Caracterización y resultados de pacientes tratados con apremilast en la práctica clínica habitual española: resultados del estudio APPRECIATE / Characterization and Outcomes in Patients Treated With Apremilast in Routine Clinical Practice in Spain: Results From the APPRECIATE Study

Antecedentes y objetivos Es conveniente ampliar el conocimiento del manejo de apremilast en práctica clínica. El estudio APPRECIATE (NCT02740218) pretende describir las características de pacientes con psoriasis tratados con apremilast, evaluar sus perspectivas y las de sus dermatólogos, y los resultados obtenidos en la práctica clínica española. Métodos Estudio observacional, retrospectivo, transversal y multicéntrico en pacientes con psoriasis crónica en placas, a los que se visitó seis (± 1) meses después de iniciar apremilast. Los datos se obtuvieron de las historias clínicas y cuestionarios realizados por pacientes y dermatólogos. Resultados Se evaluaron 80 pacientes, al iniciar apremilast presentaban Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) medio (desviación estándar, DE) = 8,3 (5,3) y Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) medio (DE) = 8,9 (6,6). A los seis meses, el 58,8% (n = 47) continuaba con apremilast (discontinuaciones: falta de eficacia [16,3%], seguridad/tolerabilidad [20,0%]). En pacientes que continuaban en tratamiento, el PASI75 fue alcanzado por el 36,7%; la puntuación DLQI media (IC 95%) fue 2,2 (0,7-3,6) y Patient Benefit Index medio (DE) 2,8 (0,8). El cumplimiento de las expectativas de los dermatólogos se correlacionó con los beneficios descritos por los pacientes (r = 0,636). El 56,3% reportó acontecimientos adversos (diarrea y náuseas los más frecuentes). Conclusiones Los pacientes que recibieron apremilast durante seis meses en la práctica clínica en España reportaron una mejoría en su calidad de vida (DLQI medio se redujo más de seis puntos) y en la gravedad de la enfermedad (PASI75 alcanzado por más de un tercio de los pacientes), a pesar de presentar una afectación cutánea menor que aquellos pacientes incluidos en ensayos clínicos (AU)

Background and objectives It is necessary to expand the knowledge in the use of apremilast in clinical practice. The APPRECIATE study (NCT02740218) aims to describe the characteristics of patients with psoriasis treated with apremilast, to evaluate their perspectives and those of dermatologists, as well as the outcomes obtained in clinical practice in Spain. Methods Observational, retrospective, cross-sectional, multicenter study of patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who could be contacted 6 (±1) months after apremilast initiation. The data were obtained from medical records and questionnaires from patients and physicians. Results A total of 80 patients were evaluated; at apremilast onset, they showed mean (standard deviation, SD) Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) = 8.3 (5.3), mean (SD) Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) = 8.9 (6.6). At six months, 58.8% (n=47) of patients continued apremilast treatment (discontinuations due to lack of efficacy [16.3%], safety/tolerability [20.0%]). In patients continuing treatment, PASI75 was achieved by 36.7% of patients; mean (95% CI) DLQI score was 2.2 (0.7-3.6) and mean (SD) Patient Benefit Index score was 2.8 (0.8). Compliance with physicians’ expectations was correlated with benefits reported by patients (r=0.636). Adverse events were reported by 56.3% of patients (the most common were diarrhoea and nausea). Conclusions Patients receiving apremilast for 6 months in Spanish clinical practice, reported substantial improvements in their quality of life (mean DLQI reduced by more than 6 points) and disease severity (PASI75 achieved by over one-third of patients), despite less skin involvement than patients who enrolled in clinical trials (AU)

Characterization and Outcomes in Patients Treated With Apremilast in Routine Clinical Practice in Spain: Results From the APPRECIATE Study. / Caracterización y resultados de pacientes tratados con apremilast en la práctica clínica habitual española: resultados del estudio APPRECIATE.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: It is necessary to expand the knowledge in the use of apremilast in clinical practice. The APPRECIATE study (NCT02740218) aims to describe the characteristics of patients with psoriasis treated with apremilast, to evaluate their perspectives and those of dermatologists, as well as the outcomes obtained in clinical practice in Spain. METHODS: Observational, retrospective, cross-sectional, multicenter study of patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who could be contacted 6 (±1) months after apremilast initiation. The data were obtained from medical records and questionnaires from patients and physicians. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients were evaluated; at apremilast onset, they showed mean (standard deviation, SD) Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) = 8.3 (5.3), mean (SD) Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) = 8.9 (6.6). At six months, 58.8% (n=47) of patients continued apremilast treatment (discontinuations due to lack of efficacy [16.3%], safety/tolerability [20.0%]). In patients continuing treatment, PASI75 was achieved by 36.7% of patients; mean (95% CI) DLQI score was 2.2 (0.7-3.6) and mean (SD) Patient Benefit Index score was 2.8 (0.8). Compliance with physicians' expectations was correlated with benefits reported by patients (r=0.636). Adverse events were reported by 56.3% of patients (the most common were diarrhoea and nausea). CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving apremilast for 6 months in Spanish clinical practice, reported substantial improvements in their quality of life (mean DLQI reduced by more than 6 points) and disease severity (PASI75 achieved by over one-third of patients), despite less skin involvement than patients who enrolled in clinical trials.

Classification of the cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19: a rapid prospective nationwide consensus study in Spain with 375 cases.

BACKGROUND: The cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 disease are poorly characterized. OBJECTIVES: To describe the cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 disease and to relate them to other clinical findings. METHODS: We carried out a nationwide case collection survey of images and clinical data. Using a consensus we described five clinical patterns. We later described the association of these patterns with patient demographics, the timing in relation to symptoms of the disease, the severity and the prognosis. RESULTS: The lesions may be classified as acral areas of erythema with vesicles or pustules (pseudo-chilblain) (19%), other vesicular eruptions (9%), urticarial lesions (19%), maculopapular eruptions (47%) and livedo or necrosis (6%). Vesicular eruptions appear early in the course of the disease (15% before other symptoms). The pseudo-chilblain pattern frequently appears late in the evolution of the COVID-19 disease (59% after other symptoms), while the rest tend to appear with other symptoms of COVID-19. The severity of COVID-19 shows a gradient from less severe disease in acral lesions to more severe in the latter groups. The results are similar for confirmed and suspected cases, in terms of both clinical and epidemiological findings. Alternative diagnoses are discussed but seem unlikely for the most specific patterns (pseudo-chilblain and vesicular). CONCLUSIONS: We provide a description of the cutaneous manifestations associated with COVID-19 infection. These may help clinicians approach patients with the disease and recognize cases presenting with few symptoms. What is already known about this topic? Previous descriptions of cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 were case reports and mostly lacked illustrations. What does this study add? We describe a large, representative sample of patients with unexplained skin manifestations and a diagnosis of COVID-19, using a consensus method to define morphological patterns associated with COVID-19. We describe five clinical patterns associated with different patient demographics, timing and prognosis, and provide illustrations of these patterns to allow for easy recognition.

New polymorphisms associated with response to anti-TNF drugs in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

Anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs are effective against psoriasis, although 20-30% of patients are nonresponders. Few pharmacogenomic studies have been performed to predict the response to anti-TNF drugs in psoriasis. We studied 173 polymorphisms to establish an association with the response to anti-TNF drugs in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (N=144). We evaluated the response using PASI75 at 3, 6 and 12 months. The results of the multivariate analysis showed an association between polymorphisms in PGLYR4, ZNF816A, CTNNA2, IL12B, MAP3K1 and HLA-C genes and the response at 3 months. Besides, the results for polymorphisms in IL12B and MAP3K1 were replicated at 6 months. We also obtained significant results for IL12B polymorphism at 1 year. Moreover, polymorphisms in FCGR2A, HTR2A and CDKAL1 were significant at 6 months. This is the first study to show an association with these polymorphisms. However, these biomarkers should be validated in large-scale studies before implementation in clinical practice.

Bloque 4: Proyectos de Acción Psoriasis / No disponible

No disponible

Modificación de la dosis de terapias biológicas en psoriasis moderada-grave: análisis descriptivo en condiciones de práctica clínica / Dose Modification in Biologic Therapy for Moderate to Severe Psoriasis: A Descriptive Analysis in a Clinical Practice Setting

INTRODUCCIÓN: La modificación de dosis de biológicos en pacientes con psoriasis en remisión adecuadamente seleccionados podría reducir el riesgo de exposición al fármaco y su carga económica. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Estudio observacional, descriptivo y transversal en 112 pacientes con psoriasis moderada-grave tratados con biológicos durante ≥6 meses en enero de 2014. El objetivo consistió en alcanzar y mantener una respuesta PASI 75. Los pacientes iniciaron el tratamiento con la pauta estándar; en aquellos que cumplieron el objetivo se redujo la dosis, y cuando no alcanzaron la respuesta con la pauta estándar esta se intensificó. RESULTADOS: Un 42,9% siguió la pauta estándar, un 50% la reducida y un 7,1% la intensificada. El fármaco con el que más se redujo la dosis fue adalimumab (57,7%) y los que más se intensificaron fueron ustekinumab e infliximab (17,9% y 12,5%). Los pacientes que recibieron dosis reducidas presentaron una psoriasis de más evolución (p = 0,049) y llevaban más tiempo en tratamiento con el mismo biológico (p = 0,009) (diferencias significativas). Hubo una proporción significativamente superior de pacientes con artritis psoriásica entre los no aptos a reducir dosis (p = 0,023). El ahorro del gasto fue del 21,5% con adalimumab, 13,8% con etanercept, 0,9% con ustekinumab y 0,55% con infliximab. CONCLUSIONES: Presentaron una probabilidad de reducción de dosis significativamente mayor aquellos pacientes con más tiempo de evolución y más tiempo bajo el mismo tratamiento biológico. Entre los pacientes sin reducción de dosis hubo mayor proporción con artritis psoriásica. El ahorro global con este algoritmo de modificación de dosis fue del 13%. Se requieren estudios controlados que ayuden a definir el perfil de paciente más adecuado para reducir la dosis sin pérdida de eficacia del tratamiento

INTRODUCTION: In biologic therapy, dose modification in carefully selected patients when psoriasis is in remission could reduce treatment costs and the risks associated with drug exposure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Observational, descriptive, crosssectional study, performed in January 2014, of 112 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis who had been on biologic therapy for at least 6 months. The therapeutic objective in all cases was to achieve and maintain a 75% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75). All the patients had started treatment with the standard regimen. During treatment, the dose had been reduced in patients who achieved the therapeutic objective and escalated in those who failed to respond adequately to standard doses. RESULTS: At the time of the study, 42.9% of the patients were receiving the standard dose, 50% were on a reduced dose, and 7.1% were on an escalated regimen. The agent with which the dose was most often reduced was adalimumab (57.7%), and the agents with which therapy was most often escalated were ustekinumab (17.9%) and infliximab (12.5%). Patients who received reduced doses had significantly longer-standing disease (P=.049) and longer treatment duration with the same biologic agent (P=.009). In the group that did not fulfill the criteria for dose reduction, the proportion of patients with psoriatic arthritis was significantly higher (P=.023). Cost savings were as follows: 21.5% with adalimumab, 13.8% with etanercept, .9% with ustekinumab, and .55% with infliximab. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with longer-standing disease and longer treatment duration with the same biologic agent were significantly more likely to be candidates for dose reduction. The proportion of patients with psoriatic arthritis was greater in the group of patients who did not fulfill the conditions for dose reduction. The overall cost saving achieved using the dose modification algorithm described in this study was 13%. Controlled studies are needed to define the profile of the patients best suited for dose reduction strategies without loss of treatment efficacy

Dose Modification in Biologic Therapy for Moderate to Severe Psoriasis: A Descriptive Analysis in a Clinical Practice Setting.

INTRODUCTION: In biologic therapy, dose modification in carefully selected patients when psoriasis is in remission could reduce treatment costs and the risks associated with drug exposure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Observational, descriptive, crosssectional study, performed in January 2014, of 112 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis who had been on biologic therapy for at least 6 months. The therapeutic objective in all cases was to achieve and maintain a 75% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75). All the patients had started treatment with the standard regimen. During treatment, the dose had been reduced in patients who achieved the therapeutic objective and escalated in those who failed to respond adequately to standard doses. RESULTS: At the time of the study, 42.9% of the patients were receiving the standard dose, 50% were on a reduced dose, and 7.1% were on an escalated regimen. The agent with which the dose was most often reduced was adalimumab (57.7%), and the agents with which therapy was most often escalated were ustekinumab (17.9%) and infliximab (12.5%). Patients who received reduced doses had significantly longer-standing disease (P=.049) and longer treatment duration with the same biologic agent (P=.009). In the group that did not fulfill the criteria for dose reduction, the proportion of patients with psoriatic arthritis was significantly higher (P=.023). Cost savings were as follows: 21.5% with adalimumab, 13.8% with etanercept, .9% with ustekinumab, and .55% with infliximab. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with longer-standing disease and longer treatment duration with the same biologic agent were significantly more likely to be candidates for dose reduction. The proportion of patients with psoriatic arthritis was greater in the group of patients who did not fulfill the conditions for dose reduction. The overall cost saving achieved using the dose modification algorithm described in this study was 13%. Controlled studies are needed to define the profile of the patients best suited for dose reduction strategies without loss of treatment efficacy.

[Clinical outcomes in patients with psoriasis following discontinuation of efalizumab due to suspension of marketing authorization]. / Evolución clínica de los pacientes psoriásicos tratados con efalizumab al suspender el fármaco.

INTRODUCTION: In February 2009, the European Medicines Agency suspended the marketing authorization for efalizumab after 3 confirmed cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy were reported. To assess the consequences of this decision, we performed a prospective follow-up study of patients in our department who were being treated with efalizumab at the time and compared clinical outcomes with data from the literature. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-two patients (28 with plaque psoriasis and 4 with palmoplantar psoriasis) were enrolled between February and March 2009. We recorded psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) scores at the moment of efalizumab discontinuation, at 6 weeks post-discontinuation, and at 3-monthly intervals thereafter. PASI scores prior to treatment with efalizumab were also noted. For patients who experienced rebounds with generalized psoriasis, we noted the time that had elapsed since efalizumab discontinuation and the treatment they were receiving. RESULTS: Even though 92.8% of the patients were considered good responders (>75% reduction in PASI score), 25% of the group (8/32) experienced rebound and 15.7% (5/32) experienced relapse. The percentage of patients in whom rebound was observed on transition therapy was 18% (2/11) for cyclosporin, 50% (1/2) for methotrexate, 50% (1/2) for adalimumab, 50% (1/2) for etanercept, and 27% (3/11) for topical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a very high rate of rebound and generalized inflammation in patients whose disease had previously been well controlled for several years.

Evolución clínica de los pacientes psoriásicos tratados con efalizumab al suspender el fármaco / Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Psoriasis Following Discontinuation of Efalizumab due to Suspension of Marketing Authorization

Introducción: En febrero de 2009 la Agencia Europea de Evaluación de Medicamentos (EMEA) suspendió la comercialización de efalizumab por la notificación de tres casos confirmados de leucoencefalopatía multifocal progresiva (LMP). Nos planteamos realizar un estudio prospectivo de seguimiento de los pacientes tratados en nuestro Servicio con efalizumab en el momento de la suspensión y comparar la evolución con las perspectivas publicadas en la literatura. Pacientes y métodos: Se incluyeron 32 pacientes (28 con psoriasis en placas y 4 con psoriasis palmoplantar) entre febrero y marzo de 2009. Se recogió el Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) previo al comienzo del tratamiento con efalizumab, en el momento de la suspensión, a las 6 semanas y posteriormente cada tres meses. En el caso de los pacientes que presentaron brotes generalizados se recogió el tiempo transcurrido desde la suspensión y el manejo terapéutico que se realizó. Resultados: A pesar de que el 92,8% de los pacientes correspondían a buenos respondedores (mejoría PASI >75), presentaron rebote un 25% de los sujetos (8/32) y recaídas un 15,7% (5/32). Con respecto a la terapia de transición presentaron rebote un 18% de los pacientes (2/11) con ciclosporina, un 50% (1/2) con metotrexato, un 50% (1/2) con adalimumab, un 50% (1/2) con etanercept y un 27% (3/11) de los que recibieron tratamiento tópico. Conclusiones: Hemos encontrado un porcentaje muy alto de rebote y formas generalizadas inflamatorias en pacientes que habían conseguido un buen control de la psoriasis durante varios años (AU)

Introduction: In February 2009, the European Medicines Agency suspended the marketing authorization for efalizumab after 3 confirmed cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy were reported. To assess the consequences of this decision, we performed a prospective follow-up study of patients in our department who were being treated with efalizumab at the time and compared clinical outcomes with data from the literature. Patients and methods: Thirty-two patients (28 with plaque psoriasis and 4 with palmoplantar psoriasis) were enrolled between February and March 2009. We recorded psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) scores at the moment of efalizumab discontinuation, at 6 weeks post-discontinuation, and at 3-monthly intervals thereafter. PASI scores prior to treatment with efalizumab were also noted. For patients who experienced rebounds with generalized psoriasis, we noted the time that had elapsed since efalizumab discontinuation and the treatment they were receiving. Results: Even though 92.8% of the patients were considered good responders (>75% reduction in PASI score), 25% of the group (8/32) experienced rebound and 15.7% (5/32) experienced relapse. The percentage of patients in whom rebound was observed on transition therapy was 18% (2/11) for cyclosporin, 50% (1/2) for methotrexate, 50% (1/2) for adalimumab, 50% (1/2) for etanercept, and 27% (3/11) for topical treatment. Conclusions: We observed a very high rate of rebound and generalized inflammation in patients whose disease had previously been well controlled for several years (AU)