) was assessed at 52 weeks (Wk52) using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC).

METHODS

Relevant trials were systematically identified. For patients who were bDMARD naïve, individual patient data (IPD) from BE OPTIMAL (NCT03895203; N = 431) were matched with summary data from KEEPsAKE-1 (NCT03675308; N = 483). For patients who were TNFi-IR, IPD from BE COMPLETE (NCT03896581; N = 267) were matched with summary data from the TNFi-IR patient subgroup in KEEPsAKE-2 (NCT03671148; N = 106). To adjust for cross-trial differences, patients from the bimekizumab trials were re-weighted to match the baseline characteristics of patients in the risankizumab trials. Adjustment variables were selected based on expert consensus (n = 5) and adherence to established MAIC guidelines. Recalculated bimekizumab Wk52 outcomes for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response criteria and minimal disease activity (MDA) index (non-responder imputation) were compared with risankizumab outcomes via non-placebo-adjusted comparisons.

RESULTS

In patients who were bDMARD naïve, bimekizumab had a significantly greater likelihood of response than risankizumab at Wk52 for ACR50 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.52 [1.11, 2.09]) and ACR70 (1.80 [1.29, 2.51]). In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a significantly greater likelihood of response than risankizumab at Wk52 for ACR20 (1.78 [1.08, 2.96]), ACR50 (3.05 [1.74, 5.32]), ACR70 (3.69 [1.82, 7.46]), and MDA (2.43 [1.37, 4.32]).

CONCLUSIONS

Using MAIC, bimekizumab demonstrated a greater likelihood of efficacy in most ACR and MDA outcomes than risankizumab in patients with PsA who were bDMARD naïve and TNFi-IR at Wk52.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT03675308, NCT03671148.

Comparative Effectiveness of Bimekizumab and Ustekinumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis at 52 Weeks Assessed Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison

INTRODUCTION

A matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted to assess the relative efficacy at 52 weeks (Wk52) of bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) and ustekinumab 45 or 90 mg every 12 weeks (Q12W) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug naïve (bDMARD naïve) or who had a previous inadequate response or an intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR).

METHODS

Relevant trials were systematically identified. Individual patient data from the bimekizumab trials BE OPTIMAL (NCT03895203; N = 431) and BE COMPLETE (NCT03896581; N = 267) were matched with summary data on patients receiving ustekinumab in the PSUMMIT 1 trial (NCT01009086; 45 mg, N = 205; 90 mg; N = 204) and a subgroup of TNFi-IR patients receiving ustekinumab in the PSUMMIT 2 trial (NCT01077362; 45 mg, N = 60; 90 mg, N = 58), respectively. Patients from the bimekizumab trials were re-weighted using propensity scores to match the baseline characteristics of the ustekinumab trial patients. Adjustment variables were selected based on expert consensus (n = 5) and adherence to established MAIC guidelines. Non-placebo-adjusted comparisons of recalculated bimekizumab and ustekinumab outcomes for the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response criteria (non-responder imputation) were analyzed.

RESULTS

In patients who were bDMARD naïve, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response than ustekinumab at Wk52 for ACR20 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 45 mg: 2.14 [1.35, 3.40]; 90 mg: 1.98 [1.24, 3.16]), ACR50 (45 mg: 2.74 [1.75, 4.29]; 90 mg: 2.29 [1.48, 3.55]), and ACR70 (45 mg: 3.33 [2.04, 5.46]; 90 mg: 3.05 [1.89, 4.91]). In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response than ustekinumab at Wk52 for ACR20 (45 mg: 4.17 [2.13, 8.16]; 90 mg: 4.19 [2.07, 8.49]), ACR50 (45 mg: 5.00 [2.26, 11.05]; 90 mg: 3.86 [1.70, 8.79]), and ACR70 (45 mg: 9.85 [2.79, 34.79]; 90 mg: 6.29 [1.98, 20.04]).

CONCLUSIONS

Using MAIC, bimekizumab showed greater efficacy than ustekinumab in achieving all ACR responses in patients with PsA who were bDMARD naïve and TNFi-IR at Wk52.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT01009086, NCT01077362.

Comparative Effectiveness of Bimekizumab and Secukinumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis at 52 Weeks Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison

INTRODUCTION

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were used to compare the efficacy of bimekizumab and secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg at 52 weeks for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients who were biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug-naïve (bDMARD-naïve) or with previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR).

METHODS

Relevant trials were systematically identified. Individual patient data from bimekizumab randomized controlled trials, BE OPTIMAL (N = 431) and BE COMPLETE (N = 267), were matched to aggregate data from bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR patient subgroups from FUTURE 2 using secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg doses (bDMARD-naïve: N = 63/37; TNFi-IR: N = 67/33). To adjust for cross-trial differences, patients from the bimekizumab trials were re-weighted using propensity scores to match the baseline characteristics of patients in the secukinumab trials. Unanchored comparisons of recalculated bimekizumab and secukinumab 52-week non-responder imputation outcomes for 20/50/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20/50/70) and minimal disease activity (MDA) index were analyzed.

RESULTS

In patients who were bDMARD-naïve, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of ACR70 response than secukinumab 150 mg (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.39 [1.26, 4.53]; p = 0.008) and secukinumab 300 mg (2.03 [1.11, 3.72]; p = 0.021) at 52 weeks. In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response compared to secukinumab 150 mg for ACR20 (3.50 [1.64-7.49]; p = 0.001), ACR50 (3.32 [1.41, 7.80]; p = 0.006), ACR70 (2.95 [1.08, 8.07]; p = 0.035) and MDA (3.52 [1.38, 8.99]; p = 0.009), and a greater likelihood of response compared to secukinumab 300 mg for ACR50 (2.44 [1.06, 5.65]; p = 0.037) and MDA (2.92 [1.20, 7.09]; p = 0.018) at 52 weeks.

CONCLUSION

In this MAIC analysis, the efficacy of bimekizumab, as demonstrated by the likelihood of ACR20/50/70 and MDA response at 52 weeks, was greater or comparable to secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg for patients with PsA who were bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT04009499, NCT01752634, NCT01989468, NCT02294227, NCT02404350.

Comparative Effectiveness of Bimekizumab and Guselkumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis at 52 Weeks Assessed Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison

INTRODUCTION

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) were used to assess the relative efficacy of bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) compared to guselkumab 100 mg Q4W or every 8 weeks (Q8W) at 48/52 weeks in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naïve (bDMARD-naïve) or with previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR).

METHODS

Relevant trials were identified as part of a systematic literature review. For patients who were bDMARD-naïve, individual patient data (IPD) from BE OPTIMAL (N = 431) was matched to summary data from DISCOVER-2 (Q4W, n = 245; Q8W, n = 248). For patients who were TNFi-IR, IPD from BE COMPLETE (n = 267) and summary data from COSMOS (Q8W, N = 189). Trial populations were re-weighted using propensity scores. Unanchored comparisons of recalculated bimekizumab and guselkumab 48- or 52-week non-responder imputation outcomes for 20/50/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20/50/70) and minimal disease activity (MDA) index were analyzed.

RESULTS

In patients who were bDMARD-naïve, bimekizumab was associated with a greater likelihood of ACR50 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.62 [1.07, 2.44]; p = 0.021), ACR70 (2.20 [1.43, 3.38]; p < 0.001), and MDA (1.82 [1.20, 2.76]; p = 0.005) compared to guselkumab Q4W at week 52. Bimekizumab also had a greater likelihood of ACR70 response (2.08 [1.34, 3.22]; p = 0.001) and MDA (2.07 [1.35, 3.17]; p < 0.001) compared to guselkumab Q8W at week 52. In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood in achieving all evaluated outcomes compared to guselkumab Q8W at week 48/52 (ACR20, 1.77 [1.15, 2.72]; p = 0.010; ACR50, 1.56 [1.03, 2.36]; p = 0.037; ACR70, 1.66 [1.05, 2.61]; p = 0.028; and MDA, 1.95 [1.27, 3.02]; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

According to MAICs, bimekizumab demonstrated greater or comparable efficacy on ACR50/70 and MDA outcomes than guselkumab in patients with PsA who were bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR at week 48/52. Bimekizumab had a more favorable likelihood than guselkumab in achieving more stringent treatment outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT04009499, NCT03158285, NCT03796858.

What's new and what's next for biological and targeted synthetic treatments in psoriatic arthritis?

INTRODUCTION

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic arthritis typically associated with cutaneous psoriasis (PsO). Its pathogenesis is connected to an innate and acquired immune response, as well as genetic risk alleles. The extent of immunopathogenic mechanisms and the heterogenicity of clinical manifestation make the identification of patient-targeted therapies a critical issue, and the treatment decision challenging in patients' management.

AREAS COVERED

This review includes a brief overview of biological and small-molecule therapies, focusing on evidence from clinical trials and real-world data that support their use in PsA. We summarize novel and future possible therapeutic strategies, the importance that comorbidities have on selection of therapy and discuss the adverse event of each drug. Relevant papers for up to 1 August 2022 (trials, real-life studies, and reviews) regarding biologics and/or small molecules were summarized.

EXPERT OPINION

In recent years, the treatment of PsA has been revolutionized by new targeted therapies, which offer the opportunity to perform a tailored-tail management, considering risk factors, comorbidities, and the different PsA phenotypes. Growing experience with these new agents allows novel treatment approaches that may improve clinical outcomes for PsA patients, in terms of remission/low disease activity and quality of life.

Indirect Treatment Comparison of Baricitinib versus Dupilumab in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis

INTRODUCTION

Indirect treatment comparison was used to compare approved doses of baricitinib and dupilumab for treating adult patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who are candidates for systemic therapy.

METHODS

Baricitinib and dupilumab were compared (Bucher method) at weeks 4 and 16. Performance in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS) was analyzed in patients with inadequate response or inadvisable to topical therapies (population A) and cyclosporine (population B). Population A was additionally examined as monotherapy.

RESULTS

For the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) 75, baricitinib and dupilumab were similar. A ≥ 4-point improvement in itch numerical rating scale (NRS) was significantly more likely with baricitinib 4 mg than dupilumab in population A as monotherapy (RR = 2.62, 95% CI 1.22, 5.61, p = 0.013) and in TCS combination at week 4. These differences were not significant by week 16. For the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), baricitinib 4 mg and dupilumab were similar on mean difference in change from baseline (MDcfb), though some differences were seen between baricitinib 2 mg and dupilumab at week 16 for the population A monotherapy (MDcfb = 2.05, 95% CI 0.53, 3.56, p = 0.016) and TCS combination therapy (MDcfb = 2.48, 95% CI 0.46, 4.50, p = 0.016) groups, and in population B (MDcfb = 3.38 95% CI 1.18, 5.58, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Baricitinib potentially offers more rapid improvement in itch while providing similar efficacy on EASI75 and DLQI outcomes compared with dupilumab.

Efficacy of Brodalumab and Guselkumab in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis Who are Inadequate Responders to Ustekinumab: A Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparison

Purpose

Both brodalumab and guselkumab improve skin clearance in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis after inadequate response to ustekinumab. In the absence of a direct head-to-head comparison, the relative efficacy of brodalumab and guselkumab in non-responders to ustekinumab were compared using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC).

Patients and Methods

Individual patient data for brodalumab (n = 121) were pooled from the AMAGINE-2 and -3 trials and adjusted using a propensity score reweighting method, so that baseline and week 16 characteristics matched the aggregate published data of patients with an inadequate response to ustekinumab who switched to guselkumab (n = 135) in the NAVIGATE trial.

Results

After inadequate response to ustekinumab, brodalumab resulted in significantly higher psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) 90 rates versus guselkumab at post-treatment switch week 12 (62.7% vs 48.1%, relative difference 14.6% [95% confidence interval [CI] 5.3–23.9], p = 0.002 [number needed to treat [NNT] = 6.8]) and week 36 (63.7% vs 51.1%; relative difference 12.6% [95% CI 4.1–21.0]; p = 0.004 [NNT = 7.9]) and PASI 100 rate at week 36 (40.3% vs 20.0%; relative difference 20.3% [95% CI 11.8–28.7]; p < 0.001 [NNT = 4.9]).

Conclusion

In this MAIC, brodalumab was associated with greater improvements than guselkumab in inadequate responders to ustekinumab. Switching to brodalumab in such patients may be a more effective strategy than switching to guselkumab.

Effect of interleukin-17A inhibitor in Japanese patients with psoriatic arthritis compared with tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitor

OBJECTIVES

The patient of severe psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is mainly treated with oral methotrexate, ciclosporin, and anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (TNFi). Recently, anti-interleukin-17A inhibitors (IL-17Ai) have been used in the treatment of PsA. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IL-17Ai in Japanese patients with PsA compared with those of TNFi.

METHODS

This was a longitudinal and retrospective study. The study population included 31 Japanese patients with PsA. All enrolled patients fulfilled the Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis. All patients were treated with TNFi or IL-17Ai. The assessed clinical manifestations were C-reactive protein (CRP)-based Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints (DAS28-CRP), disease activity in psoriatic arthritis (DAPSA), 20% achievement of American College of Rheumatology core set, swollen joint count (SJC), tender joint count (TJC), and visual analog scale (VAS). Functional ability of patients with PsA was analyzed using the modified health assessment questionnaire (mHAQ) score. We evaluated the parameters at baseline and weeks 12, 24, and 52.

RESULTS

The change in SJC, TJC, VAS, mHAQ, and DAPSA had no significant difference at weeks 12, 24, and 52. The improvements of CRP and DAS28-CRP were significantly higher in TNFi group only at week 12. The biologics retention rate was significantly higher in TNFi group by the log-rank test. No critical adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study presented that IL-17Ai had treatment effects comparable to TNFi. IL-17Ai might have the potential to become an alternative to the previous drug, but more large-scale studies are expected.

Comparative effectiveness of improvement in pain and physical function for baricitinib versus adalimumab, tocilizumab and tofacitinib monotherapies in rheumatoid arthritis patients who are naïve to treatment with biologic or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison

Objective

To compare improvement in pain and physical function for patients treated with baricitinib, adalimumab, tocilizumab and tofacitinib monotherapy from randomised, methotrexate (MTX)-controlled trials in conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs)/biologic (bDMARD)-naïve RA patients using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs).

Methods

Data were from Phase III trials on patients receiving monotherapy baricitinib, tocilizumab, adalimumab, tofacitinib or MTX. Pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale (0–100 mm) and physical function using the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). An MAIC based on treatment-arm matching, an MAIC with study-level matching and Bucher’s method without matching compared change in outcomes between therapies. Matching variables included age, gender, baseline disease activity and baseline value of outcome measure.

Results

With all methods, greater improvements were observed in pain and HAQ-DI at 6 months for baricitinib compared with adalimumab and tocilizumab (p<0.05). Differences in treatment effects (TEs) favouring baricitinib for pain VAS for treatment-arm matching, study-level matching and Bucher’s method, respectively, were −12, −12 and −12 for baricitinib versus adalimumab and −7, −7 and −9 for baricitinib versus tocilizumab; the difference in TEs for HAQ-DI was −0.28, −0.28 and −0.30 for adalimumab and −0.23, −0.23 and −0.26 for tocilizumab. For baricitinib versus tofacitinib, no statistically significant differences for pain improvement were observed except with one of the three methods (Bucher method) and none for HAQ-DI.

Conclusions

Results suggest greater pain reduction and improved physical function for baricitinib monotherapy compared with tocilizumab and adalimumab monotherapy. No statistically significant differences in pain reduction and improved physical function were observed between baricitinib and tofacitinib with the MAIC analyses.

Secukinumab: A Review in Psoriatic Arthritis

Secukinumab (Cosentyx^®) is a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively targets interleukin (IL)-17A, a proinflammatory cytokine involved in the pathogenesis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Administered subcutaneously, the first-in-class anti-IL-17 agent is approved in numerous countries worldwide for the treatment of adults with active PsA. In the phase III FUTURE trials, secukinumab 150 or 300 mg improved the clinical signs and symptoms of PsA versus placebo in patients with active disease despite previous treatment with NSAIDs, biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and/or tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi). The benefits of secukinumab were seen regardless of whether or not patients had received previous TNFi therapy, and were maintained during longer term (up to 5 years) treatment. In FUTURE 1 and 5, secukinumab inhibited structural joint damage and was associated with sustained low rates of radiographic progression through 1-3 years of treatment. Treatment with secukinumab improved physical function and health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) and was generally well tolerated, both in the short- and longer-term. In the head-to-head EXCEED trial, secukinumab did not quite attain statistical significance for superiority versus adalimumab in the joint domain. In conclusion, secukinumab is effective across all key PsA domains and is generally well tolerated, and thus represents a useful treatment alternative to TNFi and other bDMARDs in adult patients with active PsA.

Treatment persistence of biologics among patients with psoriatic arthritis

BACKGROUND

Persistence of biologic therapy in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients is an important factor in individualized patient treatment planning and healthcare policy and guideline development.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the persistence of biologic agents prescribed to PsA patients in a real-life setting as well as factors associated with improved biologic drug survival in these patients.

METHODS

Patients with PsA from a large healthcare provider database with at least two consecutive dispensed prescriptions of a biologic agent indicated for PsA from January 1, 2002, until December 31, 2018, were identified and followed until medication stop date or the end of observation period. Patients were considered non-persistent whenever a permissible lag time of 6 months from the time of prescription issuance until medication filling date was exceeded. Treatment changes were based on physician decisions and patient preferences. Demographic data including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), ethnicity, smoking history, and socioeconomic status as well as Charlson comorbidity index were retrieved. Data regarding use of steroids and conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) were also extracted. Descriptive statistics, including means (standard deviations) for continuous variables and frequencies (%) for categorical variables, were used. Persistence estimates were derived using non-parametric survival analysis using Kaplan-Meier functions, with treatment discontinuations as failure events. Cox regression hazard ratio models were conducted to investigate factors associated with drug persistence.

RESULTS

A total of 2301 PsA patients with 2958 treatment periods were identified and included in the analyses. Mean age of the study population was 50.9 ± 14 years, 54% were females, 70.4% were with BMI > 25, 40% were current smokers, and 76% were with a Charlson comorbidity index > 1. The most commonly prescribed drug was etanercept (33%), followed by adalimumab (29%), golimumab (12%), secukinumab (10%), ustekinumab (8%), and infliximab (8%). While approximately 40% of patients persisted on therapy following 20 months of treatment, only about 20% of patients remained on any particular biologic agent after 5 years. Analyzing the data for all treatment periods while taking into account all lines of therapy revealed that secukinumab had a higher persistency than adalimumab, infliximab, and ustekinumab, with a log rank of 0.022, 0.047, and 0.001, respectively. Female sex and smoking were associated with lower drug persistence (HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.13-1.38 and HR = 1.109, 95% CI = 1.01-1.21, respectively). On analyzing the data using only the first indicated biologic line, no superiority of any single anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNFα) agent was observed, while secukinumab was found to be superior as second line therapy to adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and ustekinumab but not to golimumab with a log rank P value of 0.001, 0.004, 0.025, and 0.002, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large observational cohort studied in the era of biologic therapy, a relatively low drug persistence was observed, with female sex and smoking having a negative impact on persistency. None of the anti-TNFα agents was found to be more persistent than others as first line therapy, while secukinumab was found to be superior to other biologics when indicated as second line of therapy.

An Update for the Clinician on Biologics for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory arthropathy typically associated with psoriasis (PsO). The pathogenesis is strictly related to the association among the presence of genetic risk alleles and innate and acquired immune response with dramatic consequences on bone remodeling. Clinically, PsA patients may present heterogenicity of articular and periarticular manifestations that may be associated with the presence of comorbidities making treatment decision challenging in patients management. The identification of patient-targeted therapies is still a critical issue. Actually, several biological and synthetic drugs are promising in terms of efficacy and safety profile. National and international treatment recommendations support clinicians in the decision of the best treatment, although they may have limits basically related to updates and different outcomes included in the clinical studies evaluated. The aim of this narrative review is therefore to give guidance for clinicians for PsA patients treatment. For this purpose, we evaluated evidence on biological therapies efficacy used for PsA treatment. Specifically, we reviewed data on biological therapies, Janus kinases (JAK) inhibitors, and drugs with a new mechanism of action that are part of the treatment pipeline. The concept of "switching" and "swapping" is also described, as well as data concerning special populations such as pregnant women and elderly patients.

Effectiveness comparison and incremental cost-per-responder analysis of calcipotriene 0.005%/betamethasone dipropionate 0.064% foam vs. halobetasol 0.01%/tazarotene 0.045% lotion for plaque psoriasis: a matching-adjusted indirect comparative analysis

Background: The fixed-dose combination foam formulation of calcipotriene 0.005% plus betamethasone dipropionate 0.064% (Cal/BD) has demonstrated efficacy and a favorable safety profile for the treatment of plaque psoriasis. Recently, a topical lotion of the combination of halobetasol 0.01% plus tazarotene 0.045% (HP/TAZ) was approved for treating adult plaque psoriasis. Currently, no head-to-head studies have compared Cal/BD foam with HP/TAZ lotion.Objective: Compare the effectiveness and drug incremental cost per responder (ICPR) of Cal/BD foam vs. HP/TAZ lotion in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.Methods: An anchor-based, matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted for PGA treatment success (Physician's Global Assessment of "clear" or "almost clear," [PGA 0/1] with at least a 2-point improvement) using individual patient data from 3 randomized clinical studies of Cal/BD foam and published data from 2 randomized, Phase 3 clinical studies of HP/TAZ lotion. The number needed to treat and ICPR were also calculated.Results: After reweighting of patients in the Cal/BD foam studies to match summary baseline characteristics of the HP/TAZ lotion study patients and anchoring to vehicle effect, 4 weeks of Cal/BD foam produced a significantly greater rate of treatment success than 8 weeks of HP/TAZ lotion treatment (51.4 vs. 30.7%; treatment difference = 20.7%, p < .001). The number needed to treat with Cal/BD foam was also less than HP/TAZ lotion (1.9 vs. 3.3). Using US wholesale acquisition costs and equal weekly consumption rates, the incremental cost per PGA 0/1 responder relative to vehicle for Cal/BD foam was $3,988 and was 37% lower compared with HP/TAZ lotion ($6,294).Conclusions: The indirect comparison analyses showed that Cal/BD foam was associated with a greater rate of treatment success, lower ICPR, and quicker treatment response than HP/TAZ lotion in adult patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

A dermatologist perspective in the pharmacological treatment of patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory disease associated with psoriasis in 20-30% of patients. PsA presents as a heterogeneous disease involving different domains and burdened by an important impact on function and quality of life.

AREAS COVERED

Dermatologists play an important role in the early detection of PsA because in most patients PsA develop after cutaneous psoriasis. The ideal goal of treating patients with PsA is to optimize the controls of symptoms, improve quality of life, and prevent structural damage and disability. The choice of treatment in patients with PsA should take into account also the skin signs and symptoms. Treatment options include NSAIDs, synthetic DMARDSs, anti-TNF-α agents, anti-IL-12/IL-23 agents, anti-IL-17 agents, PDE4 inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, and co-stimulatory blockers. A narrative review based on electronic searches on PubMed® database was performed. Original articles assessing either the role of the dermatologist in the management of PsA and the available treatments for PsA were included.

EXPERT OPINION

Among different treatments, some drugs show more efficacy in joint signs and symptoms, and poor response on the skin and vice versa. The perspective of the dermatologist in a multidisciplinary setting may provide a helpful tool in the management of patients with PsA.

Mini Review: New Treatments in Psoriatic Arthritis. Focus on the IL-23/17 Axis

Psoriasis, an inflammatory skin disease, and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), an inflammatory arthritis, share clinical, genetic, and pathogenic factors and may be summed as one disease, the psoriatic disease. Interleukin (IL)-17 plays a major role in the development of both psoriasis and PsA. IL-23 is important in the proliferation and maintenance of IL-17, and therefore, cytokines of the IL-23/IL-17 axis attracted much interest as therapeutic targets in psoriasis and PsA. Therapeutic agents targeting the IL-23/IL-17 axis have been proven to be very effective in psoriasis and PsA, some are already in the therapeutic armamentarium and others are in the development. Some agents, target IL-23 and others IL-17 and include anti-IL-12/IL-23 p40 (ustekinumab, briankizumab), anti-IL-23p19 (guselkumab, tildrakizumab, risankizumab, brazikumab, mirikizumab), anti-IL-17A (secukinumab, ixekizumab), dual anti-IL-17A and anti-IL-17F (bimekizumab), or anti-IL-17 receptor (brodalumab) monoclonal antibodies. Janus tyrosine kinase(JAK) inhibitors also directly affect IL-23 and, thus, IL-17. After the first-generation pan-JAK inhibitors have been shown efficacy (tofacitinib, baricitinib), new-generation selective JAK inhibitors (filgotinib, upadacitinib) are under investigation in psoriasis and PsA.