Comparison of ixekizumab with ustekinumab in moderate-to-severe psoriasis: 24-week results from IXORA-S, a phase III study
TL;DR: It has been shown that the interleukin (IL)‐23/IL‐17 axis is critical in the pathogenesis of psoriasis.
Abstract: SummaryBackground
It has been shown that the interleukin (IL)-23/IL-17 axis is critical in the pathogenesis of psoriasis
Objectives
To present the primary end point (week 12) and safety and efficacy data up to week 24 from a head-to-head trial (IXORA-S) of the IL-17A inhibitor ixekizumab (IXE) vs the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab (UST)
Methods
Randomized patients received IXE (160-mg starting dose, then 80 mg every 2 weeks for 12 weeks, then 80 mg every 4 weeks, n = 136) or UST (45 mg or 90 mg weight-based dosing per label, n = 166) The primary end point was the proportion of patients reaching ≥ 90% Psoriasis Area and Severity Index improvement (PASI 90) Hommel-adjusted key secondary end points at week 12 included PASI 75, PASI 100, static Physician's Global Assessment (sPGA) score of 0 or 1, sPGA score of 0, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of 0 or 1, ≥ 4-point reduction on the itch numerical rating scale (NRS) and changes in itch NRS and skin pain visual analogue scale
Results
At week 12, IXE (n = 99, 72·8%) was superior to UST (n = 70, 42·2%) in PASI 90 response (response difference 32·1%, 97·5% confidence interval 19·8−44·5%, P < 0·001) Response rates for PASI 75, PASI 100 and sPGA (0,1) were significantly higher for IXE than for UST (adjusted P < 0·05) At week 24, IXE-treated patients had significantly higher response rates than UST-treated patients for PASI, sPGA and DLQI (unadjusted P < 0·05) No deaths were reported, and the treatments did not differ with regard to overall incidences of adverse events (P = 0·299)
Conclusions
The superior efficacy of IXE demonstrated at week 12 persisted up to week 24 The safety profiles were consistent with those previously reported for both treatments
Citations
More filters
Scott & White Hospital1, University of Connecticut2, University of Pittsburgh3, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center4, Emory University5, University of Southern California6, University of Alabama at Birmingham7, University of California, San Francisco8, Mayo Clinic9, University of Pennsylvania10, Medical College of Wisconsin11, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai12, University of California, San Diego13, University Hospitals of Cleveland14, Harvard University15, Henry Ford Hospital16, National Institutes of Health17, Northwestern University18, American Academy of Dermatology19
TL;DR: The treatment of psoriasis with biologic agents will be reviewed, emphasizing treatment recommendations and the role of the dermatologist in monitoring and educating patients regarding benefits as well as associated risks.
Abstract: Psoriasis is a chronic, inflammatory multisystem disease that affects up to 3.2% of the US population. This guideline addresses important clinical questions that arise in psoriasis management and care, providing recommendations based on the available evidence. The treatment of psoriasis with biologic agents will be reviewed, emphasizing treatment recommendations and the role of the dermatologist in monitoring and educating patients regarding benefits as well as associated risks.
479 citations
TL;DR: A network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of systemic and biological treatments in adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis and a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety is conducted.
Abstract: Background
Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head to head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.
Objectives
To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional systemic agents (acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, methotrexate), small molecules (apremilast, tofacitinib, ponesimod), anti-TNF alpha (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab), anti-IL12/23 (ustekinumab), anti-IL17 (secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab), anti-IL23 (guselkumab, tildrakizumab), and other biologics (alefacept, itolizumab) for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.
Search methods
We searched the following databases to December 2016: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) reports. We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant RCTs. We searched the trial results databases of a number of pharmaceutical companies and handsearched the conference proceedings of a number of dermatology meetings.
Selection criteria
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic and biological treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate to severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent.
Data collection and analysis
Three groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI) 90) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse effects). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes, according to GRADE; we evaluated evidence as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing.
Main results
We included 109 studies in our review (39,882 randomised participants, 68% men, all recruited from a hospital). The overall average age was 44 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo controlled (67%), 23% were head-to-head studies, and 10% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and placebo. We have assessed all treatments listed in the objectives (19 in total). In all, 86 trials were multicentric trials (two to 231 centres). All of the trials included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment at less than 24 weeks after randomisation); in fact, all trials included in the network meta-analysis were measured between 12 and 16 weeks after randomisation. We assessed the majority of studies (48/109) as being at high risk of bias; 38 were assessed as at an unclear risk, and 23, low risk.
Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90.
In terms of reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents. Small molecules were associated with a higher chance of reaching PASI 90 compared to conventional systemic agents.
At drug level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, all of the anti-IL17 agents and guselkumab (an anti-IL23 drug) were significantly more effective than the anti-TNF alpha agents infliximab, adalimumab, and etanercept, but not certolizumab. Ustekinumab was superior to etanercept. No clear difference was shown between infliximab, adalimumab, and etanercept. Only one trial assessed the efficacy of infliximab in this network; thus, these results have to be interpreted with caution. Tofacitinib was significantly superior to methotrexate, and no clear difference was shown between any of the other small molecules versus conventional treatments.
Network meta-analysis also showed that ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, certolizumab, and ustekinumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90: the most effective drug was ixekizumab (risk ratio (RR) 32.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 23.61 to 44.60; Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) = 94.3; high-certainty evidence), followed by secukinumab (RR 26.55, 95% CI 20.32 to 34.69; SUCRA = 86.5; high-certainty evidence), brodalumab (RR 25.45, 95% CI 18.74 to 34.57; SUCRA = 84.3; moderate-certainty evidence), guselkumab (RR 21.03, 95% CI 14.56 to 30.38; SUCRA = 77; moderate-certainty evidence), certolizumab (RR 24.58, 95% CI 3.46 to 174.73; SUCRA = 75.7; moderate-certainty evidence), and ustekinumab (RR 19.91, 95% CI 15.11 to 26.23; SUCRA = 72.6; high-certainty evidence).
We found no significant difference between all of the interventions and the placebo regarding the risk of serious adverse effects (SAEs): the relative ranking strongly suggested that methotrexate was associated with the best safety profile regarding all of the SAEs (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.99; SUCRA = 90.7; moderate-certainty evidence), followed by ciclosporin (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.01 to 5.10; SUCRA = 78.2; very low-certainty evidence), certolizumab (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.36; SUCRA = 70.9; moderate-certainty evidence), infliximab (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.00; SUCRA = 64.4; very low-certainty evidence), alefacept (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.55; SUCRA = 62.6; low-certainty evidence), and fumaric acid esters (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.99; SUCRA = 57.7; very low-certainty evidence). Major adverse cardiac events, serious infections, or malignancies were reported in both the placebo and intervention groups. Nevertheless, the SAEs analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to very low certainty for just over half of the treatment estimates in total, moderate for the others. Thus, the results have to be considered with caution.
Considering both efficacy (PASI 90 outcome) and acceptability (SAEs outcome), highly effective treatments also had more SAEs compared to the other treatments, and ustekinumab, infliximab, and certolizumab appeared to have the better trade-off between efficacy and acceptability.
Regarding the other efficacy outcomes, PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1, the results were very similar to the results for PASI 90.
Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for a third of the interventions.
Authors' conclusions
Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, certolizumab, and ustekinumab are the best choices for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate to severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. At class level, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents, too. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured between 12 to 16 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficiently relevant for a chronic disease. Moreover, low numbers of studies were found for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 44 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice.
Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. Indeed, we found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs. Methotrexate appeared to have the best safety profile, but as the evidence was of very low to moderate quality, we cannot be sure of the ranking. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies as well.
In terms of future research, randomised trials comparing directly active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between conventional systemic and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naive patients, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents.
258 citations
TL;DR: Since there are few clinical trial data with high levels of evidence for this rare disease, recommendations by the committee are described in the present guidelines.
Abstract: Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a rare disease characterized by recurrent fever and systemic flushing accompanied by extensive sterile pustules The committee of the guidelines was founded as a collaborative project between the Japanese Dermatological Association and the Study Group for Rare Intractable Skin Diseases under the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare Research Project on Overcoming Intractable Diseases The aim of the guidelines was to provide current information to aid in the treatment of patients with GPP in Japan Its contents include the diagnostic and severity classification criteria for GPP, its pathogenesis, and recommendations for the treatment of GPP Since there are few clinical trial data with high levels of evidence for this rare disease, recommendations by the committee are described in the present guidelines
140 citations
TL;DR: This study provides an assessment of the comparative efficacy among treatments for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis by meta-analysis suggests that brodalumab, guselkumAB, ixekizuab, and risankizumab-rzaa were associated with the highest PASI response rates in both short-term and long-term therapy.
Abstract: Importance The clinical benefits of novel treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis are well established, but wide variations exist in patient response across different therapies. In the absence of head-to-head randomized trials, meta-analyses synthesizing data from multiple studies are needed to assess comparative efficacy among psoriasis treatments. Objective To estimate the relative short-term and long-term efficacy of biologics and oral agents for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. Data Sources A systematic literature review was conducted on December 4, 2017, and updated on September 17, 2018. The Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register databases were included. Study Selection Phase 2, 3, or 4 randomized clinical trials of treatments licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for adults with moderate to severe psoriasis with data on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index assessment of 75%, 90%, and 100% reductions (PASI 75, 90, and 100) at 10 to 16 weeks (short-term efficacy) or 44 to 60 weeks (long-term efficacy) from baseline. Data Extraction and Synthesis Data were extracted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis guidelines. A bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to estimate short-term PASI response rates; to account for variation across trials, an ordinal model that adjusted for reference arm response was implemented. The long-term PASI rates were estimated via a traditional meta-analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures PASI 75, 90, and 100 response rates at 10 to 16 weeks and 44 to 60 weeks from baseline. Results Sixty trials meeting all inclusion criteria were included. At weeks 10 to 16, the highest PASI 90 rates were seen with risankizumab-rzaa (71.6%; 95% credible interval [CrI], 67.5%-75.4%), brodalumab (70.8%; 95% CrI, 66.8%-74.6%), ixekizumab (70.6%; 95% CrI, 66.8%-74.6%), and guselkumab (67.3%; 62.5%-71.9%). At weeks 44 to 60, the treatments with the highest PASI 90 rates were risankizumab-rzaa (79.4%, 95% CI, 75.5%-82.9%), guselkumab (76.5%; 95% CI, 72.1%-80.5%), brodalumab (74.0%; 95% CI, 69.3%-78.1%), and ixekizumab (73.9%; 95% CI, 69.9%-77.5%). Findings were consistent for short-term and long-term PASI 75 and 100 responses. Conclusions and Relevance This study provides an assessment of the comparative efficacy among treatments for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. The meta-analysis suggests that brodalumab, guselkumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab-rzaa were associated with the highest PASI response rates in both short-term and long-term therapy.
131 citations
TL;DR: Data suggest that it is possible to discriminate between biologics to inform clinical practice and decision making and that trial performance may not equate to real-world performance, and so results need to be considered alongside real- world, long-term safety and effectiveness data.
118 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: Ustekinumab seems to be efficacious for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis; dosing every 12 weeks maintains efficacy for at least a year in most patients.
1,715 citations
Dalhousie University1, University of Alabama at Birmingham2, Mount Sinai Hospital3, University of Göttingen4, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre5, Hospital de Sant Pau6, Jikei University School of Medicine7, University of Iceland8, National Taiwan University9, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio10, Novartis11
TL;DR: Secukinumab was effective for psoriasis in two randomized trials, validating interleukin-17A as a therapeutic target and the rates of infection were higher with secuk inumab than with placebo in both studies and were similar to those with etanercept.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Interleukin-17A is considered to be central to the pathogenesis of psoriasis. We evaluated secukinumab, a fully human anti-interleukin-17A monoclonal antibody, in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. METHODS: In two phase 3, double-blind, 52-week trials, ERASURE (Efficacy of Response and Safety of Two Fixed Secukinumab Regimens in Psoriasis) and FIXTURE (Full Year Investigative Examination of Secukinumab vs. Etanercept Using Two Dosing Regimens to Determine Efficacy in Psoriasis), we randomly assigned 738 patients (in the ERASURE study) and 1306 patients (in the FIXTURE study) to subcutaneous secukinumab at a dose of 300 mg or 150 mg (administered once weekly for 5 weeks, then every 4 weeks), placebo, or (in the FIXTURE study only) etanercept at a dose of 50 mg (administered twice weekly for 12 weeks, then once weekly). The objective of each study was to show the superiority of secukinumab over placebo at week 12 with respect to the proportion of patients who had a reduction of 75% or more from baseline in the psoriasis area-and-severity index score (PASI 75) and a score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) on a 5-point modified investigator's global assessment (coprimary end points). RESULTS: The proportion of patients who met the criterion for PASI 75 at week 12 was higher with each secukinumab dose than with placebo or etanercept: in the ERASURE study, the rates were 81.6% with 300 mg of secukinumab, 71.6% with 150 mg of secukinumab, and 4.5% with placebo; in the FIXTURE study, the rates were 77.1% with 300 mg of secukinumab, 67.0% with 150 mg of secukinumab, 44.0% with etanercept, and 4.9% with placebo (P<0.001 for each secukinumab dose vs. comparators). The proportion of patients with a response of 0 or 1 on the modified investigator's global assessment at week 12 was higher with each secukinumab dose than with placebo or etanercept: in the ERASURE study, the rates were 65.3% with 300 mg of secukinumab, 51.2% with 150 mg of secukinumab, and 2.4% with placebo; in the FIXTURE study, the rates were 62.5% with 300 mg of secukinumab, 51.1% with 150 mg of secukinumab, 27.2% with etanercept, and 2.8% with placebo (P<0.001 for each secukinumab dose vs. comparators). The rates of infection were higher with secukinumab than with placebo in both studies and were similar to those with etanercept. CONCLUSIONS: Secukinumab was effective for psoriasis in two randomized trials, validating interleukin-17A as a therapeutic target. (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals; ERASURE and FIXTURE ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01365455 and NCT01358578, respectively.).
1,587 citations
TL;DR: The genetic background of psoriasis and its relationship to immune function, specifically genetic mutations, key PSORS loci, single nucleotide polymorphisms, and the skin transcriptome are discussed.
Abstract: The skin is the front line of defense against insult and injury and contains many epidermal and immune elements that comprise the skin-associated lymphoid tissue (SALT). The reaction of these components to injury allows an effective cutaneous response to restore homeostasis. Psoriasis vulgaris is the best-understood and most accessible human disease that is mediated by T cells and dendritic cells. Inflammatory myeloid dendritic cells release IL-23 and IL-12 to activate IL-17-producing T cells, Th1 cells, and Th22 cells to produce abundant psoriatic cytokines IL-17, IFN-γ, TNF, and IL-22. These cytokines mediate effects on keratinocytes to amplify psoriatic inflammation. Therapeutic studies with anticytokine antibodies have shown the importance of the key cytokines IL-23, TNF, and IL-17 in this process. We discuss the genetic background of psoriasis and its relationship to immune function, specifically genetic mutations, key PSORS loci, single nucleotide polymorphisms, and the skin transcriptome. The assoc...
1,174 citations
TL;DR: In this article, a multiple test procedure allowing statements on individual hypotheses is proposed, based on the principle of closed test procedures (Marcus, Peritz & Gabriel, 1976) and controls the multiple level a.
Abstract: SUMMARY Simes (1986) has proposed a modified Bonferroni procedure for the test of an overall hypothesis which is the combination of n individual hypotheses. In contrast to the classical Bonferroni procedure, it is not obvious how statements about individual hypotheses are to be made for this procedure. In the present paper a multiple test procedure allowing statements on individual hypotheses is proposed. It is based on the principle of closed test procedures (Marcus, Peritz & Gabriel, 1976) and controls the multiple level a.
1,154 citations
01 Jan 1988
TL;DR: In this paper, a multiple test procedure allowing statements on individual hypotheses is proposed, based on the principle of closed test procedures (Marcus, Peritz & Gabriel, 1976) and controls the multiple level a.
Abstract: SUMMARY Simes (1986) has proposed a modified Bonferroni procedure for the test of an overall hypothesis which is the combination of n individual hypotheses. In contrast to the classical Bonferroni procedure, it is not obvious how statements about individual hypotheses are to be made for this procedure. In the present paper a multiple test procedure allowing statements on individual hypotheses is proposed. It is based on the principle of closed test procedures (Marcus, Peritz & Gabriel, 1976) and controls the multiple level a.
999 citations