Psoriatic Arthritis

ATLANTA – Guselkumab improved outcomes in psoriatic arthritis patients regardless of past treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in the phase 3 DISCOVER-1 trial.

The anti-interleukin-23p19 monoclonal antibody is approved in the United States for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (PsO).

The response rates with guselkumab versus placebo were seen regardless of prior TNFi use, he said.

The study included 381 patients with active PsA, defined as three or more swollen joints, three or more tender joints, and C-reactive protein of 0.3 mg/dL or greater despite standard therapies. About 30% were exposed to up to two TNFi therapies and 10% were nonresponders or inadequate responders to those therapies.

Concomitant use of select nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, oral corticosteroids, and NSAIDs was allowed, and patients with less than 5% improvement in tender plus swollen joints at week 16 could initiate or increase the dose of the permitted medications while continuing study treatment, Dr. Deodhar said.

The mean body surface area with PsO involvement was 13.4%; 42.5% of patients had an IGA of 3-4 for skin involvement. Mean swollen and tender joint counts were 9.8 and 19.3, respectively, indicating a population with moderate to severe disease, he added.

Serious adverse events, serious infections, and death occurred in 2.4%, 0.5%, and 0.3% of patients, respectively.

“Both guselkumab regimens were safe and well tolerated through week 24,” Dr. Deodhar said, noting that the safety profile was consistent with that established in the treatment of PsO and described in the label.

DISCOVER-1 was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Deodhar reported relationships (advisory board activity, consulting, and/or research grant funding) with several pharmaceutical companies including Janssen. Several coauthors are employees of Janssen.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Deodhar A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 807.

ATLANTA – Guselkumab improved outcomes in psoriatic arthritis patients regardless of past treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in the phase 3 DISCOVER-1 trial.

The anti-interleukin-23p19 monoclonal antibody is approved in the United States for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (PsO).

The response rates with guselkumab versus placebo were seen regardless of prior TNFi use, he said.

The study included 381 patients with active PsA, defined as three or more swollen joints, three or more tender joints, and C-reactive protein of 0.3 mg/dL or greater despite standard therapies. About 30% were exposed to up to two TNFi therapies and 10% were nonresponders or inadequate responders to those therapies.

Concomitant use of select nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, oral corticosteroids, and NSAIDs was allowed, and patients with less than 5% improvement in tender plus swollen joints at week 16 could initiate or increase the dose of the permitted medications while continuing study treatment, Dr. Deodhar said.

The mean body surface area with PsO involvement was 13.4%; 42.5% of patients had an IGA of 3-4 for skin involvement. Mean swollen and tender joint counts were 9.8 and 19.3, respectively, indicating a population with moderate to severe disease, he added.

Serious adverse events, serious infections, and death occurred in 2.4%, 0.5%, and 0.3% of patients, respectively.

“Both guselkumab regimens were safe and well tolerated through week 24,” Dr. Deodhar said, noting that the safety profile was consistent with that established in the treatment of PsO and described in the label.

DISCOVER-1 was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Deodhar reported relationships (advisory board activity, consulting, and/or research grant funding) with several pharmaceutical companies including Janssen. Several coauthors are employees of Janssen.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Deodhar A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 807.

ATLANTA – Guselkumab improved outcomes in psoriatic arthritis patients regardless of past treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in the phase 3 DISCOVER-1 trial.

The anti-interleukin-23p19 monoclonal antibody is approved in the United States for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (PsO).

The response rates with guselkumab versus placebo were seen regardless of prior TNFi use, he said.

The study included 381 patients with active PsA, defined as three or more swollen joints, three or more tender joints, and C-reactive protein of 0.3 mg/dL or greater despite standard therapies. About 30% were exposed to up to two TNFi therapies and 10% were nonresponders or inadequate responders to those therapies.

Concomitant use of select nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, oral corticosteroids, and NSAIDs was allowed, and patients with less than 5% improvement in tender plus swollen joints at week 16 could initiate or increase the dose of the permitted medications while continuing study treatment, Dr. Deodhar said.

The mean body surface area with PsO involvement was 13.4%; 42.5% of patients had an IGA of 3-4 for skin involvement. Mean swollen and tender joint counts were 9.8 and 19.3, respectively, indicating a population with moderate to severe disease, he added.

Serious adverse events, serious infections, and death occurred in 2.4%, 0.5%, and 0.3% of patients, respectively.

“Both guselkumab regimens were safe and well tolerated through week 24,” Dr. Deodhar said, noting that the safety profile was consistent with that established in the treatment of PsO and described in the label.

DISCOVER-1 was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Deodhar reported relationships (advisory board activity, consulting, and/or research grant funding) with several pharmaceutical companies including Janssen. Several coauthors are employees of Janssen.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Deodhar A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 807.

ATLANTA – A group of patients using a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor safely received the live-attenuated varicella vaccine Zostavax without any cases of herpes zoster in the first 6 weeks after vaccination in the blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled Varicella Zoster Vaccine (VERVE) trial .

According to guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, there is a theoretical concern that patients using a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and other biologic therapies who receive a live-attenuated version of the varicella vaccine (Zostavax) could become infected with varicella from the vaccine. Patients with RA and psoriatic arthritis as well as other autoimmune and inflammatory conditions who are likely to receive TNFi therapy are also at risk for herpes zoster reactivation, Jeffrey Curtis, MD, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. There also exists a risk for patients receiving low-dose glucocorticoids.

“The challenge, of course, is there’s not a great definition and there certainly is not a well-standardized assay for how immunocompromised someone is, and so that led to the uncertainty in this patient population for this and other live-virus vaccines,” Dr. Curtis said.

Dr. Curtis and colleagues enrolled 627 participants from 33 centers into the VERVE trial. Participants were aged at least 50 years, were taking a TNFi, and had not previously received Zostavax.

Patients in both groups had a mean age of about 63 years and about two-thirds were women. The most common indications for TNFi use in the Zostavax group and the placebo group were RA (59.2% vs. 56.0%, respectively), psoriatic arthritis (24.3% vs. 23.9%), and ankylosing spondylitis (7.2% vs. 8.5%), while the anti-TNF agents used were adalimumab (38.1% vs. 27.4%), infliximab (28.4% vs. 34.2%), etanercept (19.0% vs. 23.5%), golimumab (10.0% vs. 8.1%), and certolizumab pegol (4.5% vs. 6.8%). In addition, some patients in the Zostavax and placebo groups were also taking concomitant therapies with TNFi, such as oral glucocorticoids (9.7% vs. 11.4%).

The researchers randomized participants to receive Zostavax or placebo (saline) and then followed them for 6 weeks, and looked for signs of wild-type or vaccine-strain varicella infection. If participants were suspected to have varicella, they were assessed clinically, underwent polymerase chain reaction testing, and rashes were photographed. At baseline and at 6 weeks, the researchers collected serum and peripheral blood mononuclear cells to determine patient immunity to varicella. After 6 months, participants were unmasked to the treatment arm of the study.

Dr. Curtis and colleagues found no confirmed varicella infection cases at 6 weeks. “To the extent that 0 cases out of 317 vaccinated people is reassuring, there were no cases, so that was exceedingly heartening as a result,” he said.

Out of 20 serious adverse events total in the groups, 15 events occurred before 6 months, including 8 suspected varicella cases in the Zostavax group and 7 in the placebo group. However, there were no positive cases of varicella – either wild type or vaccine type – after polymerase chain reaction tests. Overall, there were 268 adverse events in 195 participants, with 73 events (27.2%) consisting of injection-site reactions. The researchers also found no difference in the rate of disease flares, and found no differences in adverse reactions between groups, apart from a higher rate of injection-site reactions in the varicella group (19.4% vs. 4.2%).

With regard to immunogenicity, the humoral immune response was measured through IgG, which showed an immune response in the varicella group at 6 weeks (geometric mean fold ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.51), compared with the placebo group (GMFR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.14); cell-mediated immune response was measured by interferon-gamma, which also showed an immune response in the live-vaccine group (GMFR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.14-1.94), compared with participants who received placebo (GMFR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.87-1.48). In preliminary 1-year data, IgG immune response was elevated in the varicella group (GMFR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.08-1.99), but there was no elevated immune response for interferon-gamma (GMFR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.49-1.25).

“I think the trial is encouraging not only for its result with the live zoster vaccine and TNF-treated patients, but also challenge the notion that, if you need to, a live-virus vaccine may in fact be able to be safely given to people with autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, even those treated with biologics like tumor necrosis factor inhibitors,” Dr. Curtis said.

As patients in VERVE consented to long-term follow-up in health plan claims and EHR data, it will be possible to follow these patients in the future to assess herpes zoster reactivation. Dr. Curtis also noted that a new trial involving the recombinant, adjuvanted zoster vaccine (Shingrix) is currently in development and should begin next year.

The VERVE trial was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Curtis reported serving as a current member of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Herpes Zoster Work Group. He and some of the other authors reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Curtis J et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 824.

ATLANTA – A group of patients using a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor safely received the live-attenuated varicella vaccine Zostavax without any cases of herpes zoster in the first 6 weeks after vaccination in the blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled Varicella Zoster Vaccine (VERVE) trial .

According to guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, there is a theoretical concern that patients using a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and other biologic therapies who receive a live-attenuated version of the varicella vaccine (Zostavax) could become infected with varicella from the vaccine. Patients with RA and psoriatic arthritis as well as other autoimmune and inflammatory conditions who are likely to receive TNFi therapy are also at risk for herpes zoster reactivation, Jeffrey Curtis, MD, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. There also exists a risk for patients receiving low-dose glucocorticoids.

“The challenge, of course, is there’s not a great definition and there certainly is not a well-standardized assay for how immunocompromised someone is, and so that led to the uncertainty in this patient population for this and other live-virus vaccines,” Dr. Curtis said.

Dr. Curtis and colleagues enrolled 627 participants from 33 centers into the VERVE trial. Participants were aged at least 50 years, were taking a TNFi, and had not previously received Zostavax.

Patients in both groups had a mean age of about 63 years and about two-thirds were women. The most common indications for TNFi use in the Zostavax group and the placebo group were RA (59.2% vs. 56.0%, respectively), psoriatic arthritis (24.3% vs. 23.9%), and ankylosing spondylitis (7.2% vs. 8.5%), while the anti-TNF agents used were adalimumab (38.1% vs. 27.4%), infliximab (28.4% vs. 34.2%), etanercept (19.0% vs. 23.5%), golimumab (10.0% vs. 8.1%), and certolizumab pegol (4.5% vs. 6.8%). In addition, some patients in the Zostavax and placebo groups were also taking concomitant therapies with TNFi, such as oral glucocorticoids (9.7% vs. 11.4%).

The researchers randomized participants to receive Zostavax or placebo (saline) and then followed them for 6 weeks, and looked for signs of wild-type or vaccine-strain varicella infection. If participants were suspected to have varicella, they were assessed clinically, underwent polymerase chain reaction testing, and rashes were photographed. At baseline and at 6 weeks, the researchers collected serum and peripheral blood mononuclear cells to determine patient immunity to varicella. After 6 months, participants were unmasked to the treatment arm of the study.

Dr. Curtis and colleagues found no confirmed varicella infection cases at 6 weeks. “To the extent that 0 cases out of 317 vaccinated people is reassuring, there were no cases, so that was exceedingly heartening as a result,” he said.

Out of 20 serious adverse events total in the groups, 15 events occurred before 6 months, including 8 suspected varicella cases in the Zostavax group and 7 in the placebo group. However, there were no positive cases of varicella – either wild type or vaccine type – after polymerase chain reaction tests. Overall, there were 268 adverse events in 195 participants, with 73 events (27.2%) consisting of injection-site reactions. The researchers also found no difference in the rate of disease flares, and found no differences in adverse reactions between groups, apart from a higher rate of injection-site reactions in the varicella group (19.4% vs. 4.2%).

With regard to immunogenicity, the humoral immune response was measured through IgG, which showed an immune response in the varicella group at 6 weeks (geometric mean fold ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.51), compared with the placebo group (GMFR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.14); cell-mediated immune response was measured by interferon-gamma, which also showed an immune response in the live-vaccine group (GMFR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.14-1.94), compared with participants who received placebo (GMFR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.87-1.48). In preliminary 1-year data, IgG immune response was elevated in the varicella group (GMFR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.08-1.99), but there was no elevated immune response for interferon-gamma (GMFR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.49-1.25).

“I think the trial is encouraging not only for its result with the live zoster vaccine and TNF-treated patients, but also challenge the notion that, if you need to, a live-virus vaccine may in fact be able to be safely given to people with autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, even those treated with biologics like tumor necrosis factor inhibitors,” Dr. Curtis said.

As patients in VERVE consented to long-term follow-up in health plan claims and EHR data, it will be possible to follow these patients in the future to assess herpes zoster reactivation. Dr. Curtis also noted that a new trial involving the recombinant, adjuvanted zoster vaccine (Shingrix) is currently in development and should begin next year.

The VERVE trial was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Curtis reported serving as a current member of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Herpes Zoster Work Group. He and some of the other authors reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Curtis J et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 824.

ATLANTA – A group of patients using a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor safely received the live-attenuated varicella vaccine Zostavax without any cases of herpes zoster in the first 6 weeks after vaccination in the blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled Varicella Zoster Vaccine (VERVE) trial .

According to guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, there is a theoretical concern that patients using a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and other biologic therapies who receive a live-attenuated version of the varicella vaccine (Zostavax) could become infected with varicella from the vaccine. Patients with RA and psoriatic arthritis as well as other autoimmune and inflammatory conditions who are likely to receive TNFi therapy are also at risk for herpes zoster reactivation, Jeffrey Curtis, MD, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. There also exists a risk for patients receiving low-dose glucocorticoids.

“The challenge, of course, is there’s not a great definition and there certainly is not a well-standardized assay for how immunocompromised someone is, and so that led to the uncertainty in this patient population for this and other live-virus vaccines,” Dr. Curtis said.

Dr. Curtis and colleagues enrolled 627 participants from 33 centers into the VERVE trial. Participants were aged at least 50 years, were taking a TNFi, and had not previously received Zostavax.

Patients in both groups had a mean age of about 63 years and about two-thirds were women. The most common indications for TNFi use in the Zostavax group and the placebo group were RA (59.2% vs. 56.0%, respectively), psoriatic arthritis (24.3% vs. 23.9%), and ankylosing spondylitis (7.2% vs. 8.5%), while the anti-TNF agents used were adalimumab (38.1% vs. 27.4%), infliximab (28.4% vs. 34.2%), etanercept (19.0% vs. 23.5%), golimumab (10.0% vs. 8.1%), and certolizumab pegol (4.5% vs. 6.8%). In addition, some patients in the Zostavax and placebo groups were also taking concomitant therapies with TNFi, such as oral glucocorticoids (9.7% vs. 11.4%).

The researchers randomized participants to receive Zostavax or placebo (saline) and then followed them for 6 weeks, and looked for signs of wild-type or vaccine-strain varicella infection. If participants were suspected to have varicella, they were assessed clinically, underwent polymerase chain reaction testing, and rashes were photographed. At baseline and at 6 weeks, the researchers collected serum and peripheral blood mononuclear cells to determine patient immunity to varicella. After 6 months, participants were unmasked to the treatment arm of the study.

Dr. Curtis and colleagues found no confirmed varicella infection cases at 6 weeks. “To the extent that 0 cases out of 317 vaccinated people is reassuring, there were no cases, so that was exceedingly heartening as a result,” he said.

Out of 20 serious adverse events total in the groups, 15 events occurred before 6 months, including 8 suspected varicella cases in the Zostavax group and 7 in the placebo group. However, there were no positive cases of varicella – either wild type or vaccine type – after polymerase chain reaction tests. Overall, there were 268 adverse events in 195 participants, with 73 events (27.2%) consisting of injection-site reactions. The researchers also found no difference in the rate of disease flares, and found no differences in adverse reactions between groups, apart from a higher rate of injection-site reactions in the varicella group (19.4% vs. 4.2%).

With regard to immunogenicity, the humoral immune response was measured through IgG, which showed an immune response in the varicella group at 6 weeks (geometric mean fold ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.51), compared with the placebo group (GMFR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.14); cell-mediated immune response was measured by interferon-gamma, which also showed an immune response in the live-vaccine group (GMFR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.14-1.94), compared with participants who received placebo (GMFR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.87-1.48). In preliminary 1-year data, IgG immune response was elevated in the varicella group (GMFR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.08-1.99), but there was no elevated immune response for interferon-gamma (GMFR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.49-1.25).

“I think the trial is encouraging not only for its result with the live zoster vaccine and TNF-treated patients, but also challenge the notion that, if you need to, a live-virus vaccine may in fact be able to be safely given to people with autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, even those treated with biologics like tumor necrosis factor inhibitors,” Dr. Curtis said.

As patients in VERVE consented to long-term follow-up in health plan claims and EHR data, it will be possible to follow these patients in the future to assess herpes zoster reactivation. Dr. Curtis also noted that a new trial involving the recombinant, adjuvanted zoster vaccine (Shingrix) is currently in development and should begin next year.

The VERVE trial was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Curtis reported serving as a current member of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Herpes Zoster Work Group. He and some of the other authors reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Curtis J et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 824.

Psoriasis management in children involves attention not only to treatment of the physical condition but also psychosocial wellness and quality of life, according to a new clinical guideline on the management of pediatric psoriasis from the American Academy of Dermatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation.

Psoriasis affects approximately 1% of children, either alone or associated with comorbid conditions such as psoriatic arthritis (PsA), wrote Alan Menter, MD, of Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, and coauthors of the guideline.

In the guideline, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, the multidisciplinary work group identified screening tools to measure disease severity, strategies for management of comorbidities, and the safety and effectiveness of topical, systemic, and phototherapy treatments.

To assess disease severity, the work group recommended not only the use of body surface area (BSA), similar to measurement of severity in adults, but also the use of the Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index, a 10-question quality of life survey, as BSA alone does not account for the potential negative impact of the disease on quality of life in terms of physical, emotional, social, and psychological function.

“For example, a child with psoriasis limited to the face or the entire scalp does not have severe disease based on BSA definitions, but if this involvement causes shame, social withdrawal, or bullying, it satisfies criteria for severe disease based on impact beyond the skin,” they said.

The work group stated that a variety of conditions may trigger or exacerbate psoriasis in children, including infections, cutaneous trauma, or physiological, emotional, and environmental stressors.

The majority of children with PsA develop joint inflammation before skin disease, the work group wrote. In addition, children with psoriasis are at increased risk for rheumatoid arthritis, so clinicians may need to distinguish between a combination of psoriasis and musculoskeletal issues and cases of either psoriatic or rheumatoid arthritis in young patients.

The cardiovascular risk factors associated with metabolic syndrome are greater in children with psoriasis, compared with children without psoriasis, the work group noted. In addition, pediatric psoriasis patients have a higher prevalence of obesity than children without psoriasis, and they recommended that children with psoriasis be monitored for the development of obesity, and that obese children with psoriasis should be referred for weight management.

The work group noted that data are insufficient in children to support the link between psoriasis and cardiovascular disease that has been documented in adults with psoriasis. However, “patients with pediatric psoriasis should have American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)–recommended age-related cardiovascular screening regardless of the presence of signs or symptoms,” they said.

The guideline also recommends screening for dyslipidemia and hypertension according to AAP guidelines and educating pediatric psoriasis patients about the risk of diabetes and regularly screening for diabetes and insulin resistance in those who are obese. Overweight children with psoriasis may be screened at the provider’s discretion, they wrote. Patients with signs of inflammatory bowel disease, which also is associated with psoriasis in adults, should be considered for referral to a gastroenterologist, they noted.

Children with psoriasis should be screened regularly for mental health conditions regardless of age, and they should be asked about substance abuse, according to the guideline, and those with concerns should be referred for additional assessment and management.

The guideline divides treatment of psoriasis in children into three categories: topical, phototherapy and photochemotherapy, and systemic treatments (nonbiologic or biologic).

For topicals, the guideline recommendations include corticosteroids as an off-label therapy, as well as ultra-high-potency topical corticosteroids as monotherapy. Overall, “selection of a therapeutic routine (potency, delivery vehicle, frequency of application) should take into account sites of involvement, type and thickness of psoriasis, age of the patient, total BSA of application, anticipated occlusion, and disease acuity, among other patient-, disease-, and drug-related factors,” the authors wrote. Other topical options included in the recommendations: calcineurin inhibitors, topical vitamin D analogues, tazarotene (off label), anthralin, and coal tar.

Phototherapy has a history of use in psoriasis treatment and remains part of the current recommendations, although data in children are limited, and data on the use of phototherapy for pustular psoriasis in children are insufficient to make specific treatment and dosing recommendations, the work group noted. The researchers also noted that in-office phototherapy may not be feasible for many patients, but that in-home ultraviolet light equipment or natural sunlight in moderation could be recommended as an alternative.

The use of systemic, nonbiologic treatments for pediatric psoriasis should be “based on baseline severity of disease, subtype of psoriasis, speed of disease progression, lack of response to more conservative therapies such as topical agents and phototherapy (when appropriate), impaired physical or psychological functioning or [quality of life] due to disease extent, and the presence of comorbidities such as PsA,” the workgroup said.

Options for systemic treatment include methotrexate, cyclosporine (notably for pustular as well as plaque and erythrodermic psoriasis), and systemic retinoids. In addition, fumaric acid esters may be an option for children with moderate to severe psoriasis, with recommended clinical and laboratory monitoring.

The increasing safety and efficacy data on biologics in pediatric psoriasis patients support their consideration among first-line systemic treatments, the work group suggested. “Etanercept and ustekinumab are now [Food and Drug Administration] approved for patients with psoriasis 4 years and older and 12 years and older, respectively,” they said, and infliximab and adalimumab have been used off label in children.

The work group concluded that research and knowledge gaps about pediatric psoriasis persist and include mechanism of disease onset, development of comorbidities, and identification of ideal dosing for various treatments.

Finally, the work group emphasized the importance of collaboration between dermatologists and primary care providers for managing psoriasis in children, as well as the importance of patient education.

“Dermatologists should be mindful of the unique aspects of the emotional development of children and the social dynamics of having a visible difference,” they wrote. “Shared decision making with the patient (if age appropriate) and the caregivers is a useful approach, particularly as related to the use of off-label medications to treat severe disease,” they said.

“This is the first time that pediatric psoriasis has been discussed as an independent topic within the guideline,” said one of the guideline authors, Dawn M.R. Davis, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., in an interview. “Children have unique physiology and psychosocial aspects to their care relative to adults. In addition, psoriasis has some clinical manifestations that are oftentimes distinctly seen in children,” she commented. “Creation of a guideline specific to children allows us to summarize the similarities and differences of disease presentation and management. It also allows an opportunity to clarify what research data (especially therapeutics) have been studied in children and their uses, safety profiles, and dosing,” she noted.

Psoriasis can be a psychosocially debilitating disease, she emphasized. “In children, for example, isolated or prominent facial involvement is common, which can be embarrassing and impact relationships.”

The take-home message for clinicians, Dr. Davis said, is to keep in mind the multisystemic nature of psoriasis. “It is not limited to the skin,” she said. “Treating a patient with psoriasis necessitates practicing whole-person care” and considering the multiple comorbidities that impact quality of life and overall health in children, as well as adults with psoriasis, she commented. “Dermatologists can empower patients and their caregivers by educating them on the multifocal, complex nature of the disease.” She added, “We have much to learn regarding psoriasis in the pediatric population. More research into therapeutics, topical and systemic, is necessary to optimize patient care.”

The guideline was based on studies published in the PubMed and MEDLINE databases from January 2011 through December 31, 2017.

Dr. Menter and Craig A. Elmets, MD, professor of dermatology, at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, were cochairs of the work group. The pediatric guideline is the latest in a multipart series of AAD-NPF guidelines on psoriasis being published this year in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Many of the guideline authors, including lead author Dr. Menter, disclosed relationships with multiple companies; however, a minimum 51% of workgroup members had no relevant conflicts of interest in accordance with AAD policy. There was no funding source. Dr. Davis disclosed serving as an investigator for Regeneron, with no compensation.

SOURCE: Menter et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.08.049.

Psoriasis management in children involves attention not only to treatment of the physical condition but also psychosocial wellness and quality of life, according to a new clinical guideline on the management of pediatric psoriasis from the American Academy of Dermatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation.

Psoriasis affects approximately 1% of children, either alone or associated with comorbid conditions such as psoriatic arthritis (PsA), wrote Alan Menter, MD, of Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, and coauthors of the guideline.

In the guideline, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, the multidisciplinary work group identified screening tools to measure disease severity, strategies for management of comorbidities, and the safety and effectiveness of topical, systemic, and phototherapy treatments.

To assess disease severity, the work group recommended not only the use of body surface area (BSA), similar to measurement of severity in adults, but also the use of the Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index, a 10-question quality of life survey, as BSA alone does not account for the potential negative impact of the disease on quality of life in terms of physical, emotional, social, and psychological function.

“For example, a child with psoriasis limited to the face or the entire scalp does not have severe disease based on BSA definitions, but if this involvement causes shame, social withdrawal, or bullying, it satisfies criteria for severe disease based on impact beyond the skin,” they said.

The work group stated that a variety of conditions may trigger or exacerbate psoriasis in children, including infections, cutaneous trauma, or physiological, emotional, and environmental stressors.

The majority of children with PsA develop joint inflammation before skin disease, the work group wrote. In addition, children with psoriasis are at increased risk for rheumatoid arthritis, so clinicians may need to distinguish between a combination of psoriasis and musculoskeletal issues and cases of either psoriatic or rheumatoid arthritis in young patients.

The cardiovascular risk factors associated with metabolic syndrome are greater in children with psoriasis, compared with children without psoriasis, the work group noted. In addition, pediatric psoriasis patients have a higher prevalence of obesity than children without psoriasis, and they recommended that children with psoriasis be monitored for the development of obesity, and that obese children with psoriasis should be referred for weight management.

The work group noted that data are insufficient in children to support the link between psoriasis and cardiovascular disease that has been documented in adults with psoriasis. However, “patients with pediatric psoriasis should have American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)–recommended age-related cardiovascular screening regardless of the presence of signs or symptoms,” they said.

The guideline also recommends screening for dyslipidemia and hypertension according to AAP guidelines and educating pediatric psoriasis patients about the risk of diabetes and regularly screening for diabetes and insulin resistance in those who are obese. Overweight children with psoriasis may be screened at the provider’s discretion, they wrote. Patients with signs of inflammatory bowel disease, which also is associated with psoriasis in adults, should be considered for referral to a gastroenterologist, they noted.

Children with psoriasis should be screened regularly for mental health conditions regardless of age, and they should be asked about substance abuse, according to the guideline, and those with concerns should be referred for additional assessment and management.

The guideline divides treatment of psoriasis in children into three categories: topical, phototherapy and photochemotherapy, and systemic treatments (nonbiologic or biologic).

For topicals, the guideline recommendations include corticosteroids as an off-label therapy, as well as ultra-high-potency topical corticosteroids as monotherapy. Overall, “selection of a therapeutic routine (potency, delivery vehicle, frequency of application) should take into account sites of involvement, type and thickness of psoriasis, age of the patient, total BSA of application, anticipated occlusion, and disease acuity, among other patient-, disease-, and drug-related factors,” the authors wrote. Other topical options included in the recommendations: calcineurin inhibitors, topical vitamin D analogues, tazarotene (off label), anthralin, and coal tar.

Phototherapy has a history of use in psoriasis treatment and remains part of the current recommendations, although data in children are limited, and data on the use of phototherapy for pustular psoriasis in children are insufficient to make specific treatment and dosing recommendations, the work group noted. The researchers also noted that in-office phototherapy may not be feasible for many patients, but that in-home ultraviolet light equipment or natural sunlight in moderation could be recommended as an alternative.

The use of systemic, nonbiologic treatments for pediatric psoriasis should be “based on baseline severity of disease, subtype of psoriasis, speed of disease progression, lack of response to more conservative therapies such as topical agents and phototherapy (when appropriate), impaired physical or psychological functioning or [quality of life] due to disease extent, and the presence of comorbidities such as PsA,” the workgroup said.

Options for systemic treatment include methotrexate, cyclosporine (notably for pustular as well as plaque and erythrodermic psoriasis), and systemic retinoids. In addition, fumaric acid esters may be an option for children with moderate to severe psoriasis, with recommended clinical and laboratory monitoring.

The increasing safety and efficacy data on biologics in pediatric psoriasis patients support their consideration among first-line systemic treatments, the work group suggested. “Etanercept and ustekinumab are now [Food and Drug Administration] approved for patients with psoriasis 4 years and older and 12 years and older, respectively,” they said, and infliximab and adalimumab have been used off label in children.

The work group concluded that research and knowledge gaps about pediatric psoriasis persist and include mechanism of disease onset, development of comorbidities, and identification of ideal dosing for various treatments.

Finally, the work group emphasized the importance of collaboration between dermatologists and primary care providers for managing psoriasis in children, as well as the importance of patient education.

“Dermatologists should be mindful of the unique aspects of the emotional development of children and the social dynamics of having a visible difference,” they wrote. “Shared decision making with the patient (if age appropriate) and the caregivers is a useful approach, particularly as related to the use of off-label medications to treat severe disease,” they said.

“This is the first time that pediatric psoriasis has been discussed as an independent topic within the guideline,” said one of the guideline authors, Dawn M.R. Davis, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., in an interview. “Children have unique physiology and psychosocial aspects to their care relative to adults. In addition, psoriasis has some clinical manifestations that are oftentimes distinctly seen in children,” she commented. “Creation of a guideline specific to children allows us to summarize the similarities and differences of disease presentation and management. It also allows an opportunity to clarify what research data (especially therapeutics) have been studied in children and their uses, safety profiles, and dosing,” she noted.

Psoriasis can be a psychosocially debilitating disease, she emphasized. “In children, for example, isolated or prominent facial involvement is common, which can be embarrassing and impact relationships.”

The take-home message for clinicians, Dr. Davis said, is to keep in mind the multisystemic nature of psoriasis. “It is not limited to the skin,” she said. “Treating a patient with psoriasis necessitates practicing whole-person care” and considering the multiple comorbidities that impact quality of life and overall health in children, as well as adults with psoriasis, she commented. “Dermatologists can empower patients and their caregivers by educating them on the multifocal, complex nature of the disease.” She added, “We have much to learn regarding psoriasis in the pediatric population. More research into therapeutics, topical and systemic, is necessary to optimize patient care.”

The guideline was based on studies published in the PubMed and MEDLINE databases from January 2011 through December 31, 2017.

Dr. Menter and Craig A. Elmets, MD, professor of dermatology, at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, were cochairs of the work group. The pediatric guideline is the latest in a multipart series of AAD-NPF guidelines on psoriasis being published this year in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Many of the guideline authors, including lead author Dr. Menter, disclosed relationships with multiple companies; however, a minimum 51% of workgroup members had no relevant conflicts of interest in accordance with AAD policy. There was no funding source. Dr. Davis disclosed serving as an investigator for Regeneron, with no compensation.

SOURCE: Menter et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.08.049.

Psoriasis management in children involves attention not only to treatment of the physical condition but also psychosocial wellness and quality of life, according to a new clinical guideline on the management of pediatric psoriasis from the American Academy of Dermatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation.

Psoriasis affects approximately 1% of children, either alone or associated with comorbid conditions such as psoriatic arthritis (PsA), wrote Alan Menter, MD, of Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, and coauthors of the guideline.

In the guideline, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, the multidisciplinary work group identified screening tools to measure disease severity, strategies for management of comorbidities, and the safety and effectiveness of topical, systemic, and phototherapy treatments.

To assess disease severity, the work group recommended not only the use of body surface area (BSA), similar to measurement of severity in adults, but also the use of the Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index, a 10-question quality of life survey, as BSA alone does not account for the potential negative impact of the disease on quality of life in terms of physical, emotional, social, and psychological function.

“For example, a child with psoriasis limited to the face or the entire scalp does not have severe disease based on BSA definitions, but if this involvement causes shame, social withdrawal, or bullying, it satisfies criteria for severe disease based on impact beyond the skin,” they said.

The work group stated that a variety of conditions may trigger or exacerbate psoriasis in children, including infections, cutaneous trauma, or physiological, emotional, and environmental stressors.

The majority of children with PsA develop joint inflammation before skin disease, the work group wrote. In addition, children with psoriasis are at increased risk for rheumatoid arthritis, so clinicians may need to distinguish between a combination of psoriasis and musculoskeletal issues and cases of either psoriatic or rheumatoid arthritis in young patients.

The cardiovascular risk factors associated with metabolic syndrome are greater in children with psoriasis, compared with children without psoriasis, the work group noted. In addition, pediatric psoriasis patients have a higher prevalence of obesity than children without psoriasis, and they recommended that children with psoriasis be monitored for the development of obesity, and that obese children with psoriasis should be referred for weight management.

The work group noted that data are insufficient in children to support the link between psoriasis and cardiovascular disease that has been documented in adults with psoriasis. However, “patients with pediatric psoriasis should have American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)–recommended age-related cardiovascular screening regardless of the presence of signs or symptoms,” they said.

The guideline also recommends screening for dyslipidemia and hypertension according to AAP guidelines and educating pediatric psoriasis patients about the risk of diabetes and regularly screening for diabetes and insulin resistance in those who are obese. Overweight children with psoriasis may be screened at the provider’s discretion, they wrote. Patients with signs of inflammatory bowel disease, which also is associated with psoriasis in adults, should be considered for referral to a gastroenterologist, they noted.

Children with psoriasis should be screened regularly for mental health conditions regardless of age, and they should be asked about substance abuse, according to the guideline, and those with concerns should be referred for additional assessment and management.

The guideline divides treatment of psoriasis in children into three categories: topical, phototherapy and photochemotherapy, and systemic treatments (nonbiologic or biologic).

For topicals, the guideline recommendations include corticosteroids as an off-label therapy, as well as ultra-high-potency topical corticosteroids as monotherapy. Overall, “selection of a therapeutic routine (potency, delivery vehicle, frequency of application) should take into account sites of involvement, type and thickness of psoriasis, age of the patient, total BSA of application, anticipated occlusion, and disease acuity, among other patient-, disease-, and drug-related factors,” the authors wrote. Other topical options included in the recommendations: calcineurin inhibitors, topical vitamin D analogues, tazarotene (off label), anthralin, and coal tar.

Phototherapy has a history of use in psoriasis treatment and remains part of the current recommendations, although data in children are limited, and data on the use of phototherapy for pustular psoriasis in children are insufficient to make specific treatment and dosing recommendations, the work group noted. The researchers also noted that in-office phototherapy may not be feasible for many patients, but that in-home ultraviolet light equipment or natural sunlight in moderation could be recommended as an alternative.

The use of systemic, nonbiologic treatments for pediatric psoriasis should be “based on baseline severity of disease, subtype of psoriasis, speed of disease progression, lack of response to more conservative therapies such as topical agents and phototherapy (when appropriate), impaired physical or psychological functioning or [quality of life] due to disease extent, and the presence of comorbidities such as PsA,” the workgroup said.

Options for systemic treatment include methotrexate, cyclosporine (notably for pustular as well as plaque and erythrodermic psoriasis), and systemic retinoids. In addition, fumaric acid esters may be an option for children with moderate to severe psoriasis, with recommended clinical and laboratory monitoring.

The increasing safety and efficacy data on biologics in pediatric psoriasis patients support their consideration among first-line systemic treatments, the work group suggested. “Etanercept and ustekinumab are now [Food and Drug Administration] approved for patients with psoriasis 4 years and older and 12 years and older, respectively,” they said, and infliximab and adalimumab have been used off label in children.

The work group concluded that research and knowledge gaps about pediatric psoriasis persist and include mechanism of disease onset, development of comorbidities, and identification of ideal dosing for various treatments.

Finally, the work group emphasized the importance of collaboration between dermatologists and primary care providers for managing psoriasis in children, as well as the importance of patient education.

“Dermatologists should be mindful of the unique aspects of the emotional development of children and the social dynamics of having a visible difference,” they wrote. “Shared decision making with the patient (if age appropriate) and the caregivers is a useful approach, particularly as related to the use of off-label medications to treat severe disease,” they said.

“This is the first time that pediatric psoriasis has been discussed as an independent topic within the guideline,” said one of the guideline authors, Dawn M.R. Davis, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., in an interview. “Children have unique physiology and psychosocial aspects to their care relative to adults. In addition, psoriasis has some clinical manifestations that are oftentimes distinctly seen in children,” she commented. “Creation of a guideline specific to children allows us to summarize the similarities and differences of disease presentation and management. It also allows an opportunity to clarify what research data (especially therapeutics) have been studied in children and their uses, safety profiles, and dosing,” she noted.

Psoriasis can be a psychosocially debilitating disease, she emphasized. “In children, for example, isolated or prominent facial involvement is common, which can be embarrassing and impact relationships.”

The take-home message for clinicians, Dr. Davis said, is to keep in mind the multisystemic nature of psoriasis. “It is not limited to the skin,” she said. “Treating a patient with psoriasis necessitates practicing whole-person care” and considering the multiple comorbidities that impact quality of life and overall health in children, as well as adults with psoriasis, she commented. “Dermatologists can empower patients and their caregivers by educating them on the multifocal, complex nature of the disease.” She added, “We have much to learn regarding psoriasis in the pediatric population. More research into therapeutics, topical and systemic, is necessary to optimize patient care.”

The guideline was based on studies published in the PubMed and MEDLINE databases from January 2011 through December 31, 2017.

Dr. Menter and Craig A. Elmets, MD, professor of dermatology, at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, were cochairs of the work group. The pediatric guideline is the latest in a multipart series of AAD-NPF guidelines on psoriasis being published this year in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Many of the guideline authors, including lead author Dr. Menter, disclosed relationships with multiple companies; however, a minimum 51% of workgroup members had no relevant conflicts of interest in accordance with AAD policy. There was no funding source. Dr. Davis disclosed serving as an investigator for Regeneron, with no compensation.

SOURCE: Menter et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.08.049.

A real-world study of secukinumab in patients with psoriasis provided safety and effectiveness results similar to clinical trial results in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, in a report published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“The safety profile of secukinumab was similar to that reported in previous clinical trials, and no new or unexpected safety signals were observed,” according to Diamant Thaci, MD, of the Comprehensive Centre of Inflammation Medicine, University of Lübeck (Germany) and coauthors. Moreover, effectiveness in those who started treatment with secukinumab at baseline, they added, “was comparable to that observed in Phase 3 trials. High levels of effectiveness were observed also in subjects who had received previous biologic therapies, although the response rates were numerically lower, as might be expected in a difficult to treat population. In addition, lower baseline PASI [Psoriasis Area and Severity Index] in patients with prior biologic treatment could also reduce the relative decrease in PASI observed over the course of the study.”

They reported on an interim analysis of the first 1,988 patients enrolled in the PROSPECT study, an observational 24-week study conducted in Germany; 1,323 patients completed the 24 week study; total cumulative exposure to secukinumab was 746.3 patient-years. Their mean baseline PASI was 17.7, slightly lower than those in typical clinical trials, and most (91%) had received systemic therapies before.

Almost half the patients (46%) experienced an adverse event during treatment, and about 4% experienced a serious adverse event; only 1% of serious adverse events were considered related to the study drug. About 7% discontinued treatment with secukinumab because of an adverse event. The most common reasons for discontinuation were lack of benefit in 2.4%, psoriasis in 2.3%, and upper respiratory tract viral infection in 0.5%.

The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis (8.7%), pruritus (2.9%), and headache (2.4%). Rates of neoplastic disorders and major cerebrovascular events were similar to published data, with 5 patients (0.3%) experiencing a major adverse cardiovascular event and 10 (0.5%) experiencing a malignancy. Four patients (0.2%) developed inflammatory bowel disease, 42 (2.1%) developed Candida infection, 2 (0.1%) developed hepatotoxicity, and 11 (0.6%) an injection-site reaction. There were three deaths, determined not to be related to secukinumab, the authors wrote.

Efficacy was also similar to that observed in earlier studies, they noted, with positive results regardless of concomitant medication. Overall, 44% of the cohort used concomitant medications.

Of the 829 patients using concomitant topical treatments, 73% had started before baseline. In all, 110 patients were also using conventional systemic medications and phototherapy; 77 started treatment before baseline. The most commonly employed concomitant therapies were topical steroids and phototherapy.

Overall, most patients (86%) achieved a PASI 75 by week 24, with 68.5% achieving a PASI 90, and 40% achieving a PASI 100 at that time point.

Secukinumab was most effective among the 83 patients who were naive to systemic therapies; in these patients, results at week 24 were as follows: PASI 75, 93%; PASI 90, 84%; and PASI 100, 66%. Among patients who had previously received a biologic, scores were slightly lower: PASI 75, 78%; PASI 90, 55%; and PASI 100, 29%.

“These interim data from PROSPECT confirm the effectiveness and safety of secukinumab in the routine clinical setting, in a large cohort of psoriasis patients with high disease severity,” the investigators concluded.

Initially approved in the United States in 2015, secukinumab, an interleukin-17A antagonist, is indicated for treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy, adults with psoriatic arthritis, and adults with active ankylosing spondylitis.

The study was funded by Novartis, Germany; four authors are employees of the company. Dr. Thaci has served as an investigator and/or consultant for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis, AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Celgene. Other authors also disclosed serving as investigators, consultants, and/or speakers for Novartis and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019 Sep 21. doi: 10.1111/jdv.15962.




 

A real-world study of secukinumab in patients with psoriasis provided safety and effectiveness results similar to clinical trial results in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, in a report published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“The safety profile of secukinumab was similar to that reported in previous clinical trials, and no new or unexpected safety signals were observed,” according to Diamant Thaci, MD, of the Comprehensive Centre of Inflammation Medicine, University of Lübeck (Germany) and coauthors. Moreover, effectiveness in those who started treatment with secukinumab at baseline, they added, “was comparable to that observed in Phase 3 trials. High levels of effectiveness were observed also in subjects who had received previous biologic therapies, although the response rates were numerically lower, as might be expected in a difficult to treat population. In addition, lower baseline PASI [Psoriasis Area and Severity Index] in patients with prior biologic treatment could also reduce the relative decrease in PASI observed over the course of the study.”

They reported on an interim analysis of the first 1,988 patients enrolled in the PROSPECT study, an observational 24-week study conducted in Germany; 1,323 patients completed the 24 week study; total cumulative exposure to secukinumab was 746.3 patient-years. Their mean baseline PASI was 17.7, slightly lower than those in typical clinical trials, and most (91%) had received systemic therapies before.

Almost half the patients (46%) experienced an adverse event during treatment, and about 4% experienced a serious adverse event; only 1% of serious adverse events were considered related to the study drug. About 7% discontinued treatment with secukinumab because of an adverse event. The most common reasons for discontinuation were lack of benefit in 2.4%, psoriasis in 2.3%, and upper respiratory tract viral infection in 0.5%.

The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis (8.7%), pruritus (2.9%), and headache (2.4%). Rates of neoplastic disorders and major cerebrovascular events were similar to published data, with 5 patients (0.3%) experiencing a major adverse cardiovascular event and 10 (0.5%) experiencing a malignancy. Four patients (0.2%) developed inflammatory bowel disease, 42 (2.1%) developed Candida infection, 2 (0.1%) developed hepatotoxicity, and 11 (0.6%) an injection-site reaction. There were three deaths, determined not to be related to secukinumab, the authors wrote.

Efficacy was also similar to that observed in earlier studies, they noted, with positive results regardless of concomitant medication. Overall, 44% of the cohort used concomitant medications.

Of the 829 patients using concomitant topical treatments, 73% had started before baseline. In all, 110 patients were also using conventional systemic medications and phototherapy; 77 started treatment before baseline. The most commonly employed concomitant therapies were topical steroids and phototherapy.

Overall, most patients (86%) achieved a PASI 75 by week 24, with 68.5% achieving a PASI 90, and 40% achieving a PASI 100 at that time point.

Secukinumab was most effective among the 83 patients who were naive to systemic therapies; in these patients, results at week 24 were as follows: PASI 75, 93%; PASI 90, 84%; and PASI 100, 66%. Among patients who had previously received a biologic, scores were slightly lower: PASI 75, 78%; PASI 90, 55%; and PASI 100, 29%.

“These interim data from PROSPECT confirm the effectiveness and safety of secukinumab in the routine clinical setting, in a large cohort of psoriasis patients with high disease severity,” the investigators concluded.

Initially approved in the United States in 2015, secukinumab, an interleukin-17A antagonist, is indicated for treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy, adults with psoriatic arthritis, and adults with active ankylosing spondylitis.

The study was funded by Novartis, Germany; four authors are employees of the company. Dr. Thaci has served as an investigator and/or consultant for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis, AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Celgene. Other authors also disclosed serving as investigators, consultants, and/or speakers for Novartis and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019 Sep 21. doi: 10.1111/jdv.15962.




 

A real-world study of secukinumab in patients with psoriasis provided safety and effectiveness results similar to clinical trial results in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, in a report published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“The safety profile of secukinumab was similar to that reported in previous clinical trials, and no new or unexpected safety signals were observed,” according to Diamant Thaci, MD, of the Comprehensive Centre of Inflammation Medicine, University of Lübeck (Germany) and coauthors. Moreover, effectiveness in those who started treatment with secukinumab at baseline, they added, “was comparable to that observed in Phase 3 trials. High levels of effectiveness were observed also in subjects who had received previous biologic therapies, although the response rates were numerically lower, as might be expected in a difficult to treat population. In addition, lower baseline PASI [Psoriasis Area and Severity Index] in patients with prior biologic treatment could also reduce the relative decrease in PASI observed over the course of the study.”

They reported on an interim analysis of the first 1,988 patients enrolled in the PROSPECT study, an observational 24-week study conducted in Germany; 1,323 patients completed the 24 week study; total cumulative exposure to secukinumab was 746.3 patient-years. Their mean baseline PASI was 17.7, slightly lower than those in typical clinical trials, and most (91%) had received systemic therapies before.

Almost half the patients (46%) experienced an adverse event during treatment, and about 4% experienced a serious adverse event; only 1% of serious adverse events were considered related to the study drug. About 7% discontinued treatment with secukinumab because of an adverse event. The most common reasons for discontinuation were lack of benefit in 2.4%, psoriasis in 2.3%, and upper respiratory tract viral infection in 0.5%.

The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis (8.7%), pruritus (2.9%), and headache (2.4%). Rates of neoplastic disorders and major cerebrovascular events were similar to published data, with 5 patients (0.3%) experiencing a major adverse cardiovascular event and 10 (0.5%) experiencing a malignancy. Four patients (0.2%) developed inflammatory bowel disease, 42 (2.1%) developed Candida infection, 2 (0.1%) developed hepatotoxicity, and 11 (0.6%) an injection-site reaction. There were three deaths, determined not to be related to secukinumab, the authors wrote.

Efficacy was also similar to that observed in earlier studies, they noted, with positive results regardless of concomitant medication. Overall, 44% of the cohort used concomitant medications.

Of the 829 patients using concomitant topical treatments, 73% had started before baseline. In all, 110 patients were also using conventional systemic medications and phototherapy; 77 started treatment before baseline. The most commonly employed concomitant therapies were topical steroids and phototherapy.

Overall, most patients (86%) achieved a PASI 75 by week 24, with 68.5% achieving a PASI 90, and 40% achieving a PASI 100 at that time point.

Secukinumab was most effective among the 83 patients who were naive to systemic therapies; in these patients, results at week 24 were as follows: PASI 75, 93%; PASI 90, 84%; and PASI 100, 66%. Among patients who had previously received a biologic, scores were slightly lower: PASI 75, 78%; PASI 90, 55%; and PASI 100, 29%.

“These interim data from PROSPECT confirm the effectiveness and safety of secukinumab in the routine clinical setting, in a large cohort of psoriasis patients with high disease severity,” the investigators concluded.

Initially approved in the United States in 2015, secukinumab, an interleukin-17A antagonist, is indicated for treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy, adults with psoriatic arthritis, and adults with active ankylosing spondylitis.

The study was funded by Novartis, Germany; four authors are employees of the company. Dr. Thaci has served as an investigator and/or consultant for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis, AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Celgene. Other authors also disclosed serving as investigators, consultants, and/or speakers for Novartis and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019 Sep 21. doi: 10.1111/jdv.15962.




 

Biologic-naive patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis had a lower risk of serious infection with interleukin-12/23 (IL-12/23) inhibitors than they did with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, but this difference disappeared in patients with previous exposure to biologics, according to data from a retrospective study of nearly 10,000 adults.

Biologics, though effective, can increase the risk for serious infection in psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis patients, and comparison data on the safety of various biologics are limited, wrote Xintong Li of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

In a study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers identified 11,560 treatment episodes for 9,305 adults during January 1, 2015, through May 1, 2018, which included 6,043 episodes of psoriasis only, 1,869 episodes of psoriatic arthritis only, and 3,648 episodes of both conditions. The average age of the patients was 46 years, and 53% were men. The investigators studied the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara), the IL-17A inhibitors secukinumab (Cosentyx) and ixekizumab (Taltz), and TNF inhibitors adalimumab (Humira), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), etanercept (Enbrel), golimumab (Simponi), and infliximab (Remicade). They did not study the interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor brodalumab (Siliq) or IL-23 inhibitors guselkumab (Tremfya), risankizumab (Skyrizi), or tildrakizumab (Ilumya) since they were FDA approved after or toward the end of the study period.

The primary outcome of serious infection, defined as hospitalization with infection as part of the diagnostic codes, occurred in 190 cases (2% of all treatment episodes); the most common serious infections were sepsis and pneumonia.

Overall, new biologics users had similar infection risks with IL-17 and TNF inhibitors, with incidence rates per 100 person-years of 3.4 and 2.2, respectively. By contrast, the incidence rate per 100 person-years was 0.9 with IL-12/23 inhibitors. Incidence rates were similar across all three biologic types for experienced biologics users.

The researchers also grouped patients by condition, including both treatment-naive and -experienced patients. Of the 156 serious infections in psoriasis patients, 26 occurred with IL-17 inhibitors, 29 with IL-12/23 inhibitors, and 101 with TNF inhibitors. Of 105 serious infections in the psoriatic arthritis group, 14 occurred with IL-17, 13 with IL-12/23, and 78 with TNF.

After adjusting for propensity scores, researchers found no evidence of increased serious infection risk for treatment with IL-17 inhibitors, compared with IL-12/23 (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-2.03) or TNF inhibitors (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.48-1.66).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of ICD diagnostic codes that were not fully validated in the patient population, a short follow-up period, and inclusion of only insured patients in the United States, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that serious infection risk may vary between patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, and between biologic-naive and -experienced patients, and that, despite the relatively small difference in absolute effect, “this potentially clinically relevant signal for reduced infections among the IL-12/23 inhibitors warrants further investigation and surveillance efforts,” they concluded. In addition, they said, the findings might guide clinicians and patients in choosing appropriate biologics for a particular condition.

The study was supported by the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ms. Li conducted the research while she was at Johns Hopkins, but is now with the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
 

SOURCE: Li X et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Oct 31. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216102.

Biologic-naive patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis had a lower risk of serious infection with interleukin-12/23 (IL-12/23) inhibitors than they did with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, but this difference disappeared in patients with previous exposure to biologics, according to data from a retrospective study of nearly 10,000 adults.

Biologics, though effective, can increase the risk for serious infection in psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis patients, and comparison data on the safety of various biologics are limited, wrote Xintong Li of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

In a study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers identified 11,560 treatment episodes for 9,305 adults during January 1, 2015, through May 1, 2018, which included 6,043 episodes of psoriasis only, 1,869 episodes of psoriatic arthritis only, and 3,648 episodes of both conditions. The average age of the patients was 46 years, and 53% were men. The investigators studied the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara), the IL-17A inhibitors secukinumab (Cosentyx) and ixekizumab (Taltz), and TNF inhibitors adalimumab (Humira), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), etanercept (Enbrel), golimumab (Simponi), and infliximab (Remicade). They did not study the interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor brodalumab (Siliq) or IL-23 inhibitors guselkumab (Tremfya), risankizumab (Skyrizi), or tildrakizumab (Ilumya) since they were FDA approved after or toward the end of the study period.

The primary outcome of serious infection, defined as hospitalization with infection as part of the diagnostic codes, occurred in 190 cases (2% of all treatment episodes); the most common serious infections were sepsis and pneumonia.

Overall, new biologics users had similar infection risks with IL-17 and TNF inhibitors, with incidence rates per 100 person-years of 3.4 and 2.2, respectively. By contrast, the incidence rate per 100 person-years was 0.9 with IL-12/23 inhibitors. Incidence rates were similar across all three biologic types for experienced biologics users.

The researchers also grouped patients by condition, including both treatment-naive and -experienced patients. Of the 156 serious infections in psoriasis patients, 26 occurred with IL-17 inhibitors, 29 with IL-12/23 inhibitors, and 101 with TNF inhibitors. Of 105 serious infections in the psoriatic arthritis group, 14 occurred with IL-17, 13 with IL-12/23, and 78 with TNF.

After adjusting for propensity scores, researchers found no evidence of increased serious infection risk for treatment with IL-17 inhibitors, compared with IL-12/23 (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-2.03) or TNF inhibitors (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.48-1.66).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of ICD diagnostic codes that were not fully validated in the patient population, a short follow-up period, and inclusion of only insured patients in the United States, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that serious infection risk may vary between patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, and between biologic-naive and -experienced patients, and that, despite the relatively small difference in absolute effect, “this potentially clinically relevant signal for reduced infections among the IL-12/23 inhibitors warrants further investigation and surveillance efforts,” they concluded. In addition, they said, the findings might guide clinicians and patients in choosing appropriate biologics for a particular condition.

The study was supported by the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ms. Li conducted the research while she was at Johns Hopkins, but is now with the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
 

SOURCE: Li X et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Oct 31. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216102.

Biologic-naive patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis had a lower risk of serious infection with interleukin-12/23 (IL-12/23) inhibitors than they did with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, but this difference disappeared in patients with previous exposure to biologics, according to data from a retrospective study of nearly 10,000 adults.

Biologics, though effective, can increase the risk for serious infection in psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis patients, and comparison data on the safety of various biologics are limited, wrote Xintong Li of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

In a study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers identified 11,560 treatment episodes for 9,305 adults during January 1, 2015, through May 1, 2018, which included 6,043 episodes of psoriasis only, 1,869 episodes of psoriatic arthritis only, and 3,648 episodes of both conditions. The average age of the patients was 46 years, and 53% were men. The investigators studied the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara), the IL-17A inhibitors secukinumab (Cosentyx) and ixekizumab (Taltz), and TNF inhibitors adalimumab (Humira), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), etanercept (Enbrel), golimumab (Simponi), and infliximab (Remicade). They did not study the interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor brodalumab (Siliq) or IL-23 inhibitors guselkumab (Tremfya), risankizumab (Skyrizi), or tildrakizumab (Ilumya) since they were FDA approved after or toward the end of the study period.

The primary outcome of serious infection, defined as hospitalization with infection as part of the diagnostic codes, occurred in 190 cases (2% of all treatment episodes); the most common serious infections were sepsis and pneumonia.

Overall, new biologics users had similar infection risks with IL-17 and TNF inhibitors, with incidence rates per 100 person-years of 3.4 and 2.2, respectively. By contrast, the incidence rate per 100 person-years was 0.9 with IL-12/23 inhibitors. Incidence rates were similar across all three biologic types for experienced biologics users.

The researchers also grouped patients by condition, including both treatment-naive and -experienced patients. Of the 156 serious infections in psoriasis patients, 26 occurred with IL-17 inhibitors, 29 with IL-12/23 inhibitors, and 101 with TNF inhibitors. Of 105 serious infections in the psoriatic arthritis group, 14 occurred with IL-17, 13 with IL-12/23, and 78 with TNF.

After adjusting for propensity scores, researchers found no evidence of increased serious infection risk for treatment with IL-17 inhibitors, compared with IL-12/23 (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-2.03) or TNF inhibitors (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.48-1.66).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of ICD diagnostic codes that were not fully validated in the patient population, a short follow-up period, and inclusion of only insured patients in the United States, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that serious infection risk may vary between patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, and between biologic-naive and -experienced patients, and that, despite the relatively small difference in absolute effect, “this potentially clinically relevant signal for reduced infections among the IL-12/23 inhibitors warrants further investigation and surveillance efforts,” they concluded. In addition, they said, the findings might guide clinicians and patients in choosing appropriate biologics for a particular condition.

The study was supported by the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ms. Li conducted the research while she was at Johns Hopkins, but is now with the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
 

SOURCE: Li X et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Oct 31. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216102.

People with psoriasis appear to have both an increased risk of cancer and an increased risk of cancer-related mortality, according to a meta-analysis of cohort and case-control studies.

Compared with a psoriasis-free population, having a diagnosis of severe psoriasis was associated with a 22% increase in cancer risk, Alex Trafford of the University of Manchester (England) and colleagues reported in JAMA Dermatology. The risk of cancer mortality was also increased by 22% among those with severe psoriasis.

The site-specific risks ranged from a low of 18% for colon cancer to more than a twofold increased risk for oral and esophageal cancer, according to the investigators.

Since these were associations only, any underlying mechanism is still unclear, they wrote. The chronic inflammation that drives psoriasis can also drive the development of cancer, but immunomodulatory therapies may also play a part, they suggested.

“Of particular relevance in this regard are biological therapies, which are being increasingly used for the management of psoriasis,” they added. “Although preliminary studies have suggested little to no increased risk of cancer incidence in patients with psoriasis receiving these therapies, further study allowing greater follow-up and increased power is required to properly examine the potential cancer risk, particularly for site-specific cancers.”

The analysis included 58 studies, published between 1983 and 2017. Nine of these reported risks for cancer incidence among patients with severe psoriasis, and seven reported the risk of cancer mortality among patients with all severities of psoriasis.

Overall, severe psoriasis was associated with an increased cancer risk of 22%; for all severities of psoriasis combined, the risk increase was 18%. Relative risks for specific cancer types were as follows: colon, 1.18; colorectal, 1.34; kidney, 1.58; laryngeal, 1.79; liver, 1.83; lymphoma, 1.40; non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 1.28; keratinocyte cancers, 1.71; esophageal 2.05; oral cavity, 2.80; and pancreatic, 1.41.

Overall cancer mortality risk was 22% higher in patients with severe psoriasis than the general population. Site-specific relative mortality risks included liver, 1.43; esophageal 2.53; and pancreatic, 1.31.

In light of these findings, clinicians should stress lifestyle modifications known to decrease cancer risk, the investigators said. “Although it has been noted that lifestyle behavior change is challenging for healthcare professionals to implement, the importance of a more holistic approach to psoriasis care involving lifestyle behavior change is reinforced through the results of this meta-analysis.”

Among the coauthors were Darren M. Ashcroft, PhD, the senior author, and Christopher Griffiths, MD, both of the University of Manchester. Dr. Ashcroft reported receiving research grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB, and the Leo Foundation. Dr. Griffiths reported receiving honoraria and/or research grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Sandoz, and UCB. The lead author and the other authors had no disclosures. The Global Psoriasis Atlas (GPA) Collaborating Organizations (the International Federation of Psoriasis Associations, the International League of Dermatological Societies, and the International Psoriasis Council) were involved with funding of the study.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Trafford A et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2019 Oct 16. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.3056.

People with psoriasis appear to have both an increased risk of cancer and an increased risk of cancer-related mortality, according to a meta-analysis of cohort and case-control studies.

Compared with a psoriasis-free population, having a diagnosis of severe psoriasis was associated with a 22% increase in cancer risk, Alex Trafford of the University of Manchester (England) and colleagues reported in JAMA Dermatology. The risk of cancer mortality was also increased by 22% among those with severe psoriasis.

The site-specific risks ranged from a low of 18% for colon cancer to more than a twofold increased risk for oral and esophageal cancer, according to the investigators.

Since these were associations only, any underlying mechanism is still unclear, they wrote. The chronic inflammation that drives psoriasis can also drive the development of cancer, but immunomodulatory therapies may also play a part, they suggested.

“Of particular relevance in this regard are biological therapies, which are being increasingly used for the management of psoriasis,” they added. “Although preliminary studies have suggested little to no increased risk of cancer incidence in patients with psoriasis receiving these therapies, further study allowing greater follow-up and increased power is required to properly examine the potential cancer risk, particularly for site-specific cancers.”

The analysis included 58 studies, published between 1983 and 2017. Nine of these reported risks for cancer incidence among patients with severe psoriasis, and seven reported the risk of cancer mortality among patients with all severities of psoriasis.

Overall, severe psoriasis was associated with an increased cancer risk of 22%; for all severities of psoriasis combined, the risk increase was 18%. Relative risks for specific cancer types were as follows: colon, 1.18; colorectal, 1.34; kidney, 1.58; laryngeal, 1.79; liver, 1.83; lymphoma, 1.40; non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 1.28; keratinocyte cancers, 1.71; esophageal 2.05; oral cavity, 2.80; and pancreatic, 1.41.

Overall cancer mortality risk was 22% higher in patients with severe psoriasis than the general population. Site-specific relative mortality risks included liver, 1.43; esophageal 2.53; and pancreatic, 1.31.

In light of these findings, clinicians should stress lifestyle modifications known to decrease cancer risk, the investigators said. “Although it has been noted that lifestyle behavior change is challenging for healthcare professionals to implement, the importance of a more holistic approach to psoriasis care involving lifestyle behavior change is reinforced through the results of this meta-analysis.”

Among the coauthors were Darren M. Ashcroft, PhD, the senior author, and Christopher Griffiths, MD, both of the University of Manchester. Dr. Ashcroft reported receiving research grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB, and the Leo Foundation. Dr. Griffiths reported receiving honoraria and/or research grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Sandoz, and UCB. The lead author and the other authors had no disclosures. The Global Psoriasis Atlas (GPA) Collaborating Organizations (the International Federation of Psoriasis Associations, the International League of Dermatological Societies, and the International Psoriasis Council) were involved with funding of the study.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Trafford A et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2019 Oct 16. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.3056.

People with psoriasis appear to have both an increased risk of cancer and an increased risk of cancer-related mortality, according to a meta-analysis of cohort and case-control studies.

Compared with a psoriasis-free population, having a diagnosis of severe psoriasis was associated with a 22% increase in cancer risk, Alex Trafford of the University of Manchester (England) and colleagues reported in JAMA Dermatology. The risk of cancer mortality was also increased by 22% among those with severe psoriasis.

The site-specific risks ranged from a low of 18% for colon cancer to more than a twofold increased risk for oral and esophageal cancer, according to the investigators.

Since these were associations only, any underlying mechanism is still unclear, they wrote. The chronic inflammation that drives psoriasis can also drive the development of cancer, but immunomodulatory therapies may also play a part, they suggested.

“Of particular relevance in this regard are biological therapies, which are being increasingly used for the management of psoriasis,” they added. “Although preliminary studies have suggested little to no increased risk of cancer incidence in patients with psoriasis receiving these therapies, further study allowing greater follow-up and increased power is required to properly examine the potential cancer risk, particularly for site-specific cancers.”

The analysis included 58 studies, published between 1983 and 2017. Nine of these reported risks for cancer incidence among patients with severe psoriasis, and seven reported the risk of cancer mortality among patients with all severities of psoriasis.

Overall, severe psoriasis was associated with an increased cancer risk of 22%; for all severities of psoriasis combined, the risk increase was 18%. Relative risks for specific cancer types were as follows: colon, 1.18; colorectal, 1.34; kidney, 1.58; laryngeal, 1.79; liver, 1.83; lymphoma, 1.40; non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 1.28; keratinocyte cancers, 1.71; esophageal 2.05; oral cavity, 2.80; and pancreatic, 1.41.

Overall cancer mortality risk was 22% higher in patients with severe psoriasis than the general population. Site-specific relative mortality risks included liver, 1.43; esophageal 2.53; and pancreatic, 1.31.

In light of these findings, clinicians should stress lifestyle modifications known to decrease cancer risk, the investigators said. “Although it has been noted that lifestyle behavior change is challenging for healthcare professionals to implement, the importance of a more holistic approach to psoriasis care involving lifestyle behavior change is reinforced through the results of this meta-analysis.”

Among the coauthors were Darren M. Ashcroft, PhD, the senior author, and Christopher Griffiths, MD, both of the University of Manchester. Dr. Ashcroft reported receiving research grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB, and the Leo Foundation. Dr. Griffiths reported receiving honoraria and/or research grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Sandoz, and UCB. The lead author and the other authors had no disclosures. The Global Psoriasis Atlas (GPA) Collaborating Organizations (the International Federation of Psoriasis Associations, the International League of Dermatological Societies, and the International Psoriasis Council) were involved with funding of the study.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Trafford A et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2019 Oct 16. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.3056.

MADRID – Psoriasis patients aged 65 years and older are at more than twice the risk of serious bacterial and opportunistic infections, compared with younger patients, but that risk is not further elevated by being on biologic agents, Joseph F. Merola, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

He presented a large, propensity score–matched comparative safety study, which demonstrated that the infection risk of older psoriasis patients on biologics was not significantly different from that of similar patients on nonbiologic systemic medications or phototherapy. The study implications, he said, are clear: When moderate to severe psoriasis warrants consideration of highly effective biologic therapies, that therapeutic option shouldn’t be taken off the table on the basis of a mistaken belief that biologics pose a greater infection risk just because the affected patient is over age 65 years.

“We really think that older patients should be offered treatments at the same level of disease control as all the rest of our psoriasis patients, in the context of shared decision making,” said Dr. Merola, a dermatologist and rheumatologist who is the director of the Center for Skin and Related Musculoskeletal Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The study utilized longitudinal claims data from a very large U.S. database covering the years 2003-2017. Among the 185 million covered lives were 1.1 million individuals with psoriasis, including 150,000 aged 65 years or older. After excluding older psoriasis patients with comorbid cancer or autoimmune disease, the investigators were left with 11,218 older psoriasis patients initiating systemic therapy for the first time and therefore eligible for propensity score matching using a highly accurate proprietary platform. The final study population consisted of 2,795 older psoriasis patients newly initiating biologic therapy, 2,795 others newly initiating nonbiologic systemic agents, and 2,529 seniors starting phototherapy. The matching was based upon factors including age, sex, prior infections, comorbid psoriatic arthritis, diabetes, and obesity.

The primary study endpoint was the rate of serious bacterial or opportunistic infections requiring hospitalization during the first 6 months of treatment. The bottom line: The rates were closely similar across all three groups, with the most common serious infections being pneumonia and cellulitis.

In contrast, among a population of 115,047 senior psoriasis patients who never used systemic therapy, the risk of serious infection was 12.2 events per 1,000 patients over 6 months, compared with 5.3 events in 120,174 matched controls without psoriasis. That translates to a 2.24-fold increased risk.

One audience member commented that a limitation of the study was that all biologics were lumped together. He would expect that the tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, for example, would be associated with a significantly higher serious infection risk than biologics with other targets.

Dr. Merola conceded the point, adding that the investigators are trying to reanalyze the data in a more granular way to address that shortcoming. Other study limitations included an inability to access the specific doses of systemic treatments used or to stratify patients by disease severity.

Another audience member noted that dermatologists often reassure surgeons that there’s no increased risk of infection associated with psoriasis when in fact there is increased risk in older psoriasis patients, according to these new data.

“We’re not trying to send a message to surgeons to withhold a knee transplant because of a psoriasis plaque over the knee,” Dr. Merola replied. “I think we’ve all been there; we’ve all fought that battle.” Based on the data, he said, he would advise that “our patients who need to be on systemics should remain appropriately on systemics as we see fit.”

The study was entirely funded by Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Merola reported serving as a consultant to and/or recipient of research grants from nearly two dozen pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

MADRID – Psoriasis patients aged 65 years and older are at more than twice the risk of serious bacterial and opportunistic infections, compared with younger patients, but that risk is not further elevated by being on biologic agents, Joseph F. Merola, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

He presented a large, propensity score–matched comparative safety study, which demonstrated that the infection risk of older psoriasis patients on biologics was not significantly different from that of similar patients on nonbiologic systemic medications or phototherapy. The study implications, he said, are clear: When moderate to severe psoriasis warrants consideration of highly effective biologic therapies, that therapeutic option shouldn’t be taken off the table on the basis of a mistaken belief that biologics pose a greater infection risk just because the affected patient is over age 65 years.

“We really think that older patients should be offered treatments at the same level of disease control as all the rest of our psoriasis patients, in the context of shared decision making,” said Dr. Merola, a dermatologist and rheumatologist who is the director of the Center for Skin and Related Musculoskeletal Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The study utilized longitudinal claims data from a very large U.S. database covering the years 2003-2017. Among the 185 million covered lives were 1.1 million individuals with psoriasis, including 150,000 aged 65 years or older. After excluding older psoriasis patients with comorbid cancer or autoimmune disease, the investigators were left with 11,218 older psoriasis patients initiating systemic therapy for the first time and therefore eligible for propensity score matching using a highly accurate proprietary platform. The final study population consisted of 2,795 older psoriasis patients newly initiating biologic therapy, 2,795 others newly initiating nonbiologic systemic agents, and 2,529 seniors starting phototherapy. The matching was based upon factors including age, sex, prior infections, comorbid psoriatic arthritis, diabetes, and obesity.

The primary study endpoint was the rate of serious bacterial or opportunistic infections requiring hospitalization during the first 6 months of treatment. The bottom line: The rates were closely similar across all three groups, with the most common serious infections being pneumonia and cellulitis.

In contrast, among a population of 115,047 senior psoriasis patients who never used systemic therapy, the risk of serious infection was 12.2 events per 1,000 patients over 6 months, compared with 5.3 events in 120,174 matched controls without psoriasis. That translates to a 2.24-fold increased risk.

One audience member commented that a limitation of the study was that all biologics were lumped together. He would expect that the tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, for example, would be associated with a significantly higher serious infection risk than biologics with other targets.

Dr. Merola conceded the point, adding that the investigators are trying to reanalyze the data in a more granular way to address that shortcoming. Other study limitations included an inability to access the specific doses of systemic treatments used or to stratify patients by disease severity.

Another audience member noted that dermatologists often reassure surgeons that there’s no increased risk of infection associated with psoriasis when in fact there is increased risk in older psoriasis patients, according to these new data.

“We’re not trying to send a message to surgeons to withhold a knee transplant because of a psoriasis plaque over the knee,” Dr. Merola replied. “I think we’ve all been there; we’ve all fought that battle.” Based on the data, he said, he would advise that “our patients who need to be on systemics should remain appropriately on systemics as we see fit.”

The study was entirely funded by Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Merola reported serving as a consultant to and/or recipient of research grants from nearly two dozen pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

MADRID – Psoriasis patients aged 65 years and older are at more than twice the risk of serious bacterial and opportunistic infections, compared with younger patients, but that risk is not further elevated by being on biologic agents, Joseph F. Merola, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

He presented a large, propensity score–matched comparative safety study, which demonstrated that the infection risk of older psoriasis patients on biologics was not significantly different from that of similar patients on nonbiologic systemic medications or phototherapy. The study implications, he said, are clear: When moderate to severe psoriasis warrants consideration of highly effective biologic therapies, that therapeutic option shouldn’t be taken off the table on the basis of a mistaken belief that biologics pose a greater infection risk just because the affected patient is over age 65 years.

“We really think that older patients should be offered treatments at the same level of disease control as all the rest of our psoriasis patients, in the context of shared decision making,” said Dr. Merola, a dermatologist and rheumatologist who is the director of the Center for Skin and Related Musculoskeletal Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The study utilized longitudinal claims data from a very large U.S. database covering the years 2003-2017. Among the 185 million covered lives were 1.1 million individuals with psoriasis, including 150,000 aged 65 years or older. After excluding older psoriasis patients with comorbid cancer or autoimmune disease, the investigators were left with 11,218 older psoriasis patients initiating systemic therapy for the first time and therefore eligible for propensity score matching using a highly accurate proprietary platform. The final study population consisted of 2,795 older psoriasis patients newly initiating biologic therapy, 2,795 others newly initiating nonbiologic systemic agents, and 2,529 seniors starting phototherapy. The matching was based upon factors including age, sex, prior infections, comorbid psoriatic arthritis, diabetes, and obesity.

The primary study endpoint was the rate of serious bacterial or opportunistic infections requiring hospitalization during the first 6 months of treatment. The bottom line: The rates were closely similar across all three groups, with the most common serious infections being pneumonia and cellulitis.

In contrast, among a population of 115,047 senior psoriasis patients who never used systemic therapy, the risk of serious infection was 12.2 events per 1,000 patients over 6 months, compared with 5.3 events in 120,174 matched controls without psoriasis. That translates to a 2.24-fold increased risk.

One audience member commented that a limitation of the study was that all biologics were lumped together. He would expect that the tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, for example, would be associated with a significantly higher serious infection risk than biologics with other targets.

Dr. Merola conceded the point, adding that the investigators are trying to reanalyze the data in a more granular way to address that shortcoming. Other study limitations included an inability to access the specific doses of systemic treatments used or to stratify patients by disease severity.

Another audience member noted that dermatologists often reassure surgeons that there’s no increased risk of infection associated with psoriasis when in fact there is increased risk in older psoriasis patients, according to these new data.

“We’re not trying to send a message to surgeons to withhold a knee transplant because of a psoriasis plaque over the knee,” Dr. Merola replied. “I think we’ve all been there; we’ve all fought that battle.” Based on the data, he said, he would advise that “our patients who need to be on systemics should remain appropriately on systemics as we see fit.”

The study was entirely funded by Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Merola reported serving as a consultant to and/or recipient of research grants from nearly two dozen pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

MADRID – Serlopitant, an investigational once-daily oral neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, resulted in clinically meaningful improvement in psoriatic itch in a phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial, David M. Pariser, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The drug is not an effective stand alone treatment for psoriasis, though.

“The psoriasis itself did not improve during the trial. It’s the itch that improved. This drug is not designed for psoriasis; it’s going to be used for itching. If this does materialize as a treatment for psoriasis, it would be as an adjunct,” according to Dr. Pariser, a dermatologist at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk.

Still, serlopitant addresses an unmet need for better treatment options for psoriatic itch. Up to 90% of psoriasis patients report experiencing pruritus, regardless of their disease severity.

“Although patients consider pruritus one of the most important, severe, and troublesome symptoms of psoriasis, clinicians have not historically recognized itch as a significant symptom, and treatments for psoriasis often don’t alleviate the associated pruritus,” he said.

Serlopitant has already shown efficacy and good tolerability in phase 2 studies in patients with prurigo nodularis and chronic pruritus.

The 8-week psoriatic itch trial included 204 adults with plaque psoriasis randomized to 5 mg of serlopitant once daily or placebo. Patients averaged 4.3% involved body surface area, and nearly two-thirds of them had moderate psoriasis by physician global assessment. The majority of patients rated their itch as severe; The average baseline score on the 0-10 Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale was 8.2.

The primary study endpoint was achievement of at least a 4-point improvement on the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale. This was achieved in 33.9% of the serlopitant group and 21.1% of placebo-treated controls. The therapeutic benefit was consistent regardless of baseline body weight, gender, age, or extent of psoriasis-involved body surface area.

The safety data were consistent with what was seen in prior phase 2 studies for other dermatologic disorders. There were no serious adverse events, and the type and frequency of adverse events deemed related to treatment was similar in the two study arms.

“These results support the ongoing development of serlopitant across the spectrum of psoriatic disease,” Dr. Pariser declared.

The study was funded by Menlo Therapeutics. Dr. Pariser reported receiving research funding from and/or serving as a consultant to or advisory board member for roughly two dozen pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

MADRID – Serlopitant, an investigational once-daily oral neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, resulted in clinically meaningful improvement in psoriatic itch in a phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial, David M. Pariser, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The drug is not an effective stand alone treatment for psoriasis, though.

“The psoriasis itself did not improve during the trial. It’s the itch that improved. This drug is not designed for psoriasis; it’s going to be used for itching. If this does materialize as a treatment for psoriasis, it would be as an adjunct,” according to Dr. Pariser, a dermatologist at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk.

Still, serlopitant addresses an unmet need for better treatment options for psoriatic itch. Up to 90% of psoriasis patients report experiencing pruritus, regardless of their disease severity.

“Although patients consider pruritus one of the most important, severe, and troublesome symptoms of psoriasis, clinicians have not historically recognized itch as a significant symptom, and treatments for psoriasis often don’t alleviate the associated pruritus,” he said.

Serlopitant has already shown efficacy and good tolerability in phase 2 studies in patients with prurigo nodularis and chronic pruritus.

The 8-week psoriatic itch trial included 204 adults with plaque psoriasis randomized to 5 mg of serlopitant once daily or placebo. Patients averaged 4.3% involved body surface area, and nearly two-thirds of them had moderate psoriasis by physician global assessment. The majority of patients rated their itch as severe; The average baseline score on the 0-10 Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale was 8.2.

The primary study endpoint was achievement of at least a 4-point improvement on the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale. This was achieved in 33.9% of the serlopitant group and 21.1% of placebo-treated controls. The therapeutic benefit was consistent regardless of baseline body weight, gender, age, or extent of psoriasis-involved body surface area.

The safety data were consistent with what was seen in prior phase 2 studies for other dermatologic disorders. There were no serious adverse events, and the type and frequency of adverse events deemed related to treatment was similar in the two study arms.

“These results support the ongoing development of serlopitant across the spectrum of psoriatic disease,” Dr. Pariser declared.

The study was funded by Menlo Therapeutics. Dr. Pariser reported receiving research funding from and/or serving as a consultant to or advisory board member for roughly two dozen pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

MADRID – Serlopitant, an investigational once-daily oral neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, resulted in clinically meaningful improvement in psoriatic itch in a phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial, David M. Pariser, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The drug is not an effective stand alone treatment for psoriasis, though.

“The psoriasis itself did not improve during the trial. It’s the itch that improved. This drug is not designed for psoriasis; it’s going to be used for itching. If this does materialize as a treatment for psoriasis, it would be as an adjunct,” according to Dr. Pariser, a dermatologist at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk.

Still, serlopitant addresses an unmet need for better treatment options for psoriatic itch. Up to 90% of psoriasis patients report experiencing pruritus, regardless of their disease severity.

“Although patients consider pruritus one of the most important, severe, and troublesome symptoms of psoriasis, clinicians have not historically recognized itch as a significant symptom, and treatments for psoriasis often don’t alleviate the associated pruritus,” he said.

Serlopitant has already shown efficacy and good tolerability in phase 2 studies in patients with prurigo nodularis and chronic pruritus.

The 8-week psoriatic itch trial included 204 adults with plaque psoriasis randomized to 5 mg of serlopitant once daily or placebo. Patients averaged 4.3% involved body surface area, and nearly two-thirds of them had moderate psoriasis by physician global assessment. The majority of patients rated their itch as severe; The average baseline score on the 0-10 Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale was 8.2.

The primary study endpoint was achievement of at least a 4-point improvement on the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale. This was achieved in 33.9% of the serlopitant group and 21.1% of placebo-treated controls. The therapeutic benefit was consistent regardless of baseline body weight, gender, age, or extent of psoriasis-involved body surface area.

The safety data were consistent with what was seen in prior phase 2 studies for other dermatologic disorders. There were no serious adverse events, and the type and frequency of adverse events deemed related to treatment was similar in the two study arms.

“These results support the ongoing development of serlopitant across the spectrum of psoriatic disease,” Dr. Pariser declared.

The study was funded by Menlo Therapeutics. Dr. Pariser reported receiving research funding from and/or serving as a consultant to or advisory board member for roughly two dozen pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]