Spesolimab, an anti-interleukin-36 receptor antibody, in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: Results from a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIa study.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic relapsing inflammatory skin disease, and there is increasing evidence that the interleukin (IL)-36 pathway may play a role in the pathogenesis of AD. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of spesolimab, a novel anti-IL-36 receptor antibody, in adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD. METHODS: In this phase IIa study, 51 eligible patients were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous doses of spesolimab 600 mg or placebo every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the percentage change from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score at Week 16. RESULTS: The decrease in EASI score from baseline to Week 16 was -37.9% for spesolimab versus -12.3% for placebo (adjusted mean difference -25.6%, p = 0.149). A predefined sensitivity analysis, excluding data from patients who used restricted corticosteroids, resulted in an adjusted mean difference of -48.3% (nominal p = 0.024). Spesolimab was well tolerated, with no clinically relevant safety signals. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to evaluate the IL-36 pathway inhibition in AD. Although not statistically significant, numerical improvements were observed in the primary endpoint of change from baseline in the EASI score. Spesolimab had an acceptable safety profile, with no unexcepted safety concerns.

Current challenges in bioequivalence, quality, and novel assessment technologies for topical products.

This paper summarises the proceedings of a recent workshop which brought together pharmaceutical scientists and dermatologists from academia, industry and regulatory agencies to discuss current regulatory issues and industry practices for establishing therapeutic bioequivalence (BE) of dermatologic topical products. The methods currently available for assessment of BE were reviewed as well as alternatives and the advantages and disadvantages of each method were considered. Guidance on quality and performance of topical products was reviewed and a framework to categorise existing and alternative methods for evaluation of BE was discussed. The outcome of the workshop emphasized both a need for greater attention to quality, possibly, via a Quality-By-Design (QBD) approach and a need to develop a "whole toolkit" approach towards the problem of determination of rate and extent in the assessment of topical bioavailability. The discussion on the BE and clinical equivalence of topical products revealed considerable concerns about the variability present in the current methodologies utilized by the industry and regulatory agencies. It was proposed that academicians, researchers, the pharmaceutical industry and regulators work together to evaluate and validate alternative methods that are based on both the underlying science and are adapted to the drug product itself instead of single "universal" method.