Efficacy and safety of tirbanibulin 1% ointment in actinic keratoses: Data from two phase-III trials and the real-life clinical practice presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Congress 2022

BACKGROUND

The 31st European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Congress took place between 7th and 10th of September 2022 in Milan, Italy.

OBJECTIVES

We report presented clinical data on the efficacy/effectiveness, safety and tolerability of tirbanibulin 1% ointment that has recently been licensed for actinic keratosis (AK) of the face or scalp in adults.

METHODS

Summary of presentations given at the EADV Congress.

RESULTS

Prof. Pellacani presented two post hoc analyses from two phase-III trials with AK patients (NCT03285477 [N = 351] and NCT03285490 [N = 351]): A descriptive analysis of medical history, concomitant medications, and safety results confirming a favourable profile for tirbanibulin showing that number of baseline AK lesions was not correlated to severity of local skin reactions. The latter analysis showed that cases of tirbanibulin application site pain or pruritus were few, and most were found to be mild. Prof. Kunstfeld reported six real-life clinical cases in Austria showing good tirbanibulin effectiveness, safety and tolerability for the treatment of new or recurring AK lesions. Results demonstrated that after 2- to 4-month follow-up, tirbanibulin was well tolerated and effective in AK patients. Presentations by Dr. Patel confirmed good outcomes and tolerability of tirbanibulin in Olsen grade 1-2 AK (N = 12) and porokeratosis patients (N = 4) treated once daily for 5 consecutive days in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, real-world experience in solid organ transplant recipients (N = 2) demonstrated effectiveness of tirbanibulin in skin field cancerization treatment. A symposium sponsored by Almirall was conducted during the congress in which Dr. Hadshiew and Dr. Lear brought together their clinical experience in Germany and the United Kingdom respectively. Interesting clinical cases of 5 consecutive days of tirbanibulin treatment compared to other treatments were discussed with attendees, as well as current treatment needs of AK patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This article provides an overview of presentations and symposium discussions, summarizing key phase-III results and real-life clinical experience with tirbanibulin shared by dermatologists across Europe.

Long-term safety of risankizumab from 17 clinical trials in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis

Background

Risankizumab has demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients with moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis in randomized clinical trials.

Objectives

To evaluate safety data from risankizumab psoriasis phase I–III clinical trials.

Methods

Short‐term safety (through week 16) was analysed using integrated data from five phase II and III clinical trials. Long‐term safety was evaluated using integrated data from 17 phase I–III completed and ongoing trials.

Results

Short‐term safety analyses included 1306 patients receiving risankizumab 150 mg and 300 patients receiving placebo [402·2 and 92·0 patient‐years (PY) of exposure, respectively]. Long‐term analyses included 3072 risankizumab‐treated patients (exposure: 7927 PY). The median (excluding four outliers) treatment duration was 2·9 years (range 2 days to 5·9 years). Exposure‐adjusted adverse event rates did not increase with long‐term treatment (318 vs. 171 events per 100 PY for short‐ and long‐term analyses). With long‐term risankizumab treatment, rates of serious adverse events were 7·8 per 100 PY, serious infections 1·2 per 100 PY, nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) 0·7 per 100 PY, malignant tumours excluding NMSC 0·5 per 100 PY, and adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events 0·3 per 100 PY, with no important identified risks. Limitations include that the study inclusion and exclusion criteria varied and that three studies enrolled ≤ 50 patients.

Conclusions

Risankizumab demonstrated a favourable safety profile over short‐ and long‐term treatment in patients with moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis.

Whatis already known about this topic?

In clinical trials of patients with moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis, risankizumab, a selective interleukin‐23 inhibitor, was well tolerated and efficacious.

Whatdoes this study add?

In this comprehensive evaluation of risankizumab safety in patients with moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis, adverse event rates were comparable between risankizumab (n = 1306, 402 patient‐years) and placebo (n = 300, 92 patient‐years) in the short‐term (16‐week) analysis set, and were consistent with those in the long‐term analysis (n = 3072, 7927 patient‐years of risankizumab exposure).

These findings are consistent with the known safety profile of risankizumab and support its long‐term use in moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis.

Linked Comment: S. Mirali et al. Br J Dermatol 2022; 186:394–395.

Plain language summary available online

Effect of baseline disease severity on achievement of treatment target with apremilast: results from a pooled analysis

BACKGROUND

Treating to absolute treatment targets rather than relative measures such as Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI)-75 is emerging as an important clinical concept included in psoriasis guidelines and clinical practice. Achieving treatment targets is associated with achievement of long-term outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relationship between psoriasis severity, disease characteristics and achievement of PASI ≤2 with apremilast in a pooled analysis of the phase 3 ESTEEM 1 and 2 (NCT01194219 and NCT01232283), phase 3b LIBERATE (NCT01690299) and phase 4 UNVEIL (NCT02425826) clinical trials.

METHODS

Pooled data from patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis randomized to apremilast 30 mg BID were analysed by baseline PASI quartiles (Q1: 2.4-13.1; Q2: 13.2-15.9; Q3: 16.0-20.0; Q4: 20.1-57.8). Assessments included PASI, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Scalp Physician's Global Assessment (ScPGA; ScPGA ≥1) and target (worst) Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI; NAPSI ≥1).

RESULTS

Of 1062 patients, 963 had ScPGA ≥1 and 643 had NAPSI ≥1; 771 patients with baseline and Week 32 PASI assessments were included in analyses of Week 32 PASI target achievement. Rates of PASI ≤2 at Week 32 were greater in lower PASI quartiles (Q1: 43.5%; Q2: 31.2%; Q3: 26.8%; Q4: 18.4%). Most patients achieving PASI ≤2 target (83.6%) achieved DLQI ≤5 at Week 32; 59.3% of patients who did not achieve PASI ≤2 target achieved DLQI ≤5. At Week 32, mean improvements in ScPGA and NAPSI were similar with more moderate vs. more severe disease (ScPGA, range: 1.1-1.4; NAPSI, range: 1.6-2.5). In a subgroup analysis, achievement of PASI ≤2 target was higher in the lowest PASI quartile and with disease duration <5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater achievement of PASI ≤2 was observed in patients with more moderate vs. more severe skin disease. Apremilast may be particularly beneficial in more moderate disease early in the treatment paradigm.

Three-year efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol for the treatment of plaque psoriasis: results from the randomized phase 3 CIMPACT trial

Background

Certolizumab pegol (CZP) is an Fc‐free, PEGylated anti‐tumor necrosis factor biologic.

Objectives

To report 3‐year outcomes from the CIMPACT (NCT02346240) phase 3, CZP in moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, randomized controlled trial.

Methods

Adults were randomized 3:3:3:1 to CZP 200 mg every other week (Q2W), CZP 400 mg Q2W, etanercept biweekly or placebo. At Week 16, CZP‐ and etanercept‐treated PASI 75 responders were re‐randomized to CZP 200 mg Q2W, CZP 400 mg Q4W, CZP 400 mg Q2W or placebo for maintenance treatment; PASI 75 non‐responders entered an open‐label escape CZP 400 mg Q2W arm. Patients entering the open‐label extension (OLE; Weeks 48–144) from blinded treatment received CZP 200 mg Q2W.

Results

Double‐blinded results have been reported previously. 261 patients received 200 mg Q2W upon OLE entry. PASI 75 response was maintained in patients continuing 200 mg Q2W treatment through Weeks 16–144 (Week 144: 96.2%). In patients dosed down at Week 48 (double‐blinded 400 mg to 200 mg Q2W), PASI 75 decreased (Week 48: 98.7%; Week 144: 85.9%). In patients who received placebo through Weeks 16–48, PASI 75 response decreased (Week 48: 60.4%), then increased following Week 48 switch to 200 mg Q2W (Week 144: 95.1%). 48 and 36 patients initially randomized to 200 and 400 mg Q2W, respectively, were Week 16 PASI 75 non‐responders and entered the escape arm; at Week 144, 71.8% and 78.2% achieved PASI 75. No new safety signals were identified.

Conclusions

Response to CZP was durable over three years; no new safety signals were identified.

AB0528 COMPARABLE SAFETY PROFILE OF GUSELKUMAB IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS AND PSORIASIS: RESULTS FROM PHASE 3 TRIALS THROUGH 1 YEAR

Background:

DISCOVER 1&2 (PsA) and VOYAGE 1&2 (PsO) are Phase 3 trials of guselkumab (GUS).

Objectives:

Compare safety results through up to 1yr of GUS in PsA and PsO pts.

Methods:

In DISCOVER, 1120 pts with active PsA despite standard therapy were treated. Most pts were biologic-naïve; ~30% in DISCOVER 1 had previous exposure to 1-2 TNFi. Concomitant MTX (57%), oral corticosteroids (17%), and NSAIDs (64%) were permitted. Pts were randomized to SC GUS 100mg at W0, W4, then Q8W; GUS 100mg Q4W; or PBO. At W24, PBO patients were switched to GUS 100mg Q4W. In VOYAGE, in which concomitant MTX use was prohibited, 1245 pts with moderate to severe PsO were treated and randomized to SC GUS 100 mg at W0, W4, W12, then Q8W; or PBO at W0, W4, W12, with crossover to GUS at W16, W20, then Q8W. AEs and laboratory parameters, analyzed by National Cancer Institute-Common Terminology Criteria for AEs [NCI-CTCAE] toxicity grades, were summarized through the PBO-controlled periods and 1yr.

Results:

Safety profiles were generally consistent across the GUS PsO and PsA clinical programs (Table 1). Time-adjusted incidence rates for numbers of AEs, serious AEs, serious infections, malignancy, MACE and AEs leading to d/c were generally similar between PsO and PsA. No cases of anaphylaxis or opportunistic infections were reported. Proportions of pts with decreased neutrophil counts and elevations in hepatic transaminases were slightly higher in PsA vs PsO. These abnormalities were mostly of NCI-CTCAE Grade 1 or 2 (<LLN-1000/mm3 for neutrophils; <5.0 x ULN for AST/ ALT), generally transient, required no medical interventions, resolved spontaneously, and did not lead to interruption or d/c of treatment. Through 1yr, proportions of pts with ALT/AST elevations in PsA trials were slightly higher for GUS Q4W than Q8W and in pts with vs without baseline MTX use.

Conclusion:

The GUS safety profile was generally consistent in PsA and PsO GUS-treated pts through 1yr of the DISCOVER and VOYAGE trials.

Table 1.

Treatment-Emergent AEs During PBO-controlled Period and Through 1Yr: VOYAGE & DISCOVER Trials

Pooled VOYAGE 1&2Pooled DISCOVER 1&2Time PeriodW0-16Through 1YrW0-24bThrough 1Yr(N=)PBO(422)GUS Q8W(823)Combined GUSa(1221)PBOc(372)GUS Q8W(375)GUS Q4W (373)GUS Q8W(375)GUS Q4W (373)Combined GUS† (1100)Total pt-yrs of follow-up128255974173173172384385973Incidence/100 pt-yrs (95% CI)dAEs317 (287,349)330 (308,353)259 (249, 270)219 (198,243)256 (232,281)221 (200, 245)218 (203,233)177 (164,191)191 (182, 199)SAEs5 (2, 10)6 (4, 10)6 (5, 8)9 (5, 15)4 (2, 8)5 (2, 10)6 (4, 9)4 (2, 7)6 (4, 7)AEs leading to study agent d/c3 (0.9, 8)4 (2, 8)2 (2, 4)4 (2, 8)3 (1, 7)7 (4, 12)2 (1, 4)4 (2, 6)3 (2, 5)Infections86 (71, 104)98 (86, 111)98 (92, 104)58 (48, 71)58 (47, 71)63 (51, 76)58 (50, 66)53 (46, 61)55 (50, 60)Serious Infections0. 8 (0, 4)0.4 (0, 2)1 (0.5, 2)4 (2, 8)0.6 (0, 3)2 (0.4, 5)2 (0.6, 3)1 (0, 2)2 (0.9, 3)All Malignancy0 (0, 2)0.4 (0, 2)1 (0.4, 2)0.6 (0, 3)1 (0, 4)0 (0, 2)0.5 (0, 2)0 (0, 0. 8)0 (0, 1)MACE0 (0, 2)0.4 (0, 2)0.4 (0, 1)0.6 (0, 3)0 (0, 2)0.6 (0, 3)0 (0, 0.8)0.3 (0, 1.4)0.1 (0, 0.6)% pts with ≥1 injection site rxn3.14.55.00.31.31.11.62.41.7

aPlacebo crossover pts were included in the combined GUS column after crossover to GUS

bFor all pts who d/c study treatment early with the last dose of PBO/GUS prior to W24 and who did not receive any PBO/GUS at or after Wk24, all data including the final safety follow-up visit collected through 1yr were included

cFor pts in PBO group who switched to GUS due to cross-over or inadvertently, only data prior to first administration of GUS were included.

dCI based on an exact method assuming observed number of events follows a Poisson distribution

Disclosure of Interests:

Alice B Gottlieb Consultant of: Anaptyps Bio, Avotres Therapeutics, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Sun Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Xbiotech, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Novartis, Sun Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Xbiotech, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: AbbVie, Arena, Biogen, BMS, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB, April Armstrong Consultant of: AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, Leo, Novartis, UCB, Ortho Dermatologics, Dermira, KHK, Sanofi, Regeneron, Sun Pharma, BMS, Dermavant, and Modernizing Medicine, Richard Langley Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, and UCB Pharma, Mark Lebwohl Consultant of: Aditum Bio, Allergan, Almirall, Arcutis, Inc., Avotres Therapeutics, BirchBioMed Inc., BMD skincare, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cara Therapeutics, Castle Biosciences, Corrona, Dermavant Sciences, Evelo, Evommune, Facilitate International Dermatologic Education, Foundation for Research and Education in Dermatology, Inozyme Pharma, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Meiji Seika Pharma, Menlo, Mitsubishi, Neuroderm, Pfizer, Promius/Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Serono, Theravance, and Verrica., Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Arcutis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Evommune, Incyte, Janssen, Leo Pharmaceutucals, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, and UCB, Christopher E.M. Griffiths Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Almirall, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma., Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Almirall, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Almirall, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma., May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC, Ya-Wen Yang Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC, Elizabeth C Hsia Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Xie L Xu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Miwa Izutsu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Paraneedharan Ramachandran Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Shihong Sheng Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Yin You Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Megan Miller Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Christopher T. Ritchlin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, and UCB Pharma, Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, and Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, and UCB, Proton Rahman Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Janssen and Novartis.

AB0544 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF TILDRAKIZUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH AND WITHOUT METABOLIC SYNDROME: 5-YEAR POOLED DATA FROM reSURFACE 1 AND reSURFACE 2

Background:

Patients with psoriasis and metabolic syndrome (MetS) may have reduced absolute Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response and long-term drug survival. Tildrakizumab is approved for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in the US, EU, Australia, and Japan. Efficacy and safety of tildrakizumab were previously shown to be comparable in patients with vs without MetS after 1 and 3 years of treatment.1

Objectives:

This post hoc analysis of pooled data from reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2 (NCT01722331/NCT01729754) assessed tildrakizumab efficacy and safety through up to 5 years of treatment in patients with psoriasis with and without MetS.

Methods:

reSURFACE 1 and 2 were 3-part, double-blind, randomized controlled phase 3 trials with long-term extensions evaluating tildrakizumab 100 or 200 mg monotherapy at Weeks 0, 4, and every 12 weeks thereafter in adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.2 Patients who achieved ≥50% improvement from baseline PASI score (PASI 50 response) at both week 28 and at the end of the phase 3 studies could enter the long-term extension studies continuing the same dose of tildrakizumab.1 This post hoc analysis reports results from a pooled data analysis through up to 5 years of tildrakizumab exposure from patients with and without MetS by National Cholesterol Education Program-Adult Treatment Panel III criteria who continuously received the same dose of tildrakizumab throughout the base studies and entered the long-term extensions. Efficacy was assessed as change from baseline PASI score; missing data were handled using multiple imputation. Safety was assessed from exposure adjusted incidence rates of serious adverse events (SAEs) and treatment-emergent AEs of special interest.

Results:

Analyses included 70/265 patients with/without MetS receiving tildrakizumab 100 mg and 64/241 patients with/without MetS receiving tildrakizumab 200 mg. Median percentage change from baseline PASI score is shown in Figure 1. Among patients with/without MetS receiving tildrakizumab 100 mg, 78.6%/87.9% achieved PASI 75, 57.1%/63.8% achieved PASI 90, and 25.7%/32.5% achieved PASI 100 response at week 244; the PASI 75, PASI 90, and PASI 100 response rates at week 244 in patients with/without MetS receiving tildrakizumab 200 mg were 76.6%/85.1%, 46.9%/61.4%, and 26.6%/36.5%, respectively. Safety outcomes over the 5-year extension period were consistent with the known safety profile of tildrakizumab. Rates of SAEs were <8.5 per 100 patient-years among all patients, and there were no new safety signals in patients with vs without MetS (Table 1).

Table 1.

SAEs and TEAEs of special interest by MetS status through up to 5 years of tildrakizumab exposure

TIL 100 mgTIL 200 mgWithout MetSWithMetSWithout MetSWithMetSn = 265n = 70n = 241n = 64n (EAIR per 100 PY)1149.1 PY304.1 PY1057.1 PY287.6 PYSAEs53 (4.61)22 (7.23)52 (4.92)24 (8.35)TEAEs of special interest24 (2.09)6 (1.97)27 (2.55)15 (5.22)Infections and infestations10 (0.87)2 (0.66)13 (1.23)6 (2.09)Malignanciesa5 (0.44)1 (0.33)4 (0.38)3 (1.04)Nonmelanoma skin cancer3 (0.26)1 (0.33)6 (0.57)1 (0.35)Confirmed extended MACE3 (0.26)1 (0.33)3 (0.28)3 (1.04)Drug hypersensitivity2 (0.17)1 (0.33)1 (0.09)2 (0.70)Melanoma skin cancer2 (0.17)000Injection site reactionsb1 (0.09)000

Incidence rates reported as events per 100 PY.

aExcluding nonmelanoma and melanoma skin cancer.

bNot considered of special interest in the extension study.

AE, adverse event; EAIR, exposure adjusted incidence rate; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular events; MetS, metabolic syndrome; PY, patient-years; SAE, serious AE; TEAE, treatment-emergent AE; TIL, tildrakizumab.

Conclusion:

The efficacy and safety of tildrakizumab were maintained in patients with and without MetS following 5 years of treatment.

References:

[1]Lebwohl, M et al. JAAD. 2020;S0190-9622(20)32637-2.

[2]Reich K, et al. Lancet. 2017;390:276–88.

Disclosure of Interests:

Alice B Gottlieb Shareholder of: Xbiotech (only stock options, which she has not used)., Consultant of: Anaptyps Bio, Avotres Therapeutics; Beiersdorf; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.; Eli Lilly; Janssen; LEO Pharma; Novartis; Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.; UCB; and Xbiotech, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim; Janssen; Novartis; Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.; UCB; and Xbiotech., Nehal Mehta Grant/research support from: Grants to the NIH from AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, and Novartis., Employee of: Full-time employee of the US government., Alan Menter Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Abbott Labs, Amgen, Anacor, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen Biotech, LEO Pharma, Merck & Co., Novartis, Sienna, and UCB., Consultant of: AbbVie, Abbott Labs, Amgen, Anacor, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen Biotech, LEO Pharma, Merck & Co., Novartis, Sienna, and UCB., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Abbott Labs, Amgen, Anacor, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen Biotech, LEO Pharma, Merck & Co., Novartis, Sienna, and UCB., Alan M Mendelsohn Shareholder of: Has individual shares in Johnson and Johnson, and as part of retirement account/mutual funds, Employee of: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Stephen Rozzo Employee of: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Mark Lebwohl Consultant of: Aditum Bio; Allergan; Almirall; Arcutis; Avotres Therapeutics; BirchBioMed, Inc.; BMD Skincare; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Cara Therapeutics; Castle Biosciences; Corrona; Dermavant Sciences; Evelo; Facilitate International Dermatologic Education; Foundation for Research and Education in Dermatology; Inozyme Pharma; Kyowa Kirin; LEO Pharma; Meiji Seika Pharma; Menlo; Mitsubishi; Neuroderm; Pfizer; Promius/Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories; Serono; Theravance; and Verrica., Grant/research support from: AbbVie; Amgen; Arcutis; Boehringer Ingelheim; Dermavant; Eli Lilly; Incyte; Janssen Research & Development, LLC; LEO Pharma; Ortho Dermatologics; Pfizer; and UCB.

POS1031 LOW INCIDENCE OF GASTROINTESTINAL-RELATED AND OVERALL SERIOUS ADVERSE EVENTS AMONG GUSELKUMAB-TREATED PATIENTS: POOLED ANALYSES OF VOYAGE 1 & 2 AND DISCOVER 1 & 2 THROUGH 1-YEAR

Background:

Guselkumab (GUS), a human monoclonal antibody that specifically binds to the p19-subunit of interleukin (IL)-23, demonstrated efficacy in the Phase 3 VOYAGE 1&2 trials of patients (pts) with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (PsO)1,2 and in the DISCOVER 1&2 trials of pts with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).3,4 IL-17 inhibitors used to treat PsO and PsA have been associated with exacerbation or new onset of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (e.g., Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis).5

Objectives:

Evaluate the incidence of gastrointestinal (GI)-related and overall serious adverse events (SAEs) from pooled safety data through 1-year of GUS 100 mg treatment from the VOYAGE 1&2 and DISCOVER 1&2 trials.

Methods:

Using pooled safety data from the VOYAGE 1&2 PsO trials and DISCOVER 1&2 PsA trials, SAEs related to GI disorders were identified using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system-organ class “GI disorders”. Pts with a previous history of IBD were not excluded in these trials; medical history of IBD was collected at baseline in DISCOVER 1&2. Rates of overall SAEs and GI-related SAEs were calculated as the number of SAEs per 100 pt-years (PY) of follow-up (95% confidence intervals). Data are presented for the placebo (PBO)-controlled period (Weeks 0-16 for VOYAGE 1&2; Weeks 0-24 for DISCOVER 1&2) and through 1-year (defined as through Week 48 for VOYAGE 1&2; through Week 60 for DISCOVER 1, and through Week 52 for DISCOVER 2). Events of uveitis and opportunistic infections were also analyzed.

Results:

Through the PBO-controlled period, the overall rates of GI-related SAEs per 100 PY for pooled VOYAGE 1&2 were: PBO 0.78 (0.02, 4.34), GUS q8w 0; and for pooled DISCOVER 1&2: PBO 0.58 (0.01, 3.23), GUS q8w 0.58 (0.01, 3.21), GUS q4w 0. The GI-related SAEs included: gastrointestinal hemorrhage (PBO; n=1) for pooled VOYAGE 1&2; and inflammatory bowel disease (PBO; n=1) and mechanical ileus (GUS q8w; n=1) for pooled DISCOVER 1&2. Through 1-year, the overall rates of GI-related SAEs for pooled VOYAGE 1&2 were: Combined GUS group (GUS q8w and PBO→GUS groups) 0.51 (0.17, 1.20); and for pooled DISCOVER 1&2: GUS q8w 0.52 (0.06, 1.88), GUS q4w 0, Combined GUS group (GUS q8w, GUS q4w, and PBO→GUS groups) 0.21 (0.02, 0.74). The GI-related SAEs in the Combined GUS group for pooled VOYAGE 1&2 included: gastritis, hemorrhoids, inguinal hernia, pancreatitis, and umbilical hernia (0.10/100PY [0.00, 0.57]; n=1 for each); and in the Combined GUS group for pooled DISCOVER 1&2: mechanical ileus and pancreatitis chronic (0.10/100PY [0.00, 0.57]; n=1 for each). Overall, no cases of exacerbation or new onset of IBD were reported in GUS-treated pts, including 2 pts with a prior history of IBD in DISCOVER 1&2 (total PY of follow-up for the Combined GUS groups in VOYAGE and DISCOVER were 974 and 973, respectively). Through the PBO-controlled period, rates of overall SAEs for GUS-treated pts were comparable to PBO-pts and SAE rates remained low through 1-year of follow-up in the VOYAGE 1&2 and DISCOVER 1&2 trials. There were no reported cases of uveitis, opportunistic infections, or tuberculosis in GUS-treated pts through 1-year.

Conclusion:

Through 1-year of follow-up with GUS treatment in pooled VOYAGE 1&2 and DISCOVER 1&2, GI-related SAE rates were low. There were no reported cases of uveitis, opportunistic infections, or new onset/exacerbation of IBD in GUS-treated pts. No new safety concerns were identified through 1-year.

References:

[1]Blauvelt A., et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76:405-17.

[2]Reich K., et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76:418-31.

[3]Deodhar A., et al. Lancet. 2020;395:1115-25.

[4]Mease P.J., et al. Lancet. 2020; 395:1126-36.

[5]Hohenberger M., et al. J Dermatolog Treat. 2018;29:13-8.

Disclosure of Interests:

Philip J Mease Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN, and UCB, Peter Foley Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Valeant, Galderma, GSK, Leo Pharma, and Roche, Consultant of: Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Galderma, AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Arcutis, Aslan, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Hexima, Merck, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma, Valeant, BMS, Celtaxsys, CSL, Cutanea, Dermira, Genentech, GSK, Leo Pharma, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, Reistone, Roche, and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma; travel grants from AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Galderma, Leo Pharma, Roche, Sun Pharma, and Sanofi

, Kristian Reich Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, and UCB Pharma, Jerry Bagel Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Janssen Biotech, and Novartis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Biotech, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Corrona, LLC, Dermavant Sciences, LTD, Dermira/UCB, Eli Lilly and Company, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Janssen Biotech, Kadmon Corporation, Leo Pharma, Lycera Corp, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sun Pharma, Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Mark Lebwohl Consultant of: Aditum Bio, Allergan, Almirall, Arcutis, Inc., Avotres Therapeutics, BirchBioMed Inc., BMD skincare, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cara Therapeutics, Castle Biosciences, Corrona, Dermavant Sciences, Evelo, Evommune, Facilitate International Dermatologic Education, Foundation for Research and Education in Dermatology, Inozyme Pharma, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Meiji Seika Pharma, Menlo, Mitsubishi, Neuroderm, Pfizer, Promius/Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Serono, Theravance, and Verrica, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Arcutis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Evommune, Incyte, Janssen, Leo Pharmaceutucals, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, and UCB, Ya-Wen Yang Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC, May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC, Megan Miller Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Elizabeth C Hsia Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Xie L Xu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Miwa Izutsu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Paraneedharan Ramachandran Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Shihong Sheng Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Yin You Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Philip Helliwell Consultant of: Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Janssen, Pfizer, Wolf-Henning Boehncke Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Pfizer

Addressing challenges associated with long-term topical treatment and benefits of proactive management in patients with psoriasis

The majority of patients with psoriasis vulgaris (chronic plaque psoriasis) can be treated successfully with short‐term topical therapies. However, long‐term management of psoriasis with topicals is challenging and tends to take a reactive approach to disease relapse, rather than a proactive approach aimed at maintaining disease remission. Patients are often dissatisfied with the delay in treatment response and inconvenience of applying topical treatments, and therefore frequently discontinue treatment leading to poor outcomes. Relapse is common, particularly with reactive management, as underlying residual disease can remain following initial skin clearance; some patients find that their disease at relapse may be worse than their initial symptoms. This can have a detrimental effect on patient quality of life (QoL) and increase the risk of psoriasis‐associated depression. A long‐term proactive management approach, with maintenance treatment following initial treatment success, could help sustain disease remission and improve clinical and QoL outcomes for patients. Treatment with fixed‐dose calcipotriol 50 µg/g betamethasone dipropionate 0.5 mg/g cutaneous foam (Cal/BD foam) is effective in the short term, providing a fast onset of action and improvements in disease at 4 weeks. Results from the Phase III PSO‐LONG study demonstrated that long‐term proactive management was superior to reactive management in prolonging time to first relapse, reducing number of relapses and increasing days in remission in adults with psoriasis vulgaris. Furthermore, Cal/BD foam was well tolerated in PSO‐LONG. No new safety concerns were identified over 52 weeks; the safety profile was consistent with that described previously. Given this, Cal/BD foam should be considered when prescribing topicals for the long‐term proactive management for patients with psoriasis.

Video abstract

The risk of malignancy in patients with secukinumab-treated psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis: analysis of clinical trial and postmarketing surveillance data with up to five years of follow-up

BACKGROUND

Data on the use of biologic therapy and malignancy risk are inconsistent due to limited long-term robust studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the malignancy risk in patients with secukinumab-treated psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

METHODS

This integrated safety analysis from both the secukinumab clinical trial programme and postmarketing safety surveillance data included any patient receiving at least one approved dose of secukinumab with a maximum of 5 years of follow-up. Safety analyses evaluated the rate of malignancy using exposure-adjusted incidence rates [EAIR; incidence rates per 100 patient treatment-years (PTY)]. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were reported using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) database as a reference population. Crude incidence of malignancy was also reported using postmarketing surveillance data.

RESULTS

Safety data from 49 clinical trials with secukinumab-treated patients were included: 10 685 patients with psoriasis, 2523 with PsA and 1311 with AS. Across indications over a 5-year period, the EAIR of malignancy was 0·85 per 100 PTY [95% confidence interval (CI) 0·74-0·98] in secukinumab-treated patients, corresponding to 204 patients per 23 908 PTY. Overall, the observed vs. expected number of malignancies from secukinumab clinical trial data were comparable, as indicated by an SIR of 0·99 (95% CI 0·82-1·19) across indications. The estimated crude cumulative incidence reporting rate per 100 PTY for malignancy was 0·27 in the postmarketing surveillance data across indications with a cumulative exposure of 285 811 PTY.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large safety analysis, the risk of malignancy was low for up to 5 years of secukinumab treatment. These data support the long-term use of secukinumab in these indications.

Editorial: fixed-dose combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate foam in the treatment of patients with psoriasis

Video abstract

Efficacy and Safety of Bimekizumab in Patients with Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis: Results from BE VIVID, a 52-Week Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Ustekinumab- and Placebo-Controlled Study

Abstract not available.

Long-term safety of certolizumab pegol in plaque psoriasis: pooled analysis over 3 years from three phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled studies

Background

Certolizumab pegol (CZP) is an Fc‐free, PEGylated anti‐tumour necrosis factor biologic.

Objectives

To report 3‐year safety data from three phase III trials of CZP in adults with plaque psoriasis.

Methods

Data were pooled from CIMPASI‐1 (NCT02326298), CIMPASI‐2 (NCT02326272) and CIMPACT (NCT02346240). Included patients had moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis of ≥ 6 months’ duration; had been randomized to CZP 200 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) (400 mg at weeks 0, 2 and 4) or CZP 400 mg Q2W; and had received at least one dose of CZP with up to 144 weeks of exposure. Treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were classified using MedDRA v18·1. Reported incidence rates (IRs) are incidence of new cases per 100 patient‐years (PY).

Results

Over 144 weeks, 995 patients received at least one dose of CZP (exposure: 2231·3 PY); 731 and 728 received at least one dose of CZP 200 mg Q2W (1211·4 PY) and/or 400 mg Q2W (1019·9 PY), respectively. The IR [95% confidence interval (CI)] of TEAEs was 144·9 (135·3–155·0) for all patients, 134·1 (123·2–145·7) for CZP 200 mg Q2W and 158·3 (145·5–171·9) for CZP 400 mg Q2W. The IR (95% CI) of serious TEAEs for all patients was 7·5 (6·4–8·8); the IRs were 6·7 (5·2–8·3) and 8·7 (6·9–10·8) for CZP 200 mg and 400 mg Q2W, respectively. Overall, 3·2% of patients reported serious infections (2·2% within each of the CZP 200 and 400 mg Q2W groups). Overall, there was one case of active tuberculosis, 16 malignancies in 14 patients and seven deaths (two considered treatment‐related). The cumulative IR of TEAEs did not increase over time.

Conclusions

No new safety signals were identified compared with previously reported data. Risk did not increase with longer or higher CZP exposure.

What is already known about this topic?

Certolizumab pegol is an Fc‐free, PEGylated, anti‐tumour necrosis factor biologic approved for adults with moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis.

Safety data from phase III trials in plaque psoriasis have found the incidence of adverse events to be generally similar over 16 weeks of treatment between the evaluated certolizumab pegol doses 200 mg and 400 mg every 2 weeks and placebo.

Additionally, the safety profile was in line with the class over 48 weeks.

What does this study add?

Plaque psoriasis is a chronic disease for which patients require lifetime management; long‐term safety data are important to understand the benefits and risks of prolonged treatment.

Here, 3‐year data from a pooled analysis of three phase III trials of certolizumab pegol in plaque psoriasis are presented, representing 2231·3 patient‐years of exposure.

No new safety signals were identified and the risk of treatment‐emergent adverse events did not increase with longer or higher certolizumab pegol exposure.

Secukinumab maintains superiority over ustekinumab in clearing skin and improving quality of life in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: 52-week results from a double-blind phase 3b trial (CLARITY)

Background

Secukinumab demonstrated superior efficacy over ustekinumab in the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis over 16 weeks in the CLARITY study and over 52 weeks in the CLEAR study.

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of secukinumab vs. ustekinumab over 52 weeks in CLARITY.

Methods

Analysis of 52‐week data from CLARITY (NCT02826603), a phase 3b study in which patients were randomized to receive secukinumab 300 mg (n = 550) or ustekinumab 45/90 mg (n = 552) per label.

Results

At week 52, secukinumab was superior to ustekinumab in the proportion of patients who achieved ≥ 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (73.2% vs. 59.8%; odds ratio [OR], 1.84 [95% CI, 1.41–2.41]; P < 0.0001), Investigator’s Global Assessment modified 2011 responses of clear (0) or almost clear (1) skin (76.0% vs. 60.2%; OR, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.61–2.79]; P < 0.0001) and Dermatology Life Quality Index response of no effect (0/1) (69.9% vs. 61.2%; P = 0.0028). Proportions of patients with any adverse events were comparable between treatment arms.

Conclusions

This second head‐to‐head study confirmed the superior efficacy of secukinumab over ustekinumab in skin clearance and quality of life through 52 weeks, with safety comparable to that reported in previous trials. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02826603.

FRI0272 SECUKINUMAB DEMONSTRATES A CONSISTENT SAFETY PROFILE IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIASIS, PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS AND ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS OVER LONG TERM: UPDATED POOLED SAFETY ANALYSES

Background:

Pooled safety data has been reported with secukinumab (SEC) in patients (pts) with Psoriatic arthritis (PsA), Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) and Psoriasis (PsO).1

Objectives:

To report longer-term safety data of SEC treatment in PsA, AS, PsO pts up to 5 years.

Methods:

The integrated clinical trial safety dataset included data pooled from 28 randomised controlled clinical trials of SEC 300 or 150 or 75 mg in PsO (11 Phase 3 and 8 Phase 4 trials), PsA (5 Phase 3 trials), and AS (4 Phase 3 trials), along with post-marketing safety surveillance data with a cut-off date of 25 December 2018. Adverse events (AEs) were reported as exposure-adjusted incident rates (EAIRs) per 100 pt-years. Analyses included all pts who received ≥1 dose of SEC.

Results:

A total of 12637 pts (8819, 2678 and 1140 pts with PsO, PsA and AS, with an exposure of 15063.1, 5984.6 and 3527.2 pt-years, respectively) were included. The most frequent AE was upper respiratory tract infection and EAIR per 100 pt-years for IBD, malignancies and MACE remained low. The EAIR per 100 pt-years for adverse events (AEs) of special interest are reported in Table 1. The cumulative post-marketing exposure to SEC was estimated to be ~285,811 pt-years across the approved indications. Safety data from post-marketing surveillance are reported in Table 2.

Table 1.

Selected AEs of interest with SEC across pooled clinical trials

VariablePsOPsAASSECN=8819SECN=2678SECN=1140Exposure (Days), Mean (SD)623.9 (567.7)816.2 (580.7)1130.1 (583.0)Death, n (%)15 (0.2)13 (0.5)10 (0.9)Selected AE’s of interest, EAIR (95% CI)Serious infections11.4 (1.2, 1.6)1.8 (1.5, 2.2)1.2 (0.9, 1.6)Candidainfections22.9 (2.7, 3.2)1.5 (1.2, 1.9)0.7 (0.5, 1.1)IBD3Crohn’s disease3Ulcerative colitis30.01 (0.0, 0.05)0.1 (0.05, 0.2)0.1 (0.08, 0.2)0.03 (0.0, 0.1)0.1 (0.04, 0.2)0.1 (0.04, 0.2)0.03 (0.0, 0.2)0.4 (0.24, 0.7)0.2 (0.1, 0.5)MACE40.4 (0.31, 0.5)0.4 (0.3, 0.6)0.7 (0.4, 1.0)Uveitis30.01 (0.0, 0.05)0.1 (0.04, 0.2)1.2 (0.9, 1.7)Malignancy50.9 (0.7, 1.0)1.0 (0.77, 1.3)0.5 (0.3, 0.8)

1Rates for system organ class;2Rates for high level term;3Rates for preferred term (PT; IBD for unspecified IBD);4Rates for Novartis MedDRA Query term;5Rates for standardized MedDRA query term – ‘malignancies and unspecified tumour’; EAIR, exposure adjusted incidence rate per 100 pt-years; N, number of pts in the analysis

Table 2.

Summary of SEC post-marketing safety

Exposure (PTY)PSUR126Dec14 -25Jun15PSUR226 Jun - 25Dec15PSUR326Dec15 -25Jun16PSUR426Jun -25Dec16PSUR526Dec16 -25Dec17PSUR626Dec17 -25Dec18Cumulative18387450168712854993744137325285811                    n (Reporting rate PTY)Serious infections89 (4.8)149 (2.0)232 (1.4)475 (1.7)649 (0.7)1841 (1.3)3980 (1.4)Malignancy2 (0.1)15 (0.2)21 (0.1)50 (0.2)225 (0.2)422 (0.3)788 (0.3)Total IBD4 (0.2)12 (0.2)37(0.2)46 (0.2)185 (0.2)340 (0.3)693 (0.2)MACE6 (0.3)15 (0.2)16 (0.1)39 (0.1)151 (0.2)238 (0.2)504 (0.2)

PSUR, periodic safety update report; PTY, pt-treatment years

Conclusion:

In this long-term analysis across clinical trials and post-marketing surveillance, of pts with PsO, PsA and AS, SEC was well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with previous reports.1

Reference:

[1]Deodhar et al. Arthritis Research & Therapy (2019) 21:111.

Disclosure of Interests:

Atul Deodhar Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Iain McInnes Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Xenofon Baraliakos Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Kristian Reich Grant/research support from: Affibody; Almirall; Amgen; Biogen; Boehringer Ingelheim; Celgene; Centocor; Covagen; Eli Lilly; Forward Pharma; Fresenius Medical Care; GlaxoSmithKline; Janssen; Kyowa Kirin; LEO Pharma; Medac; Merck; Novartis; Miltenyi Biotec; Ocean Pharma; Pfizer; Regeneron; Samsung Bioepis; Sanofi Genzyme; Takeda; UCB; Valeant and Xenoport., Consultant of: Affibody; Almirall; Amgen; Biogen; Boehringer Ingelheim; Celgene; Centocor; Covagen; Eli Lilly; Forward Pharma; Fresenius Medical Care; GlaxoSmithKline; Janssen; Kyowa Kirin; LEO Pharma; Medac; Merck; Novartis; Miltenyi Biotec; Ocean Pharma; Pfizer; Regeneron; Samsung Bioepis; Sanofi Genzyme; Takeda; UCB; Valeant and Xenoport., Speakers bureau: Affibody; Almirall; Amgen; Biogen; Boehringer Ingelheim; Celgene; Centocor; Covagen; Eli Lilly; Forward Pharma; Fresenius Medical Care; GlaxoSmithKline; Janssen; Kyowa Kirin; LEO Pharma; Medac; Merck; Novartis; Miltenyi Biotec; Ocean Pharma; Pfizer; Regeneron; Samsung Bioepis; Sanofi Genzyme; Takeda; UCB; Valeant and Xenoport., Alice B Gottlieb Grant/research support from:: Research grants, consultation fees, or speaker honoraria for lectures from: Pfizer, AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, Nordic, Celltrion and UCB., Consultant of:: Research grants, consultation fees, or speaker honoraria for lectures from: Pfizer, AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, Nordic, Celltrion and UCB., Speakers bureau:: Research grants, consultation fees, or speaker honoraria for lectures from: Pfizer, AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, Nordic, Celltrion and UCB., Mark Lebwohl Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Clinuvel, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Kadmon Corp., LLC, Leo Pharmaceutucals, Medimmune, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, Sciderm, UCB, Inc., and ViDac, Consultant of: Allergan, Almirall, Arcutis, Inc., Avotres Therapeutics, BirchBioMed Inc., Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cara Therapeutics, Castle Biosciences, Corrona, Dermavant Sciences, Evelo, Foundation for Research and Education in Dermatology, Inozyme Pharma, LEO Pharma, Meiji Seika Pharma, Menlo, Mitsubishi, Neuroderm, Pfizer, Promius/Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Theravance, and Verrica, Stefan Schreiber Consultant of: AbbVie, Arena, BMS, Biogen, Celltrion, Celgene, IMAB, Gilead, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Fresenius, Janssen, Takeda, Theravance, provention Bio, Protagonist and Falk, Weibin Bao Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Kwaku Marfo Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Hanno Richards Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Luminita Pricop Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Abhijit Shete Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Jorge Safi Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Philip J Mease Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau

Itch relief in patients with psoriasis: effectiveness of calcipotriol plus betamethasone dipropionate foam

BACKGROUND

Itch is common in psoriasis, adversely affecting health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and sleep.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the efficacy of topical fixed-dose combination calcipotriol 50 μg/g plus betamethasone dipropionate 0.5 mg/g cutaneous foam (Cal/BD foam) on itch, itch-related sleep loss and HRQoL vs. foam vehicle.

METHODS

We pooled data from three Phase II/III trials (NCT01536886/NCT01866163/NCT02132936) of Cal/BD foam vs. foam vehicle in adults with mild-severe psoriasis. For itch-related analyses, patients with baseline itch visual analogue scale (VAS) >40 (range 0-100) were analysed. Outcomes included the following: itch VAS reduction >40, ≥70% improvement in itch (Itch70) or itch-related sleep loss, 75% improvement in modified Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (excluding head; mPASI75) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores 0/1 through 4 weeks.

RESULTS

Of 837 patients, 800 had baseline itch VAS >0 (Cal/BD foam, n = 610; foam vehicle, n = 190); 484 had baseline itch VAS >40. There was no correlation between itch VAS score and mPASI at baseline (R²  = 0.021). In patients with baseline itch VAS >40, more patients achieved itch VAS reduction >40 in the active vs. vehicle group from Day 5 onwards (Day 5: 57.5% vs. 40.2% [P < 0.05]; Week 4: 83.0% vs. 45.8% [P < 0.001]). More Cal/BD-foam-treated patients achieved Itch70 at Day 3 (34.2% vs. 22.5%; P < 0.05) through to Week 4 (79.3% vs. 38.1%; P < 0.001). In patients with baseline itch VAS >40 and sleep loss >20, improvements in itch-related sleep loss occurred at Week 1 and continued through 4 weeks. Itch-related improvements occurred before improvements in mPASI75. There were significant differences in the proportion of Cal/BD-foam- vs. foam-vehicle-treated patients with baseline DLQI >10 (n = 172 vs. n = 50) achieving DLQI ≤1 (25.0% vs. 4.0%; P = 0.001) and DLQI 0 (17.4% vs. 2.0%; P = 0.006) at Week 4.

CONCLUSION

Compared with foam vehicle, Cal/BD foam offers more rapid and effective itch relief, with associated significant improvements in sleep and DLQI.

Use of dose-exposure-response relationships in Phase 2 and Phase 3 guselkumab studies to optimize dose selection in psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Guselkumab is an anti-interleukin-23 monoclonal antibody for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between dose-response and exposure-response of guselkumab in Phase 2 and Phase 3 studies to optimize dose selection.

METHODS

Serum guselkumab concentrations in Phase 2 and Phase 3 studies (VOYAGE 1 and VOYAGE 2) were measured using a validated immunoassay. Efficacy assessments included Physician's Global Assessment (PGA), Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI).

RESULTS

In Phase 2, a positive dose-response relationship was observed for PASI and PGA (5-mg through 100-mg dose regimens). Exposure-response analysis showed that patients with steady-state trough serum guselkumab concentrations ≥0.67 μg/mL achieved the highest levels of efficacy (PGA 0/1: 90.0%; PGA 0: 70.0%). The guselkumab 100-mg every 8-week (q8w) dose regimen, safe and well-tolerated in Phase 2, provided the highest serum guselkumab concentrations among all regimens studied and was selected for Phase 3. In Phase 3, 72.5% of patients achieved guselkumab concentrations ≥0.67 μg/mL at week 28, the level associated with the highest clinical responses in Phase 2, with patients achieving response rates of IGA 0/1: 91.2%, IGA 0: 55.3%, PASI 90: 83.8% and PASI 100: 49.1% at week 28.

CONCLUSION

The 100-mg guselkumab q8w dose regimen, based on the dose-exposure-response relationship from the Phase 2 study, produced the target serum concentration associated with high-level efficacy in the majority of patients in Phase 3. Phase 3 data further confirmed that guselkumab 100mg q8w is the optimum dosing regimen for treating patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

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.

Continued treatment with secukinumab is associated with high retention or regain of response

BACKGROUND

Conventional analyses present aggregate data, masking late responders and efficacy reductions. Secukinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively neutralizes interleukin (IL)-17A, shows sustained efficacy in moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

OBJECTIVES

To determine stability of response to secukinumab, changes in efficacy were assessed in individual patients.

METHODS

This is a post hoc analysis of two phase III randomized controlled trials, FIXTURE (trial registration: NCT01358578) and CLEAR (trial registration: NCT02074982). Patients received secukinumab 300 mg (FIXTURE and CLEAR), etanercept 50 mg (FIXTURE) or ustekinumab 45 or 90 mg (CLEAR) over 52 weeks. Mutually exclusive response categories were defined: ≥ 90% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 90) ('excellent'), ≥ 75% improvement in PASI (PASI 75) and < PASI 90 ('good') and < PASI 75 ('insufficient'). Reductions in efficacy were defined as shifts from higher to lower response categories between two consecutive visits maintained for a third consecutive visit. Loss of efficacy was defined as a reduction of efficacy resulting in 'insufficient' response. All comparisons are descriptive.

RESULTS

At 52 weeks, in CLEAR, 90·2% (303/336) of patients on secukinumab achieved stable efficacy without loss and 77·7% (261/336) showed stable efficacy without any reduction of response [74·3% (252/339) and 59·9% (203/339) of patients for ustekinumab]. In FIXTURE, 83·5% (273/327) and 66·4% (217/327) of patients on secukinumab had stable efficacy without loss or reduction of response [58·3% (190/326) and 42·6% (139/326) for etanercept]. Response was regained by continuing secukinumab treatment in 50% (8/16) of patients in CLEAR and 26% (9/34) in FIXTURE. Similar patterns were observed for other response definitions.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy with secukinumab was stable over 52 weeks of treatment in most patients. Continued treatment with secukinumab resulted in regain of efficacy in some patients. Persistent loss of response was uncommon. What's already known about this topic? Secukinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively neutralizes interleukin (IL)-17A, shows significant and sustained efficacy in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Secondary loss of response may be experienced by a minority of patients treated with secukinumab, as with other biologics, but the extent of this and the potential for regain of efficacy with continued treatment is not well understood. What does this study add? To determine stability of response to secukinumab and inform clinical practice, changes in efficacy were assessed at individual patient level using response categories. Efficacy with secukinumab was stable over 52 weeks of treatment in most patients, and continued treatment with secukinumab resulted in efficacy regain after loss in some patients. Persistent loss of response was uncommon. Patient factors such as body weight may affect the likelihood of loss of efficacy.

Utilization of the validated Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool to identify signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis among those with psoriasis: a cross-sectional analysis from the US-based Corrona Psoriasis Registry

Background

Despite increasing awareness of the disease, rates of undiagnosed psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are high in patients with psoriasis (PsO). The validated Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool (PEST) is a five‐item questionnaire developed to help identify PsA at an early stage.

Objectives

To assess the risk of possible undiagnosed PsA among patients with PsO and characterize patients based on PEST scores.

Methods

This study included all patients enrolled in the Corrona PsO Registry with data on all five PEST questions. Demographics, clinical characteristics and patient‐reported outcomes were compared in Corrona PsO Registry patients with PEST scores ≥3 and <3 using t‐tests for continuous variables and chi‐squared tests for categorical variables; scores ≥3 may indicate PsA.

Results

Of 1516 patients with PsO, 904 did not have dermatologist‐reported PsA; 112 of these 904 patients (12.4%) scored ≥3 and were significantly older, female, less likely to be working, and had higher BMI than patients with scores <3. They also had significantly longer PsO duration, were more likely to have nail PsO and had worse health status, pain, fatigue, Dermatology Life Quality Index and activity impairment.

Conclusions

Improved PsA screening is needed in patients with PsO because the validated PEST identified over one‐tenth of registry patients who were not noted to have PsA as having scores ≥3, who could have had undiagnosed PsA. Appropriate, earlier care is important because these patients were more likely to have nail PsO, worse health‐related quality of life and worse activity impairment.

Clinical Response in Plaque Psoriasis Patients Switching from Etanercept to Certolizumab Pegol in a Phase 3, Randomized, Controlled Study

Abstract not available. Disclosures: Study sponsored by Dermira. Copyright 2018 SKIN

Durability of Response in Patients with Chronic Plaque Psoriasis Treated with Certolizumab Pegol over 48 Weeks: Pooled Results from Ongoing Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Studies (CIMPASI-1, CIMPASI-2 and CIMPACT)

Abstract not available. Disclosures: Study sponsored by Dermira.Copyright 2018 SKIN

A Comprehensive Survey Assessing the Family Planning Needs of Women with Psoriasis

Abstract not available. Disclosures: Study sponsored by UCB Pharma.Copyright 2018 SKIN

Certolizumab pegol for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis: pooled analysis of week 16 data from three randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Certolizumab pegol, an Fc-free, PEGylated, anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) biologic, has demonstrated favourable results in three ongoing, phase 3, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials in adults with psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE

Data were pooled from the ongoing trials to investigate efficacy in selected subgroups and add precision to estimates of treatment effects during the initial 16 weeks of treatment.

METHODS

In each trial, patients ≥18 years with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis for ≥6 months were randomized to receive certolizumab 400 mg, certolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 2 weeks for 16 weeks. Coprimary endpoints for the pooled analysis were responder rates at Week 16, defined as ≥75% reduction in psoriasis area and severity index (PASI 75) and physician global assessment (PGA) of 0/1 ('clear'/'almost clear' with ≥2-category improvement). Safety was assessed by treatment-emergent adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 850 patients treated with certolizumab 400 mg (N = 342), certolizumab 200 mg (N = 351) or placebo (N = 157) were included in the pooled analysis. At Week 16, PASI 75 and PGA 0/1 responder rates were 80.1% and 63.7% in the certolizumab 400 mg group, 74.5% and 54.6% in the certolizumab 200 mg group, and 7.5% and 2.8% in the placebo group (P < 0.0001 for each dose versus placebo). In patients with and without prior biologic therapy, both doses of certolizumab resulted in substantially higher responder rates versus placebo. The incidence of adverse events was generally similar between the 400 mg and placebo groups, and somewhat lower in the 200 mg group versus placebo. No new safety signals were identified.

CONCLUSION

Certolizumab pegol 400 mg or 200 mg every 2 weeks for 16 weeks was associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in signs and symptoms of psoriasis in patients with and without prior biologic therapy, and a safety profile consistent with the anti-TNF class in psoriasis.

Impact of ixekizumab treatment on skin-related personal relationship difficulties in moderate-to-severe psoriasis patients: 12-week results from two Phase 3 trials

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis symptoms may decrease quality of life for patients. Skin-related personal relationship difficulties in psoriasis patients are common, under-reported and poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of ixekizumab (IXE) treatment on skin-related personal relationship difficulties in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

METHODS

Pooled data (N = 2570) on skin-related relationship problems were obtained from two large phase 3 trials (UNCOVER-2 and UNCOVER-3) in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis randomized to subcutaneous placebo (PBO, N = 361), etanercept (ETN; 50 mg twice weekly, N = 740), or 80 mg IXE as one injection every 4 (IXEQ4W, N = 733) or 2 weeks (IXEQ2W, N = 736) for 12 weeks, following a 160-mg initial dose. The Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) Personal Relationships Domain (PRD) (Items 8 and 9) was used to assess how much the skin caused any personal relationship difficulties at weeks 0, 2, 4 and 12. Improvement was compared for IXE vs PBO and ETN using logistic models. Factors associated with improvement were assessed using multiple linear regressions. DLQI Item 9, assessing sexual difficulties, was also analysed separately.

RESULTS

PRD scores (mean ± standard deviation) at baseline were similar across all treatment groups (PBO: 1.8 ± 1.9; ETN: 1.7 ± 1.8; IXEQ4W: 1.6 ± 1.8; IXEQ2W: 1.7 ± 1.8). Treatment with IXE rapidly and significantly improved the mean PRD score compared to PBO and ETN (P < 0.001 at all time points). Baseline PRD score was the strongest negative predictor of improvement. IXE enabled significantly more patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis to reduce their skin-related sexual difficulties at Week 12 compared to PBO (P < 0.001) or ETN (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Ixekizumab improves patient-reported skin-related PRD difficulties in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis.