Efficacy of Risankizumab versus Secukinumab in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: Subgroup Analysis from the IMMerge Study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis who experience poor clinical outcomes, including patients with obesity or prior treatment, need improved treatment options. Risankizumab specifically inhibits interleukin 23 and has demonstrated superior efficacy in active-comparator studies in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. We compared the efficacy of risankizumab with that of secukinumab across patient subgroups. METHODS: Subgroup analyses using data from the phase 3 IMMerge study (NCT03478787) were performed. Efficacy in adults with moderate-to-severe psoriasis treated with risankizumab 150 mg and secukinumab 300 mg was assessed as the proportion of patients who achieved ≥ 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI 90) at week 52 across demographics and disease characteristics. Post hoc analyses evaluated the proportion of patients who achieved PASI 90 and the least-squares mean percent PASI improvement from baseline at week 52 by body weight and body mass index (BMI), PASI 90 by prior treatment, and clinical response [PASI 90, PASI 100, and/or static Physician's Global Assessment (sPGA) score of clear (0) or almost clear (1)] at week 16 and maintained particular response at week 52. Logistic regression analyses examined the effect of covariates (age, sex, BMI, baseline PASI, treatment) and potential interactions on PASI 90 at week 52. RESULTS: More patients who received risankizumab (n = 164) compared with secukinumab (n = 163) achieved PASI 90 at week 52, regardless of demographics and disease characteristics (BMI, prior treatment, disease duration, and maintenance of clinical response at week 52). Improvements in PASI were greater in patients taking risankizumab than those taking secukinumab, regardless of weight or BMI. Results from logistic regression analysis showed treatment type had a significant impact on PASI 90 (risankizumab versus secukinumab, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Risankizumab showed consistently greater efficacy compared with secukinumab across different patient subgroups, and this was maintained through 52 weeks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier; NCT03478787.

Patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis are often unable to achieve treatment success with currently available biologic therapies when they have other conditions, such as obesity, or have previous biologic therapy exposure and/or failure. We studied patients in the IMMerge phase 3 clinical trial (NCT03478787) to assess the efficacy of risankizumab compared with secukinumab for the treatment of plaque psoriasis and to determine risankizumab's ability to remain effective after 52 weeks of administration. In our analysis, we looked across patient subgroups including patient body weight, body mass index, previous use of biologic therapies, length of time patients had been living with their disease, and the durability of risankizumab efficacy at 52 weeks. Results from our analysis showed that patients had greater success with risankizumab compared with secukinumab in treating their plaque psoriasis, despite their age, sex, race, and disease characteristics, and that risankizumab remained effective in treating plaque psoriasis at week 52. Previously reported safety results from the IMMerge clinical trial showed that there were no new concerns regarding side effects for either risankizumab or secukinumab. Overall, these results support the use of risankizumab to treat patients, including those who have other conditions or may not have had success with other therapies in treating their plaque psoriasis.

A brief guide to pustular psoriasis for primary care providers.

Pustular psoriasis refers to a heterogeneous group of chronic inflammatory skin disorders that are clinically, histologically, and genetically distinct from plaque psoriasis. Pustular psoriasis may present as a recurrent systemic illness (generalized pustular psoriasis [GPP]), or as localized disease affecting the palms and/or soles (palmoplantar pustulosis [PPP], also known as palmoplantar pustular psoriasis), or the digits/nail beds (acrodermatitis continua of Hallopeau [ACH]). These conditions are rare, but their possible severity and consequences should not be underestimated. GPP, especially an acute episode (flare), may be a medical emergency, with potentially life-threatening complications. PPP and ACH are often debilitating conditions. PPP is associated with impaired health-related quality of life and psychiatric morbidity, while ACH threatens irreversible nail and/or bone damage. These conditions can be difficult to diagnose; thus, primary care providers should not hesitate to contact a dermatologist for advice and/or patient referral. The role of corticosteroids in triggering and leading to flares of GPP should also be noted, and physicians should avoid the use of systemic corticosteroids in the management of any form of psoriasis.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARYA brief guide to pustular psoriasis for primary care providersPustular psoriasis consists of a group of rare conditions that cause the skin to become red and painful. In these conditions, small blisters filled with pus (called pustules) appear suddenly. The pustules are not infectious. Pustular psoriasis is different from plaque psoriasis, in which people develop scaly patches of skin. People can have pustular psoriasis and plaque psoriasis at the same time. Pustular psoriasis can be widespread, affecting large areas of the body, arms, and legs. This is called generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP). GPP can cause life-threatening complications that may require emergency medical treatment. Pustular psoriasis can be more localized, occurring on the palms of the hands and soles of the feet. This is called palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP). It can also occur on the fingers, toes, and nail beds, called acrodermatitis continua of Hallopeau (ACH). PPP and ACH can make walking and other everyday activities difficult. Because GPP, PPP, and ACH are rare, primary care providers are unlikely to meet many people with pustular psoriasis, so they may not recognize these conditions immediately. This article aims to help primary care providers assess and diagnose people who may have GPP, PPP, or ACH, and advise when they should get help from a skin specialist (dermatologist). See Figure 1 for a full infographic version of this summary.

Risankizumab compared with adalimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (IMMvent): a randomised, double-blind, active-comparator-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is an autoimmune disease that affects approximately 100 million people worldwide, and is a disease that can be ameliorated by anti-cytokine treatment. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of risankizumab with adalimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. METHODS: IMMvent was a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, active-comparator-controlled trial completed at 66 clinics in 11 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 using interactive response technology to receive 150 mg risankizumab subcutaneously at weeks 0 and 4 or 80 mg adalimumab subcutaneously at randomisation, then 40 mg at weeks 1, 3, 5, and every other week thereafter during a 16-week double-blind treatment period (part A). For weeks 16-44 (part B), adalimumab intermediate responders were re-randomised 1:1 to continue 40 mg adalimumab or switch to 150 mg risankizumab. In part A, participants and investigators were masked to study treatment. Randomisation was stratified by weight and previous tumour necrosis factor inhibitor exposure. Co-primary endpoints in part A were a 90% improvement from baseline (PASI 90) and a static Physician's Global Assessment (sPGA) score of 0 or 1 at week 16, and for part B was PASI 90 at week 44 (non-responder imputation). Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in the safety population (all patients who received at least one dose of study drug or placebo). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02694523. FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2016, and Aug 24, 2017, 605 patients were randomly assigned to receive either risankizumab (n=301, 50%) or adalimumab (n=304, 50%). 294 (98%) of patients in the risankizumab group and 291 (96%) in the adalimumab group completed part A, and 51 (96%) of 53 patients re-randomised to risankizumab and 51 (91%) of 56 patients re-randomised to continue adalimumab completed part B. At week 16, PASI 90 was achieved in 218 (72%) of 301 patients given risankizumab and 144 (47%) of 304 patients given adalimumab (adjusted absolute difference 24·9% [95% CI 17·5-32·4]; p<0·0001), and sPGA scores of 0 or 1 were achieved in 252 (84%) patients given risankizumab and 252 (60%) patients given adalimumab (adjusted absolute difference 23·3% [16·6-30·1]; p<0·0001). In part B, among adalimumab intermediate responders, PASI 90 was achieved by 35 (66%) of 53 patients switched to risankizumab and 12 (21%) of 56 patients continuing adalimumab (adjusted absolute difference 45·0% [28·9-61·1]; p<0·0001) at week 44. Adverse events were reported in 168 (56%) of 301 patients given risankizumab and 179 (57%) of 304 patients given adalimumab in part A, and among adalimumab intermediate responders, adverse events were reported in 40 (75%) of 53 patients who switched to risankizumab and 37 (66%) of 56 patients who continued adalimumab in part B. INTERPRETATION: Risankizumab showed significantly greater efficacy than adalimumab in providing skin clearance in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. No additional safety concerns were identified for patients who switched from adalimumab to risankizumab. Treatment with risankizumab provides flexibility in the long-term treatment of psoriasis. FUNDING: AbbVie and Boehringer Ingelheim.

Improvements in psoriasis within different body regions vary over time following treatment with ixekizumab.

BACKGROUND: Ixekizumab is a high-affinity monoclonal antibody that selectively targets interleukin-17 A. OBJECTIVE: Examine the efficacy of ixekizumab in clearing psoriasis within different body regions. METHODS: Data from 3 placebo- (PBO) or PBO- and etanercept (ETN)-controlled trials were integrated. Patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis were randomized to 12 weeks of PBO (UNCOVER-1, -2, -3, N = 792; UNCOVER-2, -3, N = 361), 50 mg ETN twice weekly (N = 740), or 80 mg ixekizumab every 2 (IXE Q2W; N = 1169; N = 736) or 4 weeks (IXE Q4W; N = 1165; N = 733) after a 160-mg starting dose. RESULTS: Mean percent improvements in regional Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) were noted at Week 1 and increased through Week 12 in the IXE Q2W (approved dosing regimen) group for each body region. Week 12 improvements were 91.4% (head/neck); 92.8% (trunk); 89.9% (arms); and 88.7% (legs) (all regions p < .001 vs. PBO). Mean regional PASI improvements at Week 12 were ≥84.2% for ixekizumab versus ≤70.9% for ETN in all regions (p < .001). Scaling and thickness reduced faster than erythema. CONCLUSIONS: Within 12 weeks of ixekizumab treatment, all signs of psoriasis across all body regions reached clinically meaningful improvements, with the head/neck and trunk responding quicker than psoriasis of the arms and legs, especially with reduced scaling and thickness.

Adalimumab for nail psoriasis: Efficacy and safety from the first 26 weeks of a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous clinical trials have not evaluated improvement in nail psoriasis as a primary end point. OBJECTIVE: This phase 3 trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of adalimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe fingernail psoriasis and moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to 40 mg adalimumab every other week or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was at least 75% improvement in total-fingernail modified Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI75) response rate at week 26. Ranked secondary end point scores evaluated at week 26 were total-fingernail NAPSI and modified NAPSI, nail pain, Nail Psoriasis Physical Functioning Severity, Brigham Scalp Nail Inverse Palmo-Plantar Psoriasis Index, and Physician's Global Assessment (fingernail psoriasis). RESULTS: Of the 217 randomized patients (108 received placebo and 109 received adalimumab), 188 (86.6%) completed 26 weeks of treatment (period A) or escaped early to the open-label period. The study met the primary end point (response rate of 3.4% with placebo vs 46.6% with adalimumab [P < .001]) and all ranked secondary end points. The serious adverse event rates (placebo vs adalimumab) in period A were 4.6% versus 7.3%; the serious infections rates were 1.9% versus 3.7%. LIMITATIONS: Patients with less than 5% BSA involvement were not eligible for enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: After 26 weeks of adalimumab treatment, significant improvements were seen in the primary and all ranked secondary end points and in signs and symptoms of moderate-to-severe nail psoriasis versus with placebo and no new safety risks were identified.

Two Phase 3 Trials of Adalimumab for Hidradenitis Suppurativa.

BACKGROUND: Hidradenitis suppurativa is a painful, chronic inflammatory skin disease with few options for effective treatment. In a phase 2 trial, adalimumab, an antibody against tumor necrosis factor α, showed efficacy against hidradenitis suppurativa. METHODS: PIONEER I and II were similarly designed, phase 3 multicenter trials of adalimumab for hidradenitis suppurativa, with two double-blind, placebo-controlled periods. In period 1, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to 40 mg of adalimumab weekly or matching placebo for 12 weeks. In period 2, patients were reassigned to adalimumab at a weekly or every-other-week dose or to placebo for 24 weeks. The primary end point was a clinical response, defined as at least a 50% reduction from baseline in the abscess and inflammatory-nodule count, with no increase in abscess or draining-fistula counts, at week 12. RESULTS: We enrolled 307 patients in PIONEER I and 326 in PIONEER II. Clinical response rates at week 12 were significantly higher for the groups receiving adalimumab weekly than for the placebo groups: 41.8% versus 26.0% in PIONEER I (P=0.003) and 58.9% versus 27.6% in PIONEER II (P<0.001). Patients receiving adalimumab had significantly greater improvement than the placebo groups in rank-ordered secondary outcomes (lesions, pain, and the modified Sartorius score for disease severity) at week 12 in PIONEER II only. Serious adverse events in period 1 (excluding worsening of underlying disease) occurred in 1.3% of patients receiving adalimumab and 1.3% of those receiving placebo in PIONEER I and in 1.8% and 3.7% of patients, respectively, in PIONEER II. In period 2, the rates of serious adverse events were 4.6% or less in all the groups in both studies, with no significant between-group differences. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with adalimumab (40 mg weekly), as compared with placebo, resulted in significantly higher clinical response rates in both trials at 12 weeks; rates of serious adverse events were similar in the study groups. (Funded by AbbVie; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01468207 and NCT01468233 for PIONEER I and PIONEER II, respectively.).

Treatment of nail psoriasis: best practice recommendations from the Medical Board of the National Psoriasis Foundation.

IMPORTANCE: Nail psoriasis can be difficult to treat and has a significant effect on quality of life. Relatively few controlled trials evaluating treatments for nail psoriasis have been published. There is an unmet need for treatment recommendations to guide therapeutic decisions. OBJECTIVE: To develop treatment recommendations for nail psoriasis from the Medical Board of the National Psoriasis Foundation. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A PubMed search for publications on nail psoriasis treatments was performed from January 1, 1947, through May 11, 2014, without language restrictions. FINDINGS: Treatment recommendations for 4 clinical nail psoriasis scenarios were developed based on the evidence reviewed in this study and expert opinion of the Medical Board of the National Psoriasis Foundation. Treatment of nail psoriasis should balance consideration of the extent of skin disease, psoriatic arthritis, and severity of nail disease with concomitant impairment of quality of life. All patients should be evaluated for onychomycosis because this may complicate psoriatic nail disease. For disease limited to the nails, high-potency topical corticosteroids with or without calcipotriol are initial options. For patients with significant nail disease for whom topical therapy has failed, treatment with adalimumab, etanercept, intralesional corticosteroids, ustekinumab, methotrexate sodium, and acitretin are recommended. For patients with significant skin and nail disease, adalimumab, etanercept, and ustekinumab are strongly recommended, and methotrexate, acitretin, infliximab, and apremilast are recommended. Finally, for a patient with significant nail, skin, and joint disease, adalimumab, etanercept, ustekinumab, infliximab, methotrexate, apremilast, and golimumab are recommended. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Treatment of nail psoriasis poses a clinical challenge. Clinical trial data are limited, and results are reported inconsistently, making comparisons among treatment options difficult. The treatment recommendations from the Medical Board of the National Psoriasis Foundation will help guide treatment decisions for clinicians who are treating patients with nail psoriasis.

Use of biologic agents in combination with other therapies for the treatment of psoriasis.

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder, which is associated with a significant negative impact on a patient's quality of life. Traditional therapies for psoriasis are often not able to meet desired treatment goals, and high-dose and/or long-term use is associated with toxicities that can result in end-organ damage. An improved understanding of the involvement of cytokines in the etiology of psoriasis has led to the development of biologic agents targeting tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α and interleukins (ILs)-12/23. While biologic agents have improved treatment outcomes, they are not effective in all individuals with psoriasis. The combination of biologic agents with traditional therapies may provide improved therapeutic options for patients who inadequately respond to a single drug or when efficacy may be increased with supplementation of another treatment. In addition, combination therapy may reduce safety concerns and cumulative toxicity, as lower doses of individual agents may be efficacious when used together. This article reviews the current evidence available on the efficacy and safety of combining biologic agents with systemic therapies (methotrexate, cyclosporine, or retinoids) or with phototherapy, and the combination of biologic agents themselves. Guidance is provided to help physicians identify situations and the characteristics of patients who would benefit from combination therapy with a biologic agent. Finally, the potential clinical impact of biologic therapies in development (e.g., those targeting IL-17A, IL-17RA, or IL-23 alone) is analyzed.

A Delphi Consensus Approach to Challenging Case Scenarios in Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: Part 1.

INTRODUCTION: Traditional clinical trials in psoriasis exclude a significant proportion of patients with complex disease and comorbidities. A consensus panel of 14 experts in the field of psoriasis was formed to conduct a Delphi method exercise to identify difficult-to-treat psoriasis clinical scenarios and to rank treatment approaches. METHODS: The exercise consisted of both survey questionnaires and a live meeting to review and discuss current data (as of 2009, when the exercise was conducted) and arrive at a consensus for optimal treatment options. Seventy difficult treatment scenarios were identified, and the top 24 were selected for discussion at the live meeting. RESULTS: Six of the 24 discussed case scenarios are presented in this article (another five are presented in Part 2): (1) psoriasis with human papilloma virus-induced cervical or anogenital dysplasia; (2) concomitant psoriasis and systemic lupus erythematosus; (3) severe psoriatic nail disease causing functional or emotional impairment; (4) psoriasis therapies that potentially reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality; (5) older patients (≥65 years of age) with psoriasis; and (6) severe scalp psoriasis that is unresponsive to topical therapy. CONCLUSION: The Delphi exercise resulted in guidelines for practicing physicians to utilize when confronted with challenging patients with psoriasis.

A Delphi Consensus Approach to Challenging Case Scenarios in Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: Part 2.

INTRODUCTION: Clinicians may be confronted with difficult-to-treat psoriasis cases for which there are scant data to rely upon for guidance. To assist in managing such patients, who are typically excluded from clinical trials, a consensus panel of 14 experts in the field of psoriasis was formed to conduct a Delphi method exercise. METHODS: The exercise consisted of both survey questionnaires and a live meeting to review and discuss current data (as of 2009, when the exercise was conducted) and arrive at a consensus for optimal treatment options. Seventy difficult treatment scenarios were identified, and the top 24 were selected for discussion at the live meeting. RESULTS: Five of the 24 discussed case scenarios are presented in this article: (1) moderate-to-severe psoriasis that has failed to respond to all currently approved therapies for psoriasis; (2) palmoplantar psoriasis that is unresponsive to topical therapy and phototherapy; (3) erythrodermic psoriasis; (4) pustular psoriasis; and (5) the preferred therapeutic choice to combine with low-dose methotrexate. A previous article (part 1) presented six other scenarios. CONCLUSION: The Delphi exercise resulted in guidelines for practicing physicians to utilize when confronted with patients with challenging cases of psoriasis.

A series of critically challenging case scenarios in moderate to severe psoriasis: a Delphi consensus approach.

Clinical trials for systemic psoriasis therapy typically enroll healthy patients and exclude patients with cardiovascular disease, latent tuberculosis, liver disease, histories of malignancies, viral infections, children, and pregnant or breast-feeding women. Physicians often require guidance for optimum management of severe psoriasis in patients that have a combination of underlying disease states. To provide treatment recommendations for complex psoriasis scenarios, a consensus panel comprising 15 experts in psoriatic disease convened to review and discuss available evidence-based data and to arrive at a consensus for treatment options of difficult cases. An application of the Delphi Method was used to select case scenarios, provide medical treatment options, present the case study with existing medical evidence, and anonymously vote on treatment options. The top 10 treatment options were ranked and statistically analyzed to compare the differences between treatments. The final rankings and analysis provide guidance for practical, safe, and efficacious treatment options in a number of complex psoriasis scenarios.

Etanercept improves psoriatic arthritis patient-reported outcomes: results from EDUCATE.

Experience Diagnosing, Understanding Care, and Treatment With Etanercept (EDUCATE) is a multicenter, phase 4, 24-week, open-label study of the safety and efficacy of etanercept therapy in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in routine dermatologic practice. We present data on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from EDUCATE, which demonstrate that subjects with PsA achieved clinically meaningful improvements in both skin- and joint-related PROs after 24 weeks of treatment.