Application of the Itch Severity Score in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: Clinically important difference and responder analyses

Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale for Prurigo Nodularis: A Secondary Analysis of 2 Randomized Clinical Trials

Importance

Prurigo nodularis (PN) is a debilitating skin disease characterized by the hallmark symptom of chronic itch; the intensity of itch in PN was assessed using the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) to evaluate the primary efficacy end point of 2 recent phase 3 studies of dupilumab treatment for PN.

Objective

To validate the psychometric properties and to determine the clinically meaningful improvement threshold for WI-NRS in patients with moderate to severe PN.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this secondary analysis of the PRIME and PRIME2 trials, content validity of WI-NRS was assessed through in-depth patient interviews. Psychometric assessments used pooled data from masked, intention-to-treat (ITT) patients with PN from randomized, double-masked, and placebo-controlled studies. Psychometric assessments included test-retest reliability, construct validity, known-groups validity, and sensitivity to change in adult patients with moderate-to-severe PN. Thresholds for meaningful within-patient improvement in the WI-NRS score were determined using anchor and distribution-based approaches. Data were analyzed after completion of each study, December 2019 to November 2021 for PRIME and January 2020 to August 2021 for PRIME2.

Exposures

Dupilumab (300 mg) or placebo subcutaneously every 2 weeks for 24 weeks.

Main outcomes and measures

WI-NRS score at specified time points up to 24 weeks after randomization.

Results

A total of 20 patients were included across the 2 studies (mean [SD] age, 49.3 [17.2] years; 11 female [55%]); 311 patients were included in the pooled intention-to-treat analysis (mean [SD] age, 49.5 [16.1] years; 203 female [65.3%]). The WI-NRS questions (20 of 20 patients), recall period (19 of 20 patients), and response scale (20 of 20 patients) were easy to understand and relevant for patients with PN. Adequate test-retest reliability was observed between screening and baseline (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.72, using Patient Global Impression of Severity [PGIS] to define stable patients). Convergent and discriminant validity was supported by moderate to strong correlations (absolute r range = 0.34-0.73) with other conceptually related measures and weaker correlations (absolute r range = 0.06-0.32) with less-related measures, respectively. WI-NRS was sensitive to change, as demonstrated by differences in change from baseline among groups (per PGIS change and PGI of Change [PGIC]). Using anchor-based approach with PGIS and PGIC, the clinically meaningful improvement threshold was 4 points (range, 3.0-4.5), which was also supported by distribution-based methods.

Conclusion and Relevance

This study found that WI-NRS may be a fit-for-purpose instrument to support efficacy end points measuring the intensity of itching in adults with PN.

Trial Registration

NCT04183335 (PRIME) and NCT04202679 (PRIME2).

The Autism Impact Measure (AIM): Meaningful Change Thresholds and Core Symptom Changes Over One Year from an Online Survey in the U.S

Validated outcome measures with the capacity to reflect meaningful change are key to assessing potential interventions for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We derive clinically meaningful change thresholds (MCTs) of the Autism Impact Measure (AIM) and identify factors associated with meaningful change. Baseline and 12-months follow-up survey of caregivers of 2,761 children with ASD aged 3-17 years from the U.S. Simons Foundation Powering Autism Research for Knowledge (SPARK) cohort were analyzed. Using caregiver-reported anchors for change, the 12-month change in estimated AIM MCT (95% confidence interval) for symptom improvement was -4.5 (-7.61, -1.37) points and 9.9 (5.12, 14.59) points for symptom deterioration. These anchor-based MCTs will facilitate future assessments of caregiver-reported change in AIM scores.

From Meaningful Outcomes to Meaningful Change Thresholds: A Path to Progress for Establishing Digital Endpoints

This paper examines the use of digital endpoints (DEs) derived from digital health technologies (DHTs), focusing primarily on the specific considerations regarding the determination of meaningful change thresholds (MCT). Using DHTs in drug development is becoming more commonplace. There is general acceptance of the value of DHTs supporting patient-centric trial design, capturing data outside the traditional clinical trial setting, and generating DEs with the potential to be more sensitive to change than conventional assessments. However, the transition from exploratory endpoints to primary and secondary endpoints capable of supporting labeling claims requires these endpoints to be substantive with reproducible population-specific values. Meaningful change represents the amount of change in an endpoint measure perceived as important to patients and should be determined for each digital endpoint and given population under consideration. This paper examines existing approaches to determine meaningful change thresholds and explores examples of these methodologies and their use as part of DE development: emphasizing the importance of determining what aspects of health are important to patients and ensuring the DE captures these concepts of interest and aligns with the overarching endpoint strategy. Examples are drawn from published DE qualification documentation and responses to qualification submissions under review by the various regulatory authorities. It is the hope that these insights will inform and strengthen the development and validation of DEs as drug development tools, particularly for those new to the approaches to determine MCTs.

Efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors in the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

JAK inhibitors are a relatively new class of medications that may be useful in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of several JAK inhibitors in treating psoriasis and PsA and examine safety concerns.

Methods

MEDLINE, Cochrane and EMBASE were searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing any JAK inhibitor to placebo. The primary outcomes were a 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI75) and a 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology composite score (ACR20). A secondary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a “0” or “1” on the static Physician Global Assessment scale. Odds ratios were used to compare the proportion of patients reaching these targets in the max dose intervention group vs. the placebo group. A random effects model was used to account for heterogeneity.

Results

In total, 15 RCTs were included in the study and no observational studies. This encompassed 6757 patients in total. When the results were combined, the calculated odds ratio for PASI75 amongst tofacitinib vs. placebo was OR 14.35 [95%CI 7.65, 26.90], for PASI75 amongst non-tofacitinib JAK inhibitors vs. placebo it was OR 6.42 [95%CI 4.89, 8.43], for ACR20 amongst all JAK inhibitors versus placebo was OR 5.87 [95%CI 4.39, 7.85]. There was no significant difference in prevalence of serious adverse events between intervention and control in any of these studies.

Conclusion

JAK inhibitors show promise for safely treating moderate-to-severe psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41927-022-00287-7.

Credibility and Generalization of the Minimally Important Difference Concept in Dermatology: A Scoping Review

Importance

The minimally important difference (MID) represents the point at which a difference in an outcome measure (eg, Dermatology Life Quality Index) is important enough that it warrants a change in treatment, and, to the authors' knowledge, the robustness and limitations of MIDs have not been thoroughly evaluated in skin diseases. The MID is increasingly used in clinical trials to demonstrate that an intervention is worthwhile for patients; furthermore, MIDs also contribute to sample size calculations in clinical trials, influence treatment guidelines, and can guide clinicians to modify treatment.

Objective

To evaluate the credibility and generalization of MIDs for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in skin disorders.

Evidence Review

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and Embase for all original articles using the MID concept for skin disorders from inception to December 29, 2021. The credibility of MIDs obtained via an anchor-based approach (eg, global rating of change scale) was assessed with a previously developed credibility instrument. The validity of generalizing established MIDs to other patient groups was evaluated based on the diagnosis and the patient characteristics.

Findings

A total of 126 articles were selected, and 84 different MIDs were identified for PROMs. A total of 13 of 84 MIDs (15.5%) for PROMs displayed acceptable credibility. The anchors used had varying capacity to assess minimal important changes from a patient's perspective and were deemed inappropriate for this purpose in 52 of 84 cases (61.9%). Correlations between the anchors and PROMs were frequently not determined (39 of 84; 46.4%). The time interval for anchor questions assessing a change in the experienced disease burden was not optimal for 10 of 32 transition anchors (>3 months), introducing potential recall bias. Previously reported MIDs were widely used to examine relevant changes in other study populations. However, the diagnosis and disease severity were different from the original MID population in 39 of 70 (55.7%) and 45 of 70 (64.3%) cases, respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this scoping review, only a minority of MIDs for PROMs demonstrated sufficient credibility in dermatology. Inappropriate generalization of previously reported MIDs to patient populations with different disease characteristics was found to be a major concern. Furthermore, the study supported the use of multiple anchors and encouraged consistent reporting of the correlation between changes in the anchor and changes in the outcome measures.

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.

Psychometric validation and meaningful change thresholds of the Worst Itching Intensity Numerical Rating Scale for assessing itch in patients with chronic kidney disease-associated pruritus

Background

Chronic kidney disease-associated pruritus (CKD-aP) is characterized by persistent itch that often leads to substantially impaired quality of life. The Worst Itching Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (WI-NRS) is a single-item patient-reported outcome measure in which patients indicate the intensity of the worst itching they experienced over the past 24 h. Here, we evaluated the content validity and psychometric properties of the WI-NRS and confirmed the threshold of meaningful change in hemodialysis patients with moderate-to-severe CKD-aP.

Methods

Content validity interviews were conducted in 23 patients. Psychometric properties of the WI-NRS were assessed using data from one phase 2 (N = 174) and two phase 3 (N = 848) clinical trials investigating an anti-pruritic treatment. Anchor-based methods were used to confirm meaningful within-patient change score thresholds in the phase 3 trial patients and mixed-method exit interviews (N = 70) contributed further insight.

Results

Content validity interviews indicated patients considered the WI-NRS to be straightforward, comprehensive, and relevant. Test–retest reliability was strong in both trial cohorts (intraclass correlation coefficients > 0.75). Construct validity analyses indicated high correlation between the WI-NRS and other measures of itch. Anchor-based analyses showed a reduction of ≥ 3 points from baseline score represented an appropriate clinically meaningful within-patient change on the WI-NRS. In the exit interviews, all patients with a reduction ≥ 3 points considered the change meaningful.

Conclusions

The WI-NRS is a reliable, valid, and responsive measure of itch intensity for patients with moderate-to-severe CKD-aP. These results support its use to assess treatment efficacy and in clinical evaluation and management of pruritus in hemodialysis patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-021-00404-z.

Itching is a distressing medical condition common in patients with chronic kidney disease, especially those undergoing hemodialysis. The itch often leads to skin damage due to a continuous and uncontrollable urge to scratch. It affects about 60% of hemodialysis patients and can be severe enough to seriously affect quality of life. At present, there are no approved therapies. To evaluate whether new treatments for itch are effective, clinicians need to assess if the intensity of itch decreases over time. However, because itch intensity can only be measured accurately by the person experiencing it, a measure is required that can be easily understood and used by patients. This study evaluated a scale in which patients mark a number between ‘0’ (corresponding to no itch) and ‘10’ (the worst itching imaginable), to describe the worst itch intensity they experienced over the last 24 hours. Using data from three clinical trials of a novel treatment for itch in patients undergoing hemodialysis with moderate-to-severe pruritus, we found that the scale was reliable in repeat-testing experiments, and mirrored other methods of measuring changes in itch. In interviews, patients said they found the scale straightforward and easy to complete. Our analysis and patients’ opinions showed a 3-point reduction in itch intensity on the scale represented a meaningful improvement. These findings support the use of this scale to assess the efficacy of new treatments and in clinical evaluation and management of pruritus in patients with chronic kidney disease.

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.

Joint AAD-NPF Guidelines of care for the management and treatment of psoriasis with topical therapy and alternative medicine modalities for psoriasis severity measures

Psoriasis is a chronic, inflammatory, multisystem disease that affects up to 3.2% of the United States population. This guideline addresses important clinical questions that arise in psoriasis management and care and provides recommendations based on the available evidence. The treatment of psoriasis with topical agents and with alternative medicine will be reviewed, emphasizing treatment recommendations and the role of dermatologists in monitoring and educating patients regarding benefits as well as risks that may be associated. This guideline will also address the severity assessment methods of psoriasis in adults.

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.

Itch: an under-recognized problem in psoriasis

Psoriasis has historically been considered a nonpruritic dermatosis, in contrast with atopic dermatitis. Thus, itch has often been underappreciated and overlooked in psoriasis. However, increasing evidence over the past decade has shown that itch can be one of the most prevalent and burdensome symptoms associated with psoriasis, affecting almost every patient to some degree. Itch can involve the entire body, although it predominantly affects the legs, hands, back, body and especially the scalp. Uncontrolled itch can significantly impact all aspects of the well-being and quality of life of the patient. While there has been some progress in trying to better understand the pathophysiology of itch in psoriasis, more research effort and interest are needed. This under-recognition of itch in psoriasis is clearly reflected in the dearth of treatment options targeting itch despite significant advancement in treating the lesions themselves. Recently, however, clinical studies have begun to include itch as a study outcome. The resulting data have demonstrated concomitant antipruritic benefits and improved Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores with mainstay treatments for psoriasis, such as topical corticosteroids and vitamin D analogs, phototherapies, and various systemics and biologics. This article takes a closer look at this debilitating symptom, reviewing the available epidemiology data for psoriatic itch, presenting the current understanding of psoriatic itch pathophysiology and highlighting important clinical data for various treatment options for itch. Practical considerations for increasing the recognition of itch as well as improving its management in psoriasis are also provided.

Drugs on the Horizon for Chronic Pruritus

Chronic pruritus is a common condition that has a detrimental impact on quality of life. As the molecular pathogenesis of itch is elucidated, novel therapies that disrupt itch pathways are being investigated. Emerging treatments include drugs targeting the neural system, drugs targeting the immune system, antihistamines, bile acid transport inhibitors, and topical drugs that work through a variety of mechanisms such as phosphodiesterase-4 inhibition or targeting of nerve ion channels. Many of these therapies show promising results in the treatment of chronic itch of various etiologies, such as atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, uremic pruritus, and cholestatic pruritus.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional systemic agents (acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, methotrexate), small molecules (apremilast, tofacitinib, ponesimod), anti-TNF alpha (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab), anti-IL12/23 (ustekinumab), anti-IL17 (secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab), anti-IL23 (guselkumab, tildrakizumab), and other biologics (alefacept, itolizumab) for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to December 2016: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) reports. We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant RCTs. We searched the trial results databases of a number of pharmaceutical companies and handsearched the conference proceedings of a number of dermatology meetings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic and biological treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate to severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI) 90) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse effects). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes, according to GRADE; we evaluated evidence as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 109 studies in our review (39,882 randomised participants, 68% men, all recruited from a hospital). The overall average age was 44 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo controlled (67%), 23% were head-to-head studies, and 10% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and placebo. We have assessed all treatments listed in the objectives (19 in total). In all, 86 trials were multicentric trials (two to 231 centres). All of the trials included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment at less than 24 weeks after randomisation); in fact, all trials included in the network meta-analysis were measured between 12 and 16 weeks after randomisation. We assessed the majority of studies (48/109) as being at high risk of bias; 38 were assessed as at an unclear risk, and 23, low risk.Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90.In terms of reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents. Small molecules were associated with a higher chance of reaching PASI 90 compared to conventional systemic agents.At drug level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, all of the anti-IL17 agents and guselkumab (an anti-IL23 drug) were significantly more effective than the anti-TNF alpha agents infliximab, adalimumab, and etanercept, but not certolizumab. Ustekinumab was superior to etanercept. No clear difference was shown between infliximab, adalimumab, and etanercept. Only one trial assessed the efficacy of infliximab in this network; thus, these results have to be interpreted with caution. Tofacitinib was significantly superior to methotrexate, and no clear difference was shown between any of the other small molecules versus conventional treatments.Network meta-analysis also showed that ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, certolizumab, and ustekinumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90: the most effective drug was ixekizumab (risk ratio (RR) 32.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 23.61 to 44.60; Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) = 94.3; high-certainty evidence), followed by secukinumab (RR 26.55, 95% CI 20.32 to 34.69; SUCRA = 86.5; high-certainty evidence), brodalumab (RR 25.45, 95% CI 18.74 to 34.57; SUCRA = 84.3; moderate-certainty evidence), guselkumab (RR 21.03, 95% CI 14.56 to 30.38; SUCRA = 77; moderate-certainty evidence), certolizumab (RR 24.58, 95% CI 3.46 to 174.73; SUCRA = 75.7; moderate-certainty evidence), and ustekinumab (RR 19.91, 95% CI 15.11 to 26.23; SUCRA = 72.6; high-certainty evidence).We found no significant difference between all of the interventions and the placebo regarding the risk of serious adverse effects (SAEs): the relative ranking strongly suggested that methotrexate was associated with the best safety profile regarding all of the SAEs (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.99; SUCRA = 90.7; moderate-certainty evidence), followed by ciclosporin (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.01 to 5.10; SUCRA = 78.2; very low-certainty evidence), certolizumab (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.36; SUCRA = 70.9; moderate-certainty evidence), infliximab (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.00; SUCRA = 64.4; very low-certainty evidence), alefacept (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.55; SUCRA = 62.6; low-certainty evidence), and fumaric acid esters (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.99; SUCRA = 57.7; very low-certainty evidence). Major adverse cardiac events, serious infections, or malignancies were reported in both the placebo and intervention groups. Nevertheless, the SAEs analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to very low certainty for just over half of the treatment estimates in total, moderate for the others. Thus, the results have to be considered with caution.Considering both efficacy (PASI 90 outcome) and acceptability (SAEs outcome), highly effective treatments also had more SAEs compared to the other treatments, and ustekinumab, infliximab, and certolizumab appeared to have the better trade-off between efficacy and acceptability.Regarding the other efficacy outcomes, PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1, the results were very similar to the results for PASI 90.Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for a third of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, certolizumab, and ustekinumab are the best choices for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate to severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. At class level, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents, too. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured between 12 to 16 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficiently relevant for a chronic disease. Moreover, low numbers of studies were found for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 44 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice.Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. Indeed, we found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs. Methotrexate appeared to have the best safety profile, but as the evidence was of very low to moderate quality, we cannot be sure of the ranking. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies as well.In terms of future research, randomised trials comparing directly active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between conventional systemic and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve patients, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents.

Current and Emerging Therapies for Itch Management in Psoriasis

Pruritus is a common and significant symptom among patients with psoriasis. Pruritus is often present beyond the borders of psoriatic plaques, and frequently affects the scalp and genital regions. Psoriatic itch may be severe and can profoundly affect quality of life and sleep, even in the context of mild-to-moderate disease. These features often make the treatment of psoriatic pruritus challenging. However, there are a variety of effective topical and systemic treatment modalities available to address this symptom. While there remains a need for treatments that specifically target psoriatic itch, newly licensed therapies including secukinumab, ixekizumab and apremilast have been shown to rapidly and effectively mediate itch reduction.

Treatment of plaque psoriasis with an ointment formulation of the Janus kinase inhibitor, tofacitinib: a Phase 2b randomized clinical trial

Background

Most psoriasis patients have mild to moderate disease, commonly treated topically. Current topical agents have limited efficacy and undesirable side effects associated with long-term use. Tofacitinib is a small molecule Janus kinase inhibitor investigated for the topical treatment of psoriasis.

Methods

This was a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, vehicle-controlled Phase 2b study of tofacitinib ointment (2 % and 1 %) applied once (QD) or twice (BID) daily in adults with mild to moderate plaque psoriasis. Primary endpoint: proportion of patients with Calculated Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA-C) clear or almost clear and ≥2 grade improvement from baseline at Weeks 8 and 12. Secondary endpoints: proportion of patients with PGA-C clear or almost clear; proportion achieving Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response; percent change from baseline in PASI and body surface area; change from baseline in Itch Severity Item (ISI). Adverse events (AEs) were monitored and clinical laboratory parameters measured.

Results

Overall, 435 patients were randomized and 430 patients received treatment. The proportion of patients with PGA-C clear or almost clear and ≥2 grade improvement from baseline at Week 8 was 18.6 % for 2 % tofacitinib QD (80 % confidence interval [CI] for difference from vehicle: 3.8, 18.2 %) and 22.5 % for 2 % tofacitinib BID (80 % CI: 3.1, 18.5 %); this was significantly higher vs vehicle for both dosage regimens. No significant difference vs vehicle was seen at Week 12. Significantly more patients achieved PGA-C clear or almost clear with 2 % tofacitinib QD and BID and 1 % tofacitinib QD (not BID) at Week 8, and with 2 % tofacitinib BID at Week 12. Pruritus was significantly reduced vs vehicle with 2 % and 1 % tofacitinib BID (starting Day 2), and 2 % tofacitinib QD (starting Day 3). Overall, 44.2 % of patients experienced AEs, 8.1 % experienced application site AEs, and 2.3 % experienced serious AEs. The highest incidence of AEs (including application site AEs) was in the vehicle QD group.

Conclusions

In adults with mild to moderate plaque psoriasis, 2 % tofacitinib ointment QD and BID showed greater efficacy than vehicle at Week 8, but not Week 12, with an acceptable safety and local tolerability profile.

Trial registration

NCT01831466 registered March 28, 2013.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12895-016-0051-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effect of tofacitinib withdrawal and re-treatment on patient-reported outcomes: results from a Phase 3 study in patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor being investigated for psoriasis. A Phase 3 withdrawal/re-treatment study (NCT01186744; OPT Retreatment) showed tofacitinib re-treatment was effective in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the effects of tofacitinib withdrawal/re-treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and disease symptoms measured by patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

METHODS

The study was divided into initial treatment, treatment withdrawal, and re-treatment periods. Initial treatment: patients were randomized to receive tofacitinib 5 (n = 331) or 10 mg (n = 335) BID for 24 weeks. Treatment withdrawal: patients who achieved both ≥ 75% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score from baseline and Physician's Global Assessment of 'clear'/'almost clear' at Week (W)24 received placebo (withdrawal) or the previous dose (continuous treatment). Re-treatment: at relapse (> 50% loss of W24 PASI response) or at W40, patients received their initial tofacitinib dose. PROs included: Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Itch Severity Item (ISI), Short Form-36 (SF-36) and Patient's Global Assessment (PtGA).

RESULTS

After initial treatment with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID, substantial and significant improvements were reported for mean DLQI (baseline: 12.6 and 12.6; W24: 5.1 and 2.6) and ISI (baseline: 6.7 and 6.9; W24: 2.9 and 1.6). Patients continuously treated with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID maintained those improvements through Week 56 (DLQI: 3.0 and 2.1; ISI: 2.3 and 1.4). By W40, patients withdrawn from tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID showed worsening in DLQI (5.0 and 6.2) and ISI (3.7 and 4.0) scores; improvements were regained upon re-treatment (W56, DLQI: 3.4 and 2.4; ISI: 2.2 and 1.6). Similar results were reported for PtGA and SF-36.

CONCLUSION

Continuous tofacitinib treatment provided sustained improvement in HRQoL and disease symptoms. Patients randomized to treatment withdrawal lost initial improvements. Upon re-treatment, improvements were recaptured to levels comparable to those seen with continuous treatment.

Tofacitinib versus etanercept or placebo in patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis: patient-reported outcomes from a Phase 3 study

BACKGROUND

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor that is being investigated for psoriasis. Psoriasis impacts on physical and psychological well-being; improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with etanercept in psoriasis are well documented.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate HRQoL with tofacitinib, vs. placebo or etanercept, in the Phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority, Oral-treatment Psoriasis Trial (OPT) Compare Study (NCT01241591).

METHODS

Adults with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis were randomized 3:3:3:1 to tofacitinib 10 or 5 mg twice daily (BID), etanercept 50 mg twice weekly or placebo, for 12 weeks. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) included Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Itch Severity Item and Patient Global Assessment of psoriasis.

RESULTS

At baseline, 83.4% (911/1092) of patients had a DLQI score ranging between 6 and 30, indicating a substantial burden of disease. By Week 12, 47.3%, 43.6% and 30.9% of patients in the tofacitinib 10 mg BID, etanercept and tofacitinib 5 mg BID groups, respectively, had a DLQI score of 0 or 1 (no effect of psoriasis on QoL) vs. 7.8% for placebo (all P < 0.0001). Tofacitinib significantly reduced itch vs. placebo (P < 0.05 both doses) and etanercept (P < 0.0001 both doses) within 1 day of starting treatment. Furthermore, reductions in itch were greater with tofacitinib 10 mg BID, vs. etanercept, at Weeks 2-12 (all time points P < 0.05). At Week 2, an Itch Severity Item score of 'little or no itch' was more frequent with tofacitinib 10 mg (68.6%) vs. etanercept (57.4%) and placebo (12.2%), and the PtGA response rate was significantly greater with tofacitinib 10 mg vs. placebo (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Oral tofacitinib provided significant improvements across multiple PROs by Week 12. Improvements with tofacitinib 10 mg BID were comparable to etanercept, and improvements in itch were greater and more rapid with tofacitinib 10 mg BID.

Oral tofacitinib for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis

New treatments for psoriasis have been developed based on increasing knowledge of the underlying pathogenesis of the disease. The development of very safe and highly effective biologics has revolutionized the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Biologics are not perfect, however, as they are delivered parenterally, immunogenic, and costly. Small molecule agents, with molecular weights of less than 1 kDa, are being developed and hold the advantage of being administered orally. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor that has been developed to disrupt the aberrant JAK-STAT pathway that contributes to the pathogenesis of psoriasis. Phase II and Phase III clinical trial results for tofacitinib are encouraging, demonstrating substantial efficacy and satisfactory safety in the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis. An effective oral treatment without the organ toxicities of methotrexate and cyclosporine, tofacitinib is a promising alternative to biologics in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

Retrospective review on the use of topical cyclosporin a 0.05% for paediatric allergic conjunctivitis in Hong Kong Chinese

Purpose. To evaluate the efficacy of using topical cyclosporin A 0.05% (Restasis) for the treatment of paediatric allergic conjunctivitis. Methods. This retrospective study included consecutive cases of paediatric allergic conjunctivitis treated with Restasis between 2010 and 2013. Subjects with follow-up time less than 3 months after using Restasis were excluded. Itch severity score, symptom score, and sign score were compared before (baseline) and 3 months after using Restasis. Results. In 27 eyes of 14 patients (mean age 10.8 ± 3.2 years), 44.4% had allergic conjunctivitis, 33.3% had vernal keratoconjunctivitis, and 22.2% had atopic keratoconjunctivitis. The mean duration of ocular symptoms was 20.4 ± 13.2 months. 92.6% of subjects were using steroid eye drop before Restasis. After 3 months of topical Restasis, there were statistically significant reductions in the symptom, sign, and itch severity scores compared with baseline (all P ≤ 0.001) and 78.6% of subjects were able to be tapered off steroid eye drops. Conclusion. Topical Restasis was effective and safe in significantly reducing ocular itchiness, sign, and symptom scores at 3 months after use in paediatric allergic ocular conditions.