User login
KAUAI, HAWAII – I think we should just do away with PASI 90 [90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score] and look at how well our drugs do against the metric of PASI 100. The whole ball of wax. Let’s just go for complete clearance,” Craig L. Leonardi, MD, declared in a provocative presentation at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Skin Disease Education Foundation/Global Academy for Medical Education.
He advocates using number needed to treat (NNT) as a performance yardstick. He finds it helpful in translating sometimes-arcane clinical trial results into useful information to guide everyday practice. The NNT is the average number of patients who need to be treated with a drug or procedure in order to achieve one additional good outcome, compared with a control intervention or placebo. It’s the inverse of the absolute risk reduction. The lower the NNT, the better an intervention is performing.
He presented a chart that summarized the NNTs to achieve a PASI 100 response for various systemic agents commonly used in treating moderate to severe psoriasis. He obtained the data from Food and Drug Administration–regulated product labeling and phase 3 clinical trials.
Dr. Leonardi drew attention to the worst performers on the list: methotrexate, with an NNT of 25 to achieve a PASI 100 response, and etanercept, with an NNT of 23.3.
“Methotrexate is a drug that the insurance industry says we have to flow through on our way to biologic drugs. But if complete clearance is your goal, this is an exercise in futility. These patients will never, ever get to complete clearance – or it’s at least very unlikely. We shouldn’t be asked to go through methotrexate on our way to anything. We shouldn’t be asked to use methotrexate at all. We should be bypassing it. And some of us are working on this,” he said.
Ustekinumab and adalimumab are the current market leaders in biologic therapy for psoriasis, but they don’t stack up so well when viewed through the filter of PASI 100 response, with NNTs of 9.2 and 5.3, respectively.
“These market leaders may not be the most relevant drugs in the current era,” according to the dermatologist.
In contrast, the high-performance biologics – the interleukin-17 inhibitors secukinumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab and the interleukin-23 antagonist guselkumab – have impressively low NNTs of 2.4-3.6 in order to achieve complete clearance.
“But our IL-17 and IL-23 antagonists are markedly different from all other therapies, with NNTs of 1.3-1.1. With an NNT of 1.1, if you treated 11 patients with ixekizumab, 10 of them would achieve a PASI 75,” he explained.
“This is really quite remarkable,” Dr. Leonardi commented. “Our first drug back in 2002 was alefacept, and that drug was a ‘twenty-one percenter’: 21% of patients achieved a PASI 75. And quite frankly, we thought that was rocking voodoo science back in the day. Well, we’re really out there now. This is utterly amazing data: a PASI 75 of 81.6% for secukinumab, 86% for brodalumab, 90% for ixekizumab, and 91.2% for guselkumab. This is why we’re publishing this stuff in the best medical journals, because these results are absolutely amazing. So many different medical specialties are interested in what we’re doing with these drugs.”
He reported serving as a consultant to AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo, Pfizer, Sandoz, and UCB and receiving research funding from 21 pharmaceutical companies.
The SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
KAUAI, HAWAII – I think we should just do away with PASI 90 [90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score] and look at how well our drugs do against the metric of PASI 100. The whole ball of wax. Let’s just go for complete clearance,” Craig L. Leonardi, MD, declared in a provocative presentation at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Skin Disease Education Foundation/Global Academy for Medical Education.
He advocates using number needed to treat (NNT) as a performance yardstick. He finds it helpful in translating sometimes-arcane clinical trial results into useful information to guide everyday practice. The NNT is the average number of patients who need to be treated with a drug or procedure in order to achieve one additional good outcome, compared with a control intervention or placebo. It’s the inverse of the absolute risk reduction. The lower the NNT, the better an intervention is performing.
He presented a chart that summarized the NNTs to achieve a PASI 100 response for various systemic agents commonly used in treating moderate to severe psoriasis. He obtained the data from Food and Drug Administration–regulated product labeling and phase 3 clinical trials.
Dr. Leonardi drew attention to the worst performers on the list: methotrexate, with an NNT of 25 to achieve a PASI 100 response, and etanercept, with an NNT of 23.3.
“Methotrexate is a drug that the insurance industry says we have to flow through on our way to biologic drugs. But if complete clearance is your goal, this is an exercise in futility. These patients will never, ever get to complete clearance – or it’s at least very unlikely. We shouldn’t be asked to go through methotrexate on our way to anything. We shouldn’t be asked to use methotrexate at all. We should be bypassing it. And some of us are working on this,” he said.
Ustekinumab and adalimumab are the current market leaders in biologic therapy for psoriasis, but they don’t stack up so well when viewed through the filter of PASI 100 response, with NNTs of 9.2 and 5.3, respectively.
“These market leaders may not be the most relevant drugs in the current era,” according to the dermatologist.
In contrast, the high-performance biologics – the interleukin-17 inhibitors secukinumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab and the interleukin-23 antagonist guselkumab – have impressively low NNTs of 2.4-3.6 in order to achieve complete clearance.
“But our IL-17 and IL-23 antagonists are markedly different from all other therapies, with NNTs of 1.3-1.1. With an NNT of 1.1, if you treated 11 patients with ixekizumab, 10 of them would achieve a PASI 75,” he explained.
“This is really quite remarkable,” Dr. Leonardi commented. “Our first drug back in 2002 was alefacept, and that drug was a ‘twenty-one percenter’: 21% of patients achieved a PASI 75. And quite frankly, we thought that was rocking voodoo science back in the day. Well, we’re really out there now. This is utterly amazing data: a PASI 75 of 81.6% for secukinumab, 86% for brodalumab, 90% for ixekizumab, and 91.2% for guselkumab. This is why we’re publishing this stuff in the best medical journals, because these results are absolutely amazing. So many different medical specialties are interested in what we’re doing with these drugs.”
He reported serving as a consultant to AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo, Pfizer, Sandoz, and UCB and receiving research funding from 21 pharmaceutical companies.
The SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
KAUAI, HAWAII – I think we should just do away with PASI 90 [90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score] and look at how well our drugs do against the metric of PASI 100. The whole ball of wax. Let’s just go for complete clearance,” Craig L. Leonardi, MD, declared in a provocative presentation at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Skin Disease Education Foundation/Global Academy for Medical Education.
He advocates using number needed to treat (NNT) as a performance yardstick. He finds it helpful in translating sometimes-arcane clinical trial results into useful information to guide everyday practice. The NNT is the average number of patients who need to be treated with a drug or procedure in order to achieve one additional good outcome, compared with a control intervention or placebo. It’s the inverse of the absolute risk reduction. The lower the NNT, the better an intervention is performing.
He presented a chart that summarized the NNTs to achieve a PASI 100 response for various systemic agents commonly used in treating moderate to severe psoriasis. He obtained the data from Food and Drug Administration–regulated product labeling and phase 3 clinical trials.
Dr. Leonardi drew attention to the worst performers on the list: methotrexate, with an NNT of 25 to achieve a PASI 100 response, and etanercept, with an NNT of 23.3.
“Methotrexate is a drug that the insurance industry says we have to flow through on our way to biologic drugs. But if complete clearance is your goal, this is an exercise in futility. These patients will never, ever get to complete clearance – or it’s at least very unlikely. We shouldn’t be asked to go through methotrexate on our way to anything. We shouldn’t be asked to use methotrexate at all. We should be bypassing it. And some of us are working on this,” he said.
Ustekinumab and adalimumab are the current market leaders in biologic therapy for psoriasis, but they don’t stack up so well when viewed through the filter of PASI 100 response, with NNTs of 9.2 and 5.3, respectively.
“These market leaders may not be the most relevant drugs in the current era,” according to the dermatologist.
In contrast, the high-performance biologics – the interleukin-17 inhibitors secukinumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab and the interleukin-23 antagonist guselkumab – have impressively low NNTs of 2.4-3.6 in order to achieve complete clearance.
“But our IL-17 and IL-23 antagonists are markedly different from all other therapies, with NNTs of 1.3-1.1. With an NNT of 1.1, if you treated 11 patients with ixekizumab, 10 of them would achieve a PASI 75,” he explained.
“This is really quite remarkable,” Dr. Leonardi commented. “Our first drug back in 2002 was alefacept, and that drug was a ‘twenty-one percenter’: 21% of patients achieved a PASI 75. And quite frankly, we thought that was rocking voodoo science back in the day. Well, we’re really out there now. This is utterly amazing data: a PASI 75 of 81.6% for secukinumab, 86% for brodalumab, 90% for ixekizumab, and 91.2% for guselkumab. This is why we’re publishing this stuff in the best medical journals, because these results are absolutely amazing. So many different medical specialties are interested in what we’re doing with these drugs.”
He reported serving as a consultant to AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo, Pfizer, Sandoz, and UCB and receiving research funding from 21 pharmaceutical companies.
The SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM SDEF HAWAII DERMATOLOGY SEMINAR