Psoriasis Collection

Administration of infliximab within 4 weeks of elective knee or hip arthroplasty did not have any significant effect on patients’ risk of serious infection after surgery, whereas the use of glucocorticoids increased that risk, in an analysis of a Medicare claims database.

“This increased risk with glucocorticoids has been suggested by previous studies [and] although this risk may be related in part to increased disease severity among glucocorticoid treated patients, a direct medication effect is likely. [These data suggest] that prolonged interruptions in infliximab therapy prior to surgery may be counterproductive if higher dose glucocorticoid therapy is used in substitution,” wrote the authors of the new study, led by Michael D. George, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

Dr. George and his colleagues examined data from the U.S. Medicare claims system on 4,288 elective knee or hip arthroplasties in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis who received infliximab within 6 months prior to the operation during 2007-2013 (Arthritis Care Res. 2017 Jan 27. doi: 10.1002/acr.23209).

The patients had to have received infliximab at least three times within a year of their procedure to establish that they were receiving stable therapy over a long-term period. The investigators also looked at oral prednisone, prednisolone, and methylprednisolone prescriptions and used data on average dosing to determine how much was administered to each subject.

“Although previous studies have treated TNF stopping vs. not stopping as a dichotomous exposure based on an arbitrary (and variable) stopping definition, in this study the primary analysis evaluated stop timing as a more general categorical exposure using 4-week intervals (half the standard rheumatoid arthritis dosing interval) to allow better assessment of the optimal stop timing,” the authors explained.

Stopping infliximab within 4 weeks of the operation did not significantly influence the rate of serious infection within 30 days (adjusted odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.60-1.34) and neither did stopping within 4-8 weeks (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.62-1.36) when compared against stopping 8-12 weeks before surgery. Of the 4,288 arthroplasties, 270 serious infections (6.3%) occurred within 30 days of the operation.

There also was no significant difference between stopping within 4 weeks and 8-12 weeks in the rate of prosthetic joint infection within 1 year of the operation (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.52-1.87). Overall, prosthetic joint infection occurred 2.9 times per 100 person-years.

However, glucocorticoid doses of more than 10 mg per day were risky. The odds for a serious infection within 30 days after surgery more than doubled with that level of use (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.30-3.40), while the risk for a prosthetic joint infection within 1 year of the surgery also rose significantly (HR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.30-5.60).

[email protected]

Administration of infliximab within 4 weeks of elective knee or hip arthroplasty did not have any significant effect on patients’ risk of serious infection after surgery, whereas the use of glucocorticoids increased that risk, in an analysis of a Medicare claims database.

“This increased risk with glucocorticoids has been suggested by previous studies [and] although this risk may be related in part to increased disease severity among glucocorticoid treated patients, a direct medication effect is likely. [These data suggest] that prolonged interruptions in infliximab therapy prior to surgery may be counterproductive if higher dose glucocorticoid therapy is used in substitution,” wrote the authors of the new study, led by Michael D. George, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

Dr. George and his colleagues examined data from the U.S. Medicare claims system on 4,288 elective knee or hip arthroplasties in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis who received infliximab within 6 months prior to the operation during 2007-2013 (Arthritis Care Res. 2017 Jan 27. doi: 10.1002/acr.23209).

The patients had to have received infliximab at least three times within a year of their procedure to establish that they were receiving stable therapy over a long-term period. The investigators also looked at oral prednisone, prednisolone, and methylprednisolone prescriptions and used data on average dosing to determine how much was administered to each subject.

“Although previous studies have treated TNF stopping vs. not stopping as a dichotomous exposure based on an arbitrary (and variable) stopping definition, in this study the primary analysis evaluated stop timing as a more general categorical exposure using 4-week intervals (half the standard rheumatoid arthritis dosing interval) to allow better assessment of the optimal stop timing,” the authors explained.

Stopping infliximab within 4 weeks of the operation did not significantly influence the rate of serious infection within 30 days (adjusted odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.60-1.34) and neither did stopping within 4-8 weeks (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.62-1.36) when compared against stopping 8-12 weeks before surgery. Of the 4,288 arthroplasties, 270 serious infections (6.3%) occurred within 30 days of the operation.

There also was no significant difference between stopping within 4 weeks and 8-12 weeks in the rate of prosthetic joint infection within 1 year of the operation (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.52-1.87). Overall, prosthetic joint infection occurred 2.9 times per 100 person-years.

However, glucocorticoid doses of more than 10 mg per day were risky. The odds for a serious infection within 30 days after surgery more than doubled with that level of use (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.30-3.40), while the risk for a prosthetic joint infection within 1 year of the surgery also rose significantly (HR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.30-5.60).

[email protected]

Administration of infliximab within 4 weeks of elective knee or hip arthroplasty did not have any significant effect on patients’ risk of serious infection after surgery, whereas the use of glucocorticoids increased that risk, in an analysis of a Medicare claims database.

“This increased risk with glucocorticoids has been suggested by previous studies [and] although this risk may be related in part to increased disease severity among glucocorticoid treated patients, a direct medication effect is likely. [These data suggest] that prolonged interruptions in infliximab therapy prior to surgery may be counterproductive if higher dose glucocorticoid therapy is used in substitution,” wrote the authors of the new study, led by Michael D. George, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

Dr. George and his colleagues examined data from the U.S. Medicare claims system on 4,288 elective knee or hip arthroplasties in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis who received infliximab within 6 months prior to the operation during 2007-2013 (Arthritis Care Res. 2017 Jan 27. doi: 10.1002/acr.23209).

The patients had to have received infliximab at least three times within a year of their procedure to establish that they were receiving stable therapy over a long-term period. The investigators also looked at oral prednisone, prednisolone, and methylprednisolone prescriptions and used data on average dosing to determine how much was administered to each subject.

“Although previous studies have treated TNF stopping vs. not stopping as a dichotomous exposure based on an arbitrary (and variable) stopping definition, in this study the primary analysis evaluated stop timing as a more general categorical exposure using 4-week intervals (half the standard rheumatoid arthritis dosing interval) to allow better assessment of the optimal stop timing,” the authors explained.

Stopping infliximab within 4 weeks of the operation did not significantly influence the rate of serious infection within 30 days (adjusted odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.60-1.34) and neither did stopping within 4-8 weeks (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.62-1.36) when compared against stopping 8-12 weeks before surgery. Of the 4,288 arthroplasties, 270 serious infections (6.3%) occurred within 30 days of the operation.

There also was no significant difference between stopping within 4 weeks and 8-12 weeks in the rate of prosthetic joint infection within 1 year of the operation (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.52-1.87). Overall, prosthetic joint infection occurred 2.9 times per 100 person-years.

However, glucocorticoid doses of more than 10 mg per day were risky. The odds for a serious infection within 30 days after surgery more than doubled with that level of use (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.30-3.40), while the risk for a prosthetic joint infection within 1 year of the surgery also rose significantly (HR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.30-5.60).

[email protected]

Psoriasis is a chronic, relapsing, inflammatory systemic disorder of the skin with an incidence of 2% to 3% and is estimated to affect 125 million individuals worldwide.¹ Environmental triggers of disease modulation may include cutaneous microbiota, smoking, alcohol use, drugs (ie, beta-blockers, lithium, antimalarials), stress, and trauma.² Comorbidities associated with cutaneous lesions include psoriatic arthritis, Crohn disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, stroke, and cardiovascular disease.³ In some studies, patients with psoriasis also had a 24% to 27% increased propensity for periodontal bone loss versus 10% of controls.^4,5

Oral psoriasis is rare and case reports have been preferentially published in dental journals, usually with regard to glossal lesions, leaving gingival and palatal psoriatic involvement infrequently reported in the dermatologic literature.^6,7 In fact, oral assessments involving 535 psoriatic patients from a dermatology center only yielded cases of geographic and fissured tongue.⁸ Another study at a psoriasis clinic found 3.8% (21/547) of patients with geographic tongue, 3.1% (17/547) with buccal mucosal plaques, and only 0.4% (2/547) with palatal lesions.⁹ To extend the knowledge of oral psoriasis, we provide the clinical and histopathologic findings of a patient with synchronous oral and cutaneous psoriatic lesions that responded well to the administration of adalimumab for management of recurrent cutaneous disease.

Case Report

A 51-year-old man presented to the attending periodontist for comprehensive treatment of multiple quadrants of gingival recession. His medical history was remarkable for psoriasis; Prinzmetal angina, which led to myocardial infarction; and diverticulitis. The cutaneous psoriasis began approximately 18 years prior to the current presentation and was initially managed with various topical therapeutics. At an 11-year follow-up, the patient was experiencing poor lesional control as well as severe pruritus and was prescribed etanercept by a dermatologist. His inconsistent compliance with frequency and dosing failed to achieve satisfactory disease suppression and etanercept was discontinued after approximately 2.5 years. Two years later the patient was switched to adalimumab by a dermatologist, and around this time he had developed psoriatic arthritis of the hands and knees and pitting of the nail plates. The patient elected to discontinue adalimumab usage after 3 years due to successful management of the skin lesions, cost considerations, and his perception that the psoriasis could “remain in remission.” After a 6-month lapse, the patient resumed adalimumab due to cutaneous lesional recurrence (Figure 1A).

At the current presentation, an oral examination performed 2 days after the reinstitution of adalim-umab revealed generalized severe gingivitis with an atypical inflammatory response that extended from just beyond the mucogingival junction to the marginal gingiva. The gingiva also appeared edematous with a conspicuously granular surface (Figure 1B). The hard palate displayed multiple red macules of varying sizes (Figure 1C). A maxillary gingival biopsy demonstrated hyperkeratosis, parakeratosis, spongiosis, acanthosis, elongation of the rete ridges, numerous collections of neutrophils (Munro microabscesses), and abundant lymphocytes in the subjacent connective tissue (Figure 2). Periodic acid–Schiff staining was negative for fungal hyphae. These features were consistent with oral mucosal psoriasis.

Comment

Psoriasis of the oral cavity is rare and typically occurs on the tongue and less frequently on the hard palate, lip, buccal mucosa, and gingiva.^2,7 The lesions are almost always concordant with cutaneous psoriasis, and only sporadic examples exclusive to the oral mucosa have been recognized.^7,10 Gingival psoriasis usually is described as intensely erythematous and occasionally laced with white scaly streaks involving the marginal gingiva that extend toward the mucogingival junction. In general, the erythematous presentation of gingival psoriasis may not be commensurate with the degree of inflammation induced by dental plaque-based periodontal disease. Doben¹¹ documented gingival psoriasis as appearing “deeply stippled and grainy” and commented that the tissue was “friable” and incapable of maintaining a “clean incision line” during periodontal surgery. In our patient, the gingiva also had exhibited a granular surface. Patients with oral psoriasis often report soreness or a burning sensation of the gingiva, which may easily bleed on manipulation or brushing the teeth, whereas other patients are asymptomatic,¹² as in our case. Psoriasis of the hard palate usually presents as multiple painless red macules. Unlike cutaneous psoriasis, oral lesions rarely evoke pruritus.¹⁰ Histopathologically, oral psoriasis bears a striking resemblance to its cutaneous counterpart. The epithelium has a pronounced parakeratinized surface with elongated rete ridges and aggregations of Munro microabscesses. The connective tissue often is composed of dilated capillaries that closely approximate the epithelium as well as infiltrations of lymphocytes. Specimens suspected for oral psoriasis should routinely be stained with periodic acid–Schiff to rule out candidiasis coinfection. The microscopic findings of our patient were congruent with prior reports of oral psoriasis.^7,10-12 Some clinicians have questioned if psoriasis can actually occur in the oral cavity, but most authorities in the field have recognized its true existence, as evidenced by various shared HLA antigens, specifically HLA-Cw.¹³

Another group of oral lesions collectively referred to as psoriasiform mucositis, notably geographic tongue (benign migratory glossitis, erythema migrans) and its extraglossal variant geographic stomatitis,^14,15 have histopathologic features and HLAs similar to those seen in cutaneous psoriasis.¹³ Interestingly, geographic tongue has been found in 3.8% to 9.1% of cohorts with cutaneous psoriasis,^8,9 but in the extant population, the vast majority of patients with oral psoriasiform mucositis do not have cutaneous psoriasis. Other differential diagnoses for gingival psoriasis are lichen planus, human immunodeficiency virus–associated periodontitis, desquamative gingivitis, plasma cell gingivitis, erythematous candidiasis, mucous membrane pemphigoid, pemphigus vulgaris, leukemia, systemic lupus erythematosus, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, orofacial granulomatosis, localized juvenile spongiotic gingivitis hyperplasia, and primary gingivostomatitis.

Management of gingival psoriasis focuses on strategies to reduce inflammation and discomfort and measures to achieve meticulous oral plaque control. Judicious efforts should be exercised to avoid oral soft-tissue injury when performing periodontal scaling, although it has not been established whether gingival psoriasis is associated with the Köbner phenomenon, as seen with cutaneous lesions. Adjunctive measures employed for symptomatic patients have involved the use of corticosteroids (eg, lesional injection, oral rinse, systemic) and oral rinses with retinoic acid, chlorhexidine gluconate, and warm saline.^7,10,16 Prolonged utilization of corticosteroids, however, may necessitate supplemental administration of antifungal agents.

This case report represents a rare documentation of a successful outcome of gingival and palatal psoriasis subsequent to the reinstitution of adalimumab solely for treatment of recurrent cutaneous disease. There likely is a pharmacologic basis for the amelioration of oral psoriasis in our patient. Adalimumab is a bivalent IgG monoclonal antibody that binds to activated dermal dendritic cell receptors of tumor necrosis factor α, thereby attenuating a cytokine-derived inflammatory response and apoptosis.¹⁷ In fact, patients with rheumatoid arthritis showed notable reductions in both gingival inflammation and bleeding following a 3-month regimen of adalimumab.¹⁸

Conclusion

Practitioners should be aware of the phenotypic overlap of cutaneous and oral psoriasis, particularly involving the gingiva and palate. It is recommended that psoriasis patients routinely receive a dental prophylaxis and engage in oral hygiene efforts to reduce the presence of oral microbiota. Furthermore, it is emphasized that psoriatic patients who maintain an atypical erythematous presentation on the oral mucosa undergo a biopsy for identification of the lesions and correlation with disease dissemination. Prospective studies are needed to characterize the clinical courses of oral psoriasis, ascertain their correlative behavior with cutaneous flares, and determine if lesional improvement can be achieved with the use of biologic agents or other therapeutic modalities.

Psoriasis is a chronic, relapsing, inflammatory systemic disorder of the skin with an incidence of 2% to 3% and is estimated to affect 125 million individuals worldwide.¹ Environmental triggers of disease modulation may include cutaneous microbiota, smoking, alcohol use, drugs (ie, beta-blockers, lithium, antimalarials), stress, and trauma.² Comorbidities associated with cutaneous lesions include psoriatic arthritis, Crohn disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, stroke, and cardiovascular disease.³ In some studies, patients with psoriasis also had a 24% to 27% increased propensity for periodontal bone loss versus 10% of controls.^4,5

Oral psoriasis is rare and case reports have been preferentially published in dental journals, usually with regard to glossal lesions, leaving gingival and palatal psoriatic involvement infrequently reported in the dermatologic literature.^6,7 In fact, oral assessments involving 535 psoriatic patients from a dermatology center only yielded cases of geographic and fissured tongue.⁸ Another study at a psoriasis clinic found 3.8% (21/547) of patients with geographic tongue, 3.1% (17/547) with buccal mucosal plaques, and only 0.4% (2/547) with palatal lesions.⁹ To extend the knowledge of oral psoriasis, we provide the clinical and histopathologic findings of a patient with synchronous oral and cutaneous psoriatic lesions that responded well to the administration of adalimumab for management of recurrent cutaneous disease.

Case Report

A 51-year-old man presented to the attending periodontist for comprehensive treatment of multiple quadrants of gingival recession. His medical history was remarkable for psoriasis; Prinzmetal angina, which led to myocardial infarction; and diverticulitis. The cutaneous psoriasis began approximately 18 years prior to the current presentation and was initially managed with various topical therapeutics. At an 11-year follow-up, the patient was experiencing poor lesional control as well as severe pruritus and was prescribed etanercept by a dermatologist. His inconsistent compliance with frequency and dosing failed to achieve satisfactory disease suppression and etanercept was discontinued after approximately 2.5 years. Two years later the patient was switched to adalimumab by a dermatologist, and around this time he had developed psoriatic arthritis of the hands and knees and pitting of the nail plates. The patient elected to discontinue adalimumab usage after 3 years due to successful management of the skin lesions, cost considerations, and his perception that the psoriasis could “remain in remission.” After a 6-month lapse, the patient resumed adalimumab due to cutaneous lesional recurrence (Figure 1A).

At the current presentation, an oral examination performed 2 days after the reinstitution of adalim-umab revealed generalized severe gingivitis with an atypical inflammatory response that extended from just beyond the mucogingival junction to the marginal gingiva. The gingiva also appeared edematous with a conspicuously granular surface (Figure 1B). The hard palate displayed multiple red macules of varying sizes (Figure 1C). A maxillary gingival biopsy demonstrated hyperkeratosis, parakeratosis, spongiosis, acanthosis, elongation of the rete ridges, numerous collections of neutrophils (Munro microabscesses), and abundant lymphocytes in the subjacent connective tissue (Figure 2). Periodic acid–Schiff staining was negative for fungal hyphae. These features were consistent with oral mucosal psoriasis.

Comment

Psoriasis of the oral cavity is rare and typically occurs on the tongue and less frequently on the hard palate, lip, buccal mucosa, and gingiva.^2,7 The lesions are almost always concordant with cutaneous psoriasis, and only sporadic examples exclusive to the oral mucosa have been recognized.^7,10 Gingival psoriasis usually is described as intensely erythematous and occasionally laced with white scaly streaks involving the marginal gingiva that extend toward the mucogingival junction. In general, the erythematous presentation of gingival psoriasis may not be commensurate with the degree of inflammation induced by dental plaque-based periodontal disease. Doben¹¹ documented gingival psoriasis as appearing “deeply stippled and grainy” and commented that the tissue was “friable” and incapable of maintaining a “clean incision line” during periodontal surgery. In our patient, the gingiva also had exhibited a granular surface. Patients with oral psoriasis often report soreness or a burning sensation of the gingiva, which may easily bleed on manipulation or brushing the teeth, whereas other patients are asymptomatic,¹² as in our case. Psoriasis of the hard palate usually presents as multiple painless red macules. Unlike cutaneous psoriasis, oral lesions rarely evoke pruritus.¹⁰ Histopathologically, oral psoriasis bears a striking resemblance to its cutaneous counterpart. The epithelium has a pronounced parakeratinized surface with elongated rete ridges and aggregations of Munro microabscesses. The connective tissue often is composed of dilated capillaries that closely approximate the epithelium as well as infiltrations of lymphocytes. Specimens suspected for oral psoriasis should routinely be stained with periodic acid–Schiff to rule out candidiasis coinfection. The microscopic findings of our patient were congruent with prior reports of oral psoriasis.^7,10-12 Some clinicians have questioned if psoriasis can actually occur in the oral cavity, but most authorities in the field have recognized its true existence, as evidenced by various shared HLA antigens, specifically HLA-Cw.¹³

Another group of oral lesions collectively referred to as psoriasiform mucositis, notably geographic tongue (benign migratory glossitis, erythema migrans) and its extraglossal variant geographic stomatitis,^14,15 have histopathologic features and HLAs similar to those seen in cutaneous psoriasis.¹³ Interestingly, geographic tongue has been found in 3.8% to 9.1% of cohorts with cutaneous psoriasis,^8,9 but in the extant population, the vast majority of patients with oral psoriasiform mucositis do not have cutaneous psoriasis. Other differential diagnoses for gingival psoriasis are lichen planus, human immunodeficiency virus–associated periodontitis, desquamative gingivitis, plasma cell gingivitis, erythematous candidiasis, mucous membrane pemphigoid, pemphigus vulgaris, leukemia, systemic lupus erythematosus, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, orofacial granulomatosis, localized juvenile spongiotic gingivitis hyperplasia, and primary gingivostomatitis.

Management of gingival psoriasis focuses on strategies to reduce inflammation and discomfort and measures to achieve meticulous oral plaque control. Judicious efforts should be exercised to avoid oral soft-tissue injury when performing periodontal scaling, although it has not been established whether gingival psoriasis is associated with the Köbner phenomenon, as seen with cutaneous lesions. Adjunctive measures employed for symptomatic patients have involved the use of corticosteroids (eg, lesional injection, oral rinse, systemic) and oral rinses with retinoic acid, chlorhexidine gluconate, and warm saline.^7,10,16 Prolonged utilization of corticosteroids, however, may necessitate supplemental administration of antifungal agents.

This case report represents a rare documentation of a successful outcome of gingival and palatal psoriasis subsequent to the reinstitution of adalimumab solely for treatment of recurrent cutaneous disease. There likely is a pharmacologic basis for the amelioration of oral psoriasis in our patient. Adalimumab is a bivalent IgG monoclonal antibody that binds to activated dermal dendritic cell receptors of tumor necrosis factor α, thereby attenuating a cytokine-derived inflammatory response and apoptosis.¹⁷ In fact, patients with rheumatoid arthritis showed notable reductions in both gingival inflammation and bleeding following a 3-month regimen of adalimumab.¹⁸

Conclusion

Practitioners should be aware of the phenotypic overlap of cutaneous and oral psoriasis, particularly involving the gingiva and palate. It is recommended that psoriasis patients routinely receive a dental prophylaxis and engage in oral hygiene efforts to reduce the presence of oral microbiota. Furthermore, it is emphasized that psoriatic patients who maintain an atypical erythematous presentation on the oral mucosa undergo a biopsy for identification of the lesions and correlation with disease dissemination. Prospective studies are needed to characterize the clinical courses of oral psoriasis, ascertain their correlative behavior with cutaneous flares, and determine if lesional improvement can be achieved with the use of biologic agents or other therapeutic modalities.

Psoriasis is a chronic, relapsing, inflammatory systemic disorder of the skin with an incidence of 2% to 3% and is estimated to affect 125 million individuals worldwide.¹ Environmental triggers of disease modulation may include cutaneous microbiota, smoking, alcohol use, drugs (ie, beta-blockers, lithium, antimalarials), stress, and trauma.² Comorbidities associated with cutaneous lesions include psoriatic arthritis, Crohn disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, stroke, and cardiovascular disease.³ In some studies, patients with psoriasis also had a 24% to 27% increased propensity for periodontal bone loss versus 10% of controls.^4,5

Oral psoriasis is rare and case reports have been preferentially published in dental journals, usually with regard to glossal lesions, leaving gingival and palatal psoriatic involvement infrequently reported in the dermatologic literature.^6,7 In fact, oral assessments involving 535 psoriatic patients from a dermatology center only yielded cases of geographic and fissured tongue.⁸ Another study at a psoriasis clinic found 3.8% (21/547) of patients with geographic tongue, 3.1% (17/547) with buccal mucosal plaques, and only 0.4% (2/547) with palatal lesions.⁹ To extend the knowledge of oral psoriasis, we provide the clinical and histopathologic findings of a patient with synchronous oral and cutaneous psoriatic lesions that responded well to the administration of adalimumab for management of recurrent cutaneous disease.

Case Report

A 51-year-old man presented to the attending periodontist for comprehensive treatment of multiple quadrants of gingival recession. His medical history was remarkable for psoriasis; Prinzmetal angina, which led to myocardial infarction; and diverticulitis. The cutaneous psoriasis began approximately 18 years prior to the current presentation and was initially managed with various topical therapeutics. At an 11-year follow-up, the patient was experiencing poor lesional control as well as severe pruritus and was prescribed etanercept by a dermatologist. His inconsistent compliance with frequency and dosing failed to achieve satisfactory disease suppression and etanercept was discontinued after approximately 2.5 years. Two years later the patient was switched to adalimumab by a dermatologist, and around this time he had developed psoriatic arthritis of the hands and knees and pitting of the nail plates. The patient elected to discontinue adalimumab usage after 3 years due to successful management of the skin lesions, cost considerations, and his perception that the psoriasis could “remain in remission.” After a 6-month lapse, the patient resumed adalimumab due to cutaneous lesional recurrence (Figure 1A).

At the current presentation, an oral examination performed 2 days after the reinstitution of adalim-umab revealed generalized severe gingivitis with an atypical inflammatory response that extended from just beyond the mucogingival junction to the marginal gingiva. The gingiva also appeared edematous with a conspicuously granular surface (Figure 1B). The hard palate displayed multiple red macules of varying sizes (Figure 1C). A maxillary gingival biopsy demonstrated hyperkeratosis, parakeratosis, spongiosis, acanthosis, elongation of the rete ridges, numerous collections of neutrophils (Munro microabscesses), and abundant lymphocytes in the subjacent connective tissue (Figure 2). Periodic acid–Schiff staining was negative for fungal hyphae. These features were consistent with oral mucosal psoriasis.

Comment

Psoriasis of the oral cavity is rare and typically occurs on the tongue and less frequently on the hard palate, lip, buccal mucosa, and gingiva.^2,7 The lesions are almost always concordant with cutaneous psoriasis, and only sporadic examples exclusive to the oral mucosa have been recognized.^7,10 Gingival psoriasis usually is described as intensely erythematous and occasionally laced with white scaly streaks involving the marginal gingiva that extend toward the mucogingival junction. In general, the erythematous presentation of gingival psoriasis may not be commensurate with the degree of inflammation induced by dental plaque-based periodontal disease. Doben¹¹ documented gingival psoriasis as appearing “deeply stippled and grainy” and commented that the tissue was “friable” and incapable of maintaining a “clean incision line” during periodontal surgery. In our patient, the gingiva also had exhibited a granular surface. Patients with oral psoriasis often report soreness or a burning sensation of the gingiva, which may easily bleed on manipulation or brushing the teeth, whereas other patients are asymptomatic,¹² as in our case. Psoriasis of the hard palate usually presents as multiple painless red macules. Unlike cutaneous psoriasis, oral lesions rarely evoke pruritus.¹⁰ Histopathologically, oral psoriasis bears a striking resemblance to its cutaneous counterpart. The epithelium has a pronounced parakeratinized surface with elongated rete ridges and aggregations of Munro microabscesses. The connective tissue often is composed of dilated capillaries that closely approximate the epithelium as well as infiltrations of lymphocytes. Specimens suspected for oral psoriasis should routinely be stained with periodic acid–Schiff to rule out candidiasis coinfection. The microscopic findings of our patient were congruent with prior reports of oral psoriasis.^7,10-12 Some clinicians have questioned if psoriasis can actually occur in the oral cavity, but most authorities in the field have recognized its true existence, as evidenced by various shared HLA antigens, specifically HLA-Cw.¹³

Another group of oral lesions collectively referred to as psoriasiform mucositis, notably geographic tongue (benign migratory glossitis, erythema migrans) and its extraglossal variant geographic stomatitis,^14,15 have histopathologic features and HLAs similar to those seen in cutaneous psoriasis.¹³ Interestingly, geographic tongue has been found in 3.8% to 9.1% of cohorts with cutaneous psoriasis,^8,9 but in the extant population, the vast majority of patients with oral psoriasiform mucositis do not have cutaneous psoriasis. Other differential diagnoses for gingival psoriasis are lichen planus, human immunodeficiency virus–associated periodontitis, desquamative gingivitis, plasma cell gingivitis, erythematous candidiasis, mucous membrane pemphigoid, pemphigus vulgaris, leukemia, systemic lupus erythematosus, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, orofacial granulomatosis, localized juvenile spongiotic gingivitis hyperplasia, and primary gingivostomatitis.

Management of gingival psoriasis focuses on strategies to reduce inflammation and discomfort and measures to achieve meticulous oral plaque control. Judicious efforts should be exercised to avoid oral soft-tissue injury when performing periodontal scaling, although it has not been established whether gingival psoriasis is associated with the Köbner phenomenon, as seen with cutaneous lesions. Adjunctive measures employed for symptomatic patients have involved the use of corticosteroids (eg, lesional injection, oral rinse, systemic) and oral rinses with retinoic acid, chlorhexidine gluconate, and warm saline.^7,10,16 Prolonged utilization of corticosteroids, however, may necessitate supplemental administration of antifungal agents.

This case report represents a rare documentation of a successful outcome of gingival and palatal psoriasis subsequent to the reinstitution of adalimumab solely for treatment of recurrent cutaneous disease. There likely is a pharmacologic basis for the amelioration of oral psoriasis in our patient. Adalimumab is a bivalent IgG monoclonal antibody that binds to activated dermal dendritic cell receptors of tumor necrosis factor α, thereby attenuating a cytokine-derived inflammatory response and apoptosis.¹⁷ In fact, patients with rheumatoid arthritis showed notable reductions in both gingival inflammation and bleeding following a 3-month regimen of adalimumab.¹⁸

Conclusion

Practitioners should be aware of the phenotypic overlap of cutaneous and oral psoriasis, particularly involving the gingiva and palate. It is recommended that psoriasis patients routinely receive a dental prophylaxis and engage in oral hygiene efforts to reduce the presence of oral microbiota. Furthermore, it is emphasized that psoriatic patients who maintain an atypical erythematous presentation on the oral mucosa undergo a biopsy for identification of the lesions and correlation with disease dissemination. Prospective studies are needed to characterize the clinical courses of oral psoriasis, ascertain their correlative behavior with cutaneous flares, and determine if lesional improvement can be achieved with the use of biologic agents or other therapeutic modalities.

According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a biosimilar is “highly similar to an FDA-approved biological product, . . . and has no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety and effectiveness.”¹ The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation (BPCI) Act of 2009 created an expedited pathway for the approval of products shown to be biosimilar to FDA-licensed reference products.² In 2013, the European Medicines Agency approved the first biosimilar modeled on infliximab (Remsima [formerly known as CT-P13], Celltrion Healthcare Co, Ltd) for the same indications as its reference product.³ In 2016, the FDA approved Inflectra (Hospira, a Pfizer Company), an infliximab biosimilar; Erelzi (Sandoz, a Novartis Division), an etanercept biosimilar; and Amjevita (Amgen Inc), an adalimumab biosimilar, all for numerous clinical indications including plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.^4-6

There has been a substantial amount of distrust surrounding the biosimilars; however, as the patents for the biologic agents expire, new biosimilars will undoubtedly flood the market. In this article, we provide information that will help dermatologists understand the need for and use of these agents.

Biosimilars Versus Generic Drugs

Small-molecule generics can be made in a process that is relatively inexpensive, reproducible, and able to yield identical products with each lot.⁷ In contrast, biosimilars are large complex proteins made in living cells. They differ from their reference product because of changes that occur during manufacturing (eg, purification system, posttranslational modifications).^7-9 Glycosylation is particularly sensitive to manufacturing and can affect the immunogenicity of the product.⁹ The impact of manufacturing can be substantial; for example, during phase 3 trials for efalizumab, a change in the manufacturing facility affected pharmacokinetic properties to such a degree that the FDA required a repeat of the trials.¹⁰

FDA Guidelines on Biosimilarity

The FDA outlines the following approach to demonstrate biosimilarity.² The first step is structural characterization to evaluate the primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structures and posttranslational modifications. The next step utilizes in vivo and/or in vitro functional assays to compare the biosimilar and reference product. The third step is a focus on toxicity and immunogenicity. The fourth step involves clinical studies to study pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data, immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy. After the biosimilar has been approved, there must be a system in place to monitor postmarketing safety. If a biosimilar is tested in one patient population (eg, patients with plaque psoriasis), a request can be made to approve the drug for all the conditions that the reference product was approved for, such as plaque psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease, even though clinical trials were not performed in all of these patient populations.² The BPCI Act leaves it up to the FDA to determine how much and what type of data (eg, in vitro, in vivo, clinical) are required.¹¹

Extrapolation and Interchangeability

Once a biosimilar has been approved, 2 questions must be answered: First, can its use be extrapolated to all indications for the reference product? The infliximab biosimilar approved by the European Medicines Agency and the FDA had only been studied in patients with ankylosing spondylitis¹² and rheumatoid arthritis,¹³ yet it was granted all the indications for infliximab, including severe plaque psoriasis.¹⁴ As of now, the various regulatory agencies differ on their policies regarding extrapolation. Extrapolation is not automatically bestowed on a biosimilar in the United States but can be requested by the manufacturer.²

Second, can the biosimilar be seamlessly switched with its reference product at the pharmacy level? The BPCI Act allows for the substitution of biosimilars that are deemed interchangeable without notifying the provider, yet individual states ultimately can pass laws regarding this issue.^15,16 An interchangeable agent would “produce the same clinical result as the reference product,” and “the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between use of the biological product and the reference product is not greater than the risk of using the reference product.”¹⁵ Generic drugs are allowed to be substituted without notifying the patient or prescriber¹⁶; however, biosimilars that are not deemed interchangeable would require permission from the prescriber before substitution.¹¹

Biosimilars for Psoriasis

In April 2016, an infliximab biosimilar (Inflectra) became the second biosimilar approved by the FDA.⁴ Inflectra was studied in clinical trials for patients with ankylosing spondylitis¹⁷ and rheumatoid arthritis,¹⁸ and in both trials the biosimilar was found to have similar efficacy and safety profiles to that of the reference product. In August 2016, an etanercept biosimilar (Erelzi) was approved,⁵ and in September 2016, an adalimumab biosimilar (Amjevita) was approved.⁶

The Table summarizes clinical trials (both completed and ongoing) evaluating biosimilars in adults with plaque psoriasis; thus far, there are 2464 participants enrolled across 5 different studies of adalimumab biosimilars (registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov with the identifiers NCT01970488, NCT02016105, NCT02489227, NCT02714322, NCT02581345) and 531 participants in an etanercept biosimilar study (NCT01891864).

A phase 3 double-blind study compared adalimumab to an adalimumab biosimilar (ABP 501) in 350 adults with plaque psoriasis (NCT01970488). Participants received an initial loading dose of adalimumab (n=175) or ABP 501 (n=175) 80 mg subcutaneously on week 1/day 1, followed by 40 mg at week 2 every 2 weeks thereafter. At week 16, participants with psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) 50 or greater remained in the study for up to 52 weeks; those who were receiving adalimumab were re-randomized to receive either ABP 501 or adalimumab. Participants receiving ABP 501 continued to receive the biosimilar. The mean PASI improvement at weeks 16, 32, and 50 was 86.6, 87.6, and 87.2, respectively, in the ABP 501/ABP 501 group (A/A) compared to 88.0, 88.2, and 88.1, respectively, in the adalimumab/adalimumab group (B/B).¹⁹ Autoantibodies developed in 68.4% of participants in the A/A group compared to 74.7% in the B/B group. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was 86.2% in the A/A group and 78.5% in the B/B group. The most common TEAEs were nasopharyngitis, headache, and upper respiratory tract infection. The incidence of serious TEAEs was 4.6% in the A/A group compared to 5.1% in the B/B group. Overall, the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the adalimumab biosimilar was comparable to the reference product.¹⁹

A second phase 3 trial (ADACCESS) evaluated the adalimumab biosimilar GP2017 (NCT02016105). Participants received an initial dose of 80 mg subcutaneously of either GP2017 or adalimumab at week 0, followed by 40 mg every other week starting at week 1 and ending at week 51. The study has been completed but results are not yet available.

The third trial is evaluating the adalimumab biosimilar CHS-1420 (NCT02489227). Participants in the experimental arm receive two 40-mg doses of CHS-1420 at week 0/day 0, and then 1 dose every 2 weeks from week 1 for 23 weeks. At week 24, participants continue with an open-label study. Participants in the adalimumab group receive two 40-mg doses at week 0/day 0, and then 1 dose every 2 weeks from week 1 to week 15. At week 16, participants will be re-randomized (1:1) to continue adalimumab or start CHS-1420 at one 40-mg dose every 2 weeks during weeks 17 to 23. At week 24, participants will switch to CHS-1420 open label until the end of the study. Study results are not yet available; the study is ongoing but not recruiting.

The fourth ongoing trial is evaluating the adalimumab biosimilar MYL-1401A (NCT02714322). Participants receive an initial dose of 80 mg subcutaneously of either MYL-1401A or adalimumab (2:1), followed by 40 mg every other week starting 1 week after the initial dose. After the 52-week treatment period, there is an 8-week safety follow-up period. Study results are not yet available; the study is ongoing but not recruiting.

A fifth adalimumab biosimilar, M923, also is currently being tested in clinical trials (NCT02581345). Participants receive either M923, adalimumab, or alternate between the 2 agents. Although the study is still ongoing, data released from the manufacturer state that the proportion of participants who achieved PASI 75 after 16 weeks of treatment was equivalent in the 2 treatment groups. The proportion of participants who achieved PASI 90, as well as the type, frequency, and severity of adverse events, also were comparable.²⁰

The EGALITY trial, completed in March 2015, compared the etanercept biosimilar GP2015 to etanercept over a 52-week period (NCT01891864). Participants received either GP2015 or etanercept 50 mg twice weekly for the first 12 weeks. Participants with at least PASI 50 were then re-randomized into 4 groups: the first 2 groups stayed with their current treatments while the other 2 groups alternated treatments every 6 weeks until week 30. Participants then stayed on their last treatment from week 30 to week 52. The adjusted PASI 75 response rate at week 12 was 73.4% in the group receiving GP2015 and 75.7% in the group receiving etanercept.²¹ The percentage change in PASI score at all time points was found to be comparable from baseline until week 52. Importantly, the incidence of TEAEs up to week 52 was comparable and no new safety issues were reported. Additionally, switching participants from etanercept to the biosimilar during the subsequent treatment periods did not cause an increase in formation of antidrug antibodies.²¹

There are 2 upcoming studies involving biosimilars that are not yet recruiting patients. The first (NCT02925338) will analyze the characteristics of patients treated with Inflectra as well as their response to treatment. The second (NCT02762955) will be comparing the efficacy and safety of an adalimumab biosimilar (BCD-057, BIOCAD) to adalimumab.

Economic Advantages of Biosimilars

The annual economic burden of psoriasis in the United States is substantial, with estimates between $35.2 billion²² and $112 billion.²³ Biosimilars can be 25% to 30% cheaper than their reference products^9,11,24 and have the potential to save the US health care system billions of dollars.²⁵ Furthermore, the developers of biosimilars could offer patient assistance programs.¹¹ That being said, drug developers can extend patents for their branded drugs; for instance, 2 patents for Enbrel (Amgen Inc) could protect the drug until 2029.^26,27

Although cost is an important factor in deciding which medications to prescribe for patients, it should never take precedence over safety and efficacy. Manufacturers can develop new drugs with greater efficacy, fewer side effects, or more convenient dosing schedules,^26,27 or they could offer co-payment assistance programs.^26,28 Physicians also must consider how the biosimilars will be integrated into drug formularies. Would patients be required to use a biosimilar before a branded drug?^11,29 Will patients already taking a branded drug be grandfathered in?¹¹ Would they have to pay a premium to continue taking their drug? And finally, could changes in formularies and employer-payer relationships destabilize patient regimens?³⁰

Conclusion

Preliminary results suggest that biosimilars can have similar safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity data compared to their reference products.^19,21 Biosimilars have the potential to greatly reduce the cost burden associated with psoriasis. However, how similar is “highly similar”? Although cost is an important consideration in selecting drug therapies, the reason for using a biosimilar should never be based on cost alone.

According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a biosimilar is “highly similar to an FDA-approved biological product, . . . and has no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety and effectiveness.”¹ The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation (BPCI) Act of 2009 created an expedited pathway for the approval of products shown to be biosimilar to FDA-licensed reference products.² In 2013, the European Medicines Agency approved the first biosimilar modeled on infliximab (Remsima [formerly known as CT-P13], Celltrion Healthcare Co, Ltd) for the same indications as its reference product.³ In 2016, the FDA approved Inflectra (Hospira, a Pfizer Company), an infliximab biosimilar; Erelzi (Sandoz, a Novartis Division), an etanercept biosimilar; and Amjevita (Amgen Inc), an adalimumab biosimilar, all for numerous clinical indications including plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.^4-6

There has been a substantial amount of distrust surrounding the biosimilars; however, as the patents for the biologic agents expire, new biosimilars will undoubtedly flood the market. In this article, we provide information that will help dermatologists understand the need for and use of these agents.

Biosimilars Versus Generic Drugs

Small-molecule generics can be made in a process that is relatively inexpensive, reproducible, and able to yield identical products with each lot.⁷ In contrast, biosimilars are large complex proteins made in living cells. They differ from their reference product because of changes that occur during manufacturing (eg, purification system, posttranslational modifications).^7-9 Glycosylation is particularly sensitive to manufacturing and can affect the immunogenicity of the product.⁹ The impact of manufacturing can be substantial; for example, during phase 3 trials for efalizumab, a change in the manufacturing facility affected pharmacokinetic properties to such a degree that the FDA required a repeat of the trials.¹⁰

FDA Guidelines on Biosimilarity

The FDA outlines the following approach to demonstrate biosimilarity.² The first step is structural characterization to evaluate the primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structures and posttranslational modifications. The next step utilizes in vivo and/or in vitro functional assays to compare the biosimilar and reference product. The third step is a focus on toxicity and immunogenicity. The fourth step involves clinical studies to study pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data, immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy. After the biosimilar has been approved, there must be a system in place to monitor postmarketing safety. If a biosimilar is tested in one patient population (eg, patients with plaque psoriasis), a request can be made to approve the drug for all the conditions that the reference product was approved for, such as plaque psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease, even though clinical trials were not performed in all of these patient populations.² The BPCI Act leaves it up to the FDA to determine how much and what type of data (eg, in vitro, in vivo, clinical) are required.¹¹

Extrapolation and Interchangeability

Once a biosimilar has been approved, 2 questions must be answered: First, can its use be extrapolated to all indications for the reference product? The infliximab biosimilar approved by the European Medicines Agency and the FDA had only been studied in patients with ankylosing spondylitis¹² and rheumatoid arthritis,¹³ yet it was granted all the indications for infliximab, including severe plaque psoriasis.¹⁴ As of now, the various regulatory agencies differ on their policies regarding extrapolation. Extrapolation is not automatically bestowed on a biosimilar in the United States but can be requested by the manufacturer.²

Second, can the biosimilar be seamlessly switched with its reference product at the pharmacy level? The BPCI Act allows for the substitution of biosimilars that are deemed interchangeable without notifying the provider, yet individual states ultimately can pass laws regarding this issue.^15,16 An interchangeable agent would “produce the same clinical result as the reference product,” and “the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between use of the biological product and the reference product is not greater than the risk of using the reference product.”¹⁵ Generic drugs are allowed to be substituted without notifying the patient or prescriber¹⁶; however, biosimilars that are not deemed interchangeable would require permission from the prescriber before substitution.¹¹

Biosimilars for Psoriasis

In April 2016, an infliximab biosimilar (Inflectra) became the second biosimilar approved by the FDA.⁴ Inflectra was studied in clinical trials for patients with ankylosing spondylitis¹⁷ and rheumatoid arthritis,¹⁸ and in both trials the biosimilar was found to have similar efficacy and safety profiles to that of the reference product. In August 2016, an etanercept biosimilar (Erelzi) was approved,⁵ and in September 2016, an adalimumab biosimilar (Amjevita) was approved.⁶

The Table summarizes clinical trials (both completed and ongoing) evaluating biosimilars in adults with plaque psoriasis; thus far, there are 2464 participants enrolled across 5 different studies of adalimumab biosimilars (registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov with the identifiers NCT01970488, NCT02016105, NCT02489227, NCT02714322, NCT02581345) and 531 participants in an etanercept biosimilar study (NCT01891864).

A phase 3 double-blind study compared adalimumab to an adalimumab biosimilar (ABP 501) in 350 adults with plaque psoriasis (NCT01970488). Participants received an initial loading dose of adalimumab (n=175) or ABP 501 (n=175) 80 mg subcutaneously on week 1/day 1, followed by 40 mg at week 2 every 2 weeks thereafter. At week 16, participants with psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) 50 or greater remained in the study for up to 52 weeks; those who were receiving adalimumab were re-randomized to receive either ABP 501 or adalimumab. Participants receiving ABP 501 continued to receive the biosimilar. The mean PASI improvement at weeks 16, 32, and 50 was 86.6, 87.6, and 87.2, respectively, in the ABP 501/ABP 501 group (A/A) compared to 88.0, 88.2, and 88.1, respectively, in the adalimumab/adalimumab group (B/B).¹⁹ Autoantibodies developed in 68.4% of participants in the A/A group compared to 74.7% in the B/B group. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was 86.2% in the A/A group and 78.5% in the B/B group. The most common TEAEs were nasopharyngitis, headache, and upper respiratory tract infection. The incidence of serious TEAEs was 4.6% in the A/A group compared to 5.1% in the B/B group. Overall, the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the adalimumab biosimilar was comparable to the reference product.¹⁹

A second phase 3 trial (ADACCESS) evaluated the adalimumab biosimilar GP2017 (NCT02016105). Participants received an initial dose of 80 mg subcutaneously of either GP2017 or adalimumab at week 0, followed by 40 mg every other week starting at week 1 and ending at week 51. The study has been completed but results are not yet available.

The third trial is evaluating the adalimumab biosimilar CHS-1420 (NCT02489227). Participants in the experimental arm receive two 40-mg doses of CHS-1420 at week 0/day 0, and then 1 dose every 2 weeks from week 1 for 23 weeks. At week 24, participants continue with an open-label study. Participants in the adalimumab group receive two 40-mg doses at week 0/day 0, and then 1 dose every 2 weeks from week 1 to week 15. At week 16, participants will be re-randomized (1:1) to continue adalimumab or start CHS-1420 at one 40-mg dose every 2 weeks during weeks 17 to 23. At week 24, participants will switch to CHS-1420 open label until the end of the study. Study results are not yet available; the study is ongoing but not recruiting.

The fourth ongoing trial is evaluating the adalimumab biosimilar MYL-1401A (NCT02714322). Participants receive an initial dose of 80 mg subcutaneously of either MYL-1401A or adalimumab (2:1), followed by 40 mg every other week starting 1 week after the initial dose. After the 52-week treatment period, there is an 8-week safety follow-up period. Study results are not yet available; the study is ongoing but not recruiting.

A fifth adalimumab biosimilar, M923, also is currently being tested in clinical trials (NCT02581345). Participants receive either M923, adalimumab, or alternate between the 2 agents. Although the study is still ongoing, data released from the manufacturer state that the proportion of participants who achieved PASI 75 after 16 weeks of treatment was equivalent in the 2 treatment groups. The proportion of participants who achieved PASI 90, as well as the type, frequency, and severity of adverse events, also were comparable.²⁰

The EGALITY trial, completed in March 2015, compared the etanercept biosimilar GP2015 to etanercept over a 52-week period (NCT01891864). Participants received either GP2015 or etanercept 50 mg twice weekly for the first 12 weeks. Participants with at least PASI 50 were then re-randomized into 4 groups: the first 2 groups stayed with their current treatments while the other 2 groups alternated treatments every 6 weeks until week 30. Participants then stayed on their last treatment from week 30 to week 52. The adjusted PASI 75 response rate at week 12 was 73.4% in the group receiving GP2015 and 75.7% in the group receiving etanercept.²¹ The percentage change in PASI score at all time points was found to be comparable from baseline until week 52. Importantly, the incidence of TEAEs up to week 52 was comparable and no new safety issues were reported. Additionally, switching participants from etanercept to the biosimilar during the subsequent treatment periods did not cause an increase in formation of antidrug antibodies.²¹

There are 2 upcoming studies involving biosimilars that are not yet recruiting patients. The first (NCT02925338) will analyze the characteristics of patients treated with Inflectra as well as their response to treatment. The second (NCT02762955) will be comparing the efficacy and safety of an adalimumab biosimilar (BCD-057, BIOCAD) to adalimumab.

Economic Advantages of Biosimilars

The annual economic burden of psoriasis in the United States is substantial, with estimates between $35.2 billion²² and $112 billion.²³ Biosimilars can be 25% to 30% cheaper than their reference products^9,11,24 and have the potential to save the US health care system billions of dollars.²⁵ Furthermore, the developers of biosimilars could offer patient assistance programs.¹¹ That being said, drug developers can extend patents for their branded drugs; for instance, 2 patents for Enbrel (Amgen Inc) could protect the drug until 2029.^26,27

Although cost is an important factor in deciding which medications to prescribe for patients, it should never take precedence over safety and efficacy. Manufacturers can develop new drugs with greater efficacy, fewer side effects, or more convenient dosing schedules,^26,27 or they could offer co-payment assistance programs.^26,28 Physicians also must consider how the biosimilars will be integrated into drug formularies. Would patients be required to use a biosimilar before a branded drug?^11,29 Will patients already taking a branded drug be grandfathered in?¹¹ Would they have to pay a premium to continue taking their drug? And finally, could changes in formularies and employer-payer relationships destabilize patient regimens?³⁰

Conclusion

Preliminary results suggest that biosimilars can have similar safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity data compared to their reference products.^19,21 Biosimilars have the potential to greatly reduce the cost burden associated with psoriasis. However, how similar is “highly similar”? Although cost is an important consideration in selecting drug therapies, the reason for using a biosimilar should never be based on cost alone.

According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a biosimilar is “highly similar to an FDA-approved biological product, . . . and has no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety and effectiveness.”¹ The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation (BPCI) Act of 2009 created an expedited pathway for the approval of products shown to be biosimilar to FDA-licensed reference products.² In 2013, the European Medicines Agency approved the first biosimilar modeled on infliximab (Remsima [formerly known as CT-P13], Celltrion Healthcare Co, Ltd) for the same indications as its reference product.³ In 2016, the FDA approved Inflectra (Hospira, a Pfizer Company), an infliximab biosimilar; Erelzi (Sandoz, a Novartis Division), an etanercept biosimilar; and Amjevita (Amgen Inc), an adalimumab biosimilar, all for numerous clinical indications including plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.^4-6

There has been a substantial amount of distrust surrounding the biosimilars; however, as the patents for the biologic agents expire, new biosimilars will undoubtedly flood the market. In this article, we provide information that will help dermatologists understand the need for and use of these agents.

Biosimilars Versus Generic Drugs

Small-molecule generics can be made in a process that is relatively inexpensive, reproducible, and able to yield identical products with each lot.⁷ In contrast, biosimilars are large complex proteins made in living cells. They differ from their reference product because of changes that occur during manufacturing (eg, purification system, posttranslational modifications).^7-9 Glycosylation is particularly sensitive to manufacturing and can affect the immunogenicity of the product.⁹ The impact of manufacturing can be substantial; for example, during phase 3 trials for efalizumab, a change in the manufacturing facility affected pharmacokinetic properties to such a degree that the FDA required a repeat of the trials.¹⁰

FDA Guidelines on Biosimilarity

The FDA outlines the following approach to demonstrate biosimilarity.² The first step is structural characterization to evaluate the primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structures and posttranslational modifications. The next step utilizes in vivo and/or in vitro functional assays to compare the biosimilar and reference product. The third step is a focus on toxicity and immunogenicity. The fourth step involves clinical studies to study pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data, immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy. After the biosimilar has been approved, there must be a system in place to monitor postmarketing safety. If a biosimilar is tested in one patient population (eg, patients with plaque psoriasis), a request can be made to approve the drug for all the conditions that the reference product was approved for, such as plaque psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease, even though clinical trials were not performed in all of these patient populations.² The BPCI Act leaves it up to the FDA to determine how much and what type of data (eg, in vitro, in vivo, clinical) are required.¹¹

Extrapolation and Interchangeability

Once a biosimilar has been approved, 2 questions must be answered: First, can its use be extrapolated to all indications for the reference product? The infliximab biosimilar approved by the European Medicines Agency and the FDA had only been studied in patients with ankylosing spondylitis¹² and rheumatoid arthritis,¹³ yet it was granted all the indications for infliximab, including severe plaque psoriasis.¹⁴ As of now, the various regulatory agencies differ on their policies regarding extrapolation. Extrapolation is not automatically bestowed on a biosimilar in the United States but can be requested by the manufacturer.²

Second, can the biosimilar be seamlessly switched with its reference product at the pharmacy level? The BPCI Act allows for the substitution of biosimilars that are deemed interchangeable without notifying the provider, yet individual states ultimately can pass laws regarding this issue.^15,16 An interchangeable agent would “produce the same clinical result as the reference product,” and “the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between use of the biological product and the reference product is not greater than the risk of using the reference product.”¹⁵ Generic drugs are allowed to be substituted without notifying the patient or prescriber¹⁶; however, biosimilars that are not deemed interchangeable would require permission from the prescriber before substitution.¹¹

Biosimilars for Psoriasis

In April 2016, an infliximab biosimilar (Inflectra) became the second biosimilar approved by the FDA.⁴ Inflectra was studied in clinical trials for patients with ankylosing spondylitis¹⁷ and rheumatoid arthritis,¹⁸ and in both trials the biosimilar was found to have similar efficacy and safety profiles to that of the reference product. In August 2016, an etanercept biosimilar (Erelzi) was approved,⁵ and in September 2016, an adalimumab biosimilar (Amjevita) was approved.⁶

The Table summarizes clinical trials (both completed and ongoing) evaluating biosimilars in adults with plaque psoriasis; thus far, there are 2464 participants enrolled across 5 different studies of adalimumab biosimilars (registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov with the identifiers NCT01970488, NCT02016105, NCT02489227, NCT02714322, NCT02581345) and 531 participants in an etanercept biosimilar study (NCT01891864).

A phase 3 double-blind study compared adalimumab to an adalimumab biosimilar (ABP 501) in 350 adults with plaque psoriasis (NCT01970488). Participants received an initial loading dose of adalimumab (n=175) or ABP 501 (n=175) 80 mg subcutaneously on week 1/day 1, followed by 40 mg at week 2 every 2 weeks thereafter. At week 16, participants with psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) 50 or greater remained in the study for up to 52 weeks; those who were receiving adalimumab were re-randomized to receive either ABP 501 or adalimumab. Participants receiving ABP 501 continued to receive the biosimilar. The mean PASI improvement at weeks 16, 32, and 50 was 86.6, 87.6, and 87.2, respectively, in the ABP 501/ABP 501 group (A/A) compared to 88.0, 88.2, and 88.1, respectively, in the adalimumab/adalimumab group (B/B).¹⁹ Autoantibodies developed in 68.4% of participants in the A/A group compared to 74.7% in the B/B group. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was 86.2% in the A/A group and 78.5% in the B/B group. The most common TEAEs were nasopharyngitis, headache, and upper respiratory tract infection. The incidence of serious TEAEs was 4.6% in the A/A group compared to 5.1% in the B/B group. Overall, the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the adalimumab biosimilar was comparable to the reference product.¹⁹

A second phase 3 trial (ADACCESS) evaluated the adalimumab biosimilar GP2017 (NCT02016105). Participants received an initial dose of 80 mg subcutaneously of either GP2017 or adalimumab at week 0, followed by 40 mg every other week starting at week 1 and ending at week 51. The study has been completed but results are not yet available.

The third trial is evaluating the adalimumab biosimilar CHS-1420 (NCT02489227). Participants in the experimental arm receive two 40-mg doses of CHS-1420 at week 0/day 0, and then 1 dose every 2 weeks from week 1 for 23 weeks. At week 24, participants continue with an open-label study. Participants in the adalimumab group receive two 40-mg doses at week 0/day 0, and then 1 dose every 2 weeks from week 1 to week 15. At week 16, participants will be re-randomized (1:1) to continue adalimumab or start CHS-1420 at one 40-mg dose every 2 weeks during weeks 17 to 23. At week 24, participants will switch to CHS-1420 open label until the end of the study. Study results are not yet available; the study is ongoing but not recruiting.

The fourth ongoing trial is evaluating the adalimumab biosimilar MYL-1401A (NCT02714322). Participants receive an initial dose of 80 mg subcutaneously of either MYL-1401A or adalimumab (2:1), followed by 40 mg every other week starting 1 week after the initial dose. After the 52-week treatment period, there is an 8-week safety follow-up period. Study results are not yet available; the study is ongoing but not recruiting.

A fifth adalimumab biosimilar, M923, also is currently being tested in clinical trials (NCT02581345). Participants receive either M923, adalimumab, or alternate between the 2 agents. Although the study is still ongoing, data released from the manufacturer state that the proportion of participants who achieved PASI 75 after 16 weeks of treatment was equivalent in the 2 treatment groups. The proportion of participants who achieved PASI 90, as well as the type, frequency, and severity of adverse events, also were comparable.²⁰

The EGALITY trial, completed in March 2015, compared the etanercept biosimilar GP2015 to etanercept over a 52-week period (NCT01891864). Participants received either GP2015 or etanercept 50 mg twice weekly for the first 12 weeks. Participants with at least PASI 50 were then re-randomized into 4 groups: the first 2 groups stayed with their current treatments while the other 2 groups alternated treatments every 6 weeks until week 30. Participants then stayed on their last treatment from week 30 to week 52. The adjusted PASI 75 response rate at week 12 was 73.4% in the group receiving GP2015 and 75.7% in the group receiving etanercept.²¹ The percentage change in PASI score at all time points was found to be comparable from baseline until week 52. Importantly, the incidence of TEAEs up to week 52 was comparable and no new safety issues were reported. Additionally, switching participants from etanercept to the biosimilar during the subsequent treatment periods did not cause an increase in formation of antidrug antibodies.²¹

There are 2 upcoming studies involving biosimilars that are not yet recruiting patients. The first (NCT02925338) will analyze the characteristics of patients treated with Inflectra as well as their response to treatment. The second (NCT02762955) will be comparing the efficacy and safety of an adalimumab biosimilar (BCD-057, BIOCAD) to adalimumab.

Economic Advantages of Biosimilars

The annual economic burden of psoriasis in the United States is substantial, with estimates between $35.2 billion²² and $112 billion.²³ Biosimilars can be 25% to 30% cheaper than their reference products^9,11,24 and have the potential to save the US health care system billions of dollars.²⁵ Furthermore, the developers of biosimilars could offer patient assistance programs.¹¹ That being said, drug developers can extend patents for their branded drugs; for instance, 2 patents for Enbrel (Amgen Inc) could protect the drug until 2029.^26,27

Although cost is an important factor in deciding which medications to prescribe for patients, it should never take precedence over safety and efficacy. Manufacturers can develop new drugs with greater efficacy, fewer side effects, or more convenient dosing schedules,^26,27 or they could offer co-payment assistance programs.^26,28 Physicians also must consider how the biosimilars will be integrated into drug formularies. Would patients be required to use a biosimilar before a branded drug?^11,29 Will patients already taking a branded drug be grandfathered in?¹¹ Would they have to pay a premium to continue taking their drug? And finally, could changes in formularies and employer-payer relationships destabilize patient regimens?³⁰

Conclusion

Preliminary results suggest that biosimilars can have similar safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity data compared to their reference products.^19,21 Biosimilars have the potential to greatly reduce the cost burden associated with psoriasis. However, how similar is “highly similar”? Although cost is an important consideration in selecting drug therapies, the reason for using a biosimilar should never be based on cost alone.

WAILEA, HAWAII – A few attendees at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar discussed some of the highlights of the presentations during a coffee break at the meeting.

New treatment protocols for psoriasis, details about skin disease in children, managing medication side effects, and promising data about biologics are discussed in this video, as are updates on the latest tips for treating atopic dermatitis.

The interviewees had no conflicts to disclose.

The meeting is provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation. SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

WAILEA, HAWAII – A few attendees at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar discussed some of the highlights of the presentations during a coffee break at the meeting.

New treatment protocols for psoriasis, details about skin disease in children, managing medication side effects, and promising data about biologics are discussed in this video, as are updates on the latest tips for treating atopic dermatitis.

The interviewees had no conflicts to disclose.

The meeting is provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation. SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

WAILEA, HAWAII – A few attendees at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar discussed some of the highlights of the presentations during a coffee break at the meeting.

New treatment protocols for psoriasis, details about skin disease in children, managing medication side effects, and promising data about biologics are discussed in this video, as are updates on the latest tips for treating atopic dermatitis.

The interviewees had no conflicts to disclose.

The meeting is provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation. SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

WAILEA, HAWAII – Plaque type psoriasis continues to be the most common type of psoriasis in children, but there are other presentations that should be considered, said Wynnis Tom, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.

“We certainly see a form of what some people would call napkin dermatitis,” or “diaper psoriasis,” affecting the diaper area in young infants, Dr. Tom said in a video interview at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

So when a child has a more refractory diaper rash, “look around to see if there are other lesions in the surrounding area that might be more typical for psoriasis,” she noted.

“We also see a lot more guttate disease” in children with psoriasis, which is more likely to be related to infections and triggers, Dr. Tom said. The face and scalp are often affected in children, and it is important to attend to these areas early to help avoid social stigma, she added.

Dr. Tom disclosed financial relationships with companies including Celgene, Janssen, and Promius. SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

WAILEA, HAWAII – Plaque type psoriasis continues to be the most common type of psoriasis in children, but there are other presentations that should be considered, said Wynnis Tom, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.

“We certainly see a form of what some people would call napkin dermatitis,” or “diaper psoriasis,” affecting the diaper area in young infants, Dr. Tom said in a video interview at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

So when a child has a more refractory diaper rash, “look around to see if there are other lesions in the surrounding area that might be more typical for psoriasis,” she noted.

“We also see a lot more guttate disease” in children with psoriasis, which is more likely to be related to infections and triggers, Dr. Tom said. The face and scalp are often affected in children, and it is important to attend to these areas early to help avoid social stigma, she added.

Dr. Tom disclosed financial relationships with companies including Celgene, Janssen, and Promius. SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

WAILEA, HAWAII – Plaque type psoriasis continues to be the most common type of psoriasis in children, but there are other presentations that should be considered, said Wynnis Tom, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.

“We certainly see a form of what some people would call napkin dermatitis,” or “diaper psoriasis,” affecting the diaper area in young infants, Dr. Tom said in a video interview at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

So when a child has a more refractory diaper rash, “look around to see if there are other lesions in the surrounding area that might be more typical for psoriasis,” she noted.

“We also see a lot more guttate disease” in children with psoriasis, which is more likely to be related to infections and triggers, Dr. Tom said. The face and scalp are often affected in children, and it is important to attend to these areas early to help avoid social stigma, she added.

Dr. Tom disclosed financial relationships with companies including Celgene, Janssen, and Promius. SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Practice Gap

Early diagnosis of nail psoriasis is challenging because nail changes, including pitting, subungual hyperkeratosis, crumbling, oil spots, salmon patches, onycholysis, and splinter hemorrhages, may be subtle and nonspecific. Furthermore, 5% to 10% of psoriasis patients do not have skin findings, making the diagnosis of nail psoriasis even more difficult. Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is more common in patients with nail psoriasis than in those with cutaneous psoriasis, and early joint damage may be asymptomatic.¹ Both nail psoriasis and PsA may progress rapidly, leading to functional impairment with poor quality of life.²

Diagnostic Tool

A 36-year-old man presented with a 4-year history of abnormal fingernails. He denied nail pain but stated that the nails felt sensitive at times and it was difficult to pick up small objects. His medical history was notable for type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and attention deficit disorder. He denied joint pain or skin rash.

Physical examination revealed pitting and onycholysis of the fingernails (Figure, A) without involvement of the toenails. A nail clipping was negative for fungus but revealed an incompletely keratinized nail plate with subungual parakeratotic scale, consistent with nail psoriasis. A radiograph showed erosive changes of the third finger of the right hand that were compatible with PsA (Figure, B).

Practice Implications

A nail clipping may be performed to diagnose nail psoriasis. Imaging and/or referral to a rheumatologist should be performed in all patients with isolated nail psoriasis to evaluate for early arthritic changes. If present, appropriate therapy is initiated to prevent further joint damage. In patients with nail psoriasis with or without associated joint pain, dermatologists should consider using radiograph imaging to screen patients for PsA.

Practice Gap

Early diagnosis of nail psoriasis is challenging because nail changes, including pitting, subungual hyperkeratosis, crumbling, oil spots, salmon patches, onycholysis, and splinter hemorrhages, may be subtle and nonspecific. Furthermore, 5% to 10% of psoriasis patients do not have skin findings, making the diagnosis of nail psoriasis even more difficult. Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is more common in patients with nail psoriasis than in those with cutaneous psoriasis, and early joint damage may be asymptomatic.¹ Both nail psoriasis and PsA may progress rapidly, leading to functional impairment with poor quality of life.²

Diagnostic Tool

A 36-year-old man presented with a 4-year history of abnormal fingernails. He denied nail pain but stated that the nails felt sensitive at times and it was difficult to pick up small objects. His medical history was notable for type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and attention deficit disorder. He denied joint pain or skin rash.

Physical examination revealed pitting and onycholysis of the fingernails (Figure, A) without involvement of the toenails. A nail clipping was negative for fungus but revealed an incompletely keratinized nail plate with subungual parakeratotic scale, consistent with nail psoriasis. A radiograph showed erosive changes of the third finger of the right hand that were compatible with PsA (Figure, B).

Practice Implications

A nail clipping may be performed to diagnose nail psoriasis. Imaging and/or referral to a rheumatologist should be performed in all patients with isolated nail psoriasis to evaluate for early arthritic changes. If present, appropriate therapy is initiated to prevent further joint damage. In patients with nail psoriasis with or without associated joint pain, dermatologists should consider using radiograph imaging to screen patients for PsA.

Practice Gap

Early diagnosis of nail psoriasis is challenging because nail changes, including pitting, subungual hyperkeratosis, crumbling, oil spots, salmon patches, onycholysis, and splinter hemorrhages, may be subtle and nonspecific. Furthermore, 5% to 10% of psoriasis patients do not have skin findings, making the diagnosis of nail psoriasis even more difficult. Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is more common in patients with nail psoriasis than in those with cutaneous psoriasis, and early joint damage may be asymptomatic.¹ Both nail psoriasis and PsA may progress rapidly, leading to functional impairment with poor quality of life.²

Diagnostic Tool

A 36-year-old man presented with a 4-year history of abnormal fingernails. He denied nail pain but stated that the nails felt sensitive at times and it was difficult to pick up small objects. His medical history was notable for type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and attention deficit disorder. He denied joint pain or skin rash.

Physical examination revealed pitting and onycholysis of the fingernails (Figure, A) without involvement of the toenails. A nail clipping was negative for fungus but revealed an incompletely keratinized nail plate with subungual parakeratotic scale, consistent with nail psoriasis. A radiograph showed erosive changes of the third finger of the right hand that were compatible with PsA (Figure, B).

Practice Implications

A nail clipping may be performed to diagnose nail psoriasis. Imaging and/or referral to a rheumatologist should be performed in all patients with isolated nail psoriasis to evaluate for early arthritic changes. If present, appropriate therapy is initiated to prevent further joint damage. In patients with nail psoriasis with or without associated joint pain, dermatologists should consider using radiograph imaging to screen patients for PsA.

Growing incentives to control health care costs may cause accountable care organizations (ACOs) to reconsider how diseases are best managed. Few studies have examined the cost difference between primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists in managing the same disease. Limited data have suggested that management of some diseases by a PCP may be less costly compared to a specialist^1,2; however, it is not clear if this finding extends to skin disease. This study sought to assess the cost of seeing a dermatologist versus a PCP for diagnosis of the common skin diseases psoriasis and rosacea.

Methods

Patient data were obtained from the Humana database, a large commercial data set for claims and reimbursed costs encompassing 18,162,539 patients covered between January 2007 and December 2014. Our study population consisted of 3,944,465 patients with claims that included International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), codes for dermatological diagnoses (680.0–709.9). We searched by ICD-9 code for US patients with primary diagnoses of psoriasis (696.1) and rosacea (695.3). We narrowed the search to include patients aged 30 to 64 years, as the diagnoses for these diseases are most common in patients older than 30 years. Patients who were older than 64 years were not included in the study, as most are covered by Medicare and therefore costs covered by Humana in this age group would not be as representative as in younger age groups. Total and average diagnosis-related costs per patient were compared between dermatologists and PCPs. Diagnosis-related costs encompassed physician reimbursement; laboratory and imaging costs, including skin biopsies; inpatient hospitalization cost; and any other charge that could be coded or billed by providers and reimbursed by the insurance company. To be eligible for reimbursement from Humana, dermatologists and PCPs must be registered with the insurer according to specialty board certification and practice credentialing, and they are reimbursed differently based on specialty. Drug costs, which would possibly skew the data toward providers using more expensive systemic medications (ie, dermatologists), were not included in this study, as the discussion is better reserved for long-term management of disease rather than diagnosis-related costs. All diagnoses of psoriasis were included in the study, which likely includes all severities of psoriasis, though we did not have the ability to further break down these diagnoses by severity.

Results

We identified 30,217 psoriasis patients and 37,561 rosacea patients. Of those patients with a primary diagnosis of psoriasis, 26,112 (86%) were seen by a dermatologist and 4105 (14%) were seen by a PCP (Table). Of those patients with a primary diagnosis of rosacea, 34,694 (92%) were seen by a dermatologist and 2867 (8%) were seen by a PCP (Table). There was little difference in the average diagnosis-related cost per patient for psoriasis in males (dermatologists, $638; PCPs, $657) versus females (dermatologists, $592; PCPs, $586) or between specialties (Figure). Findings were similar for rosacea in males (dermatologists, $179; PCPs, $168) versus females (dermatologists, $157; PCPs, $161). For these skin diseases, it was concluded that it is not more cost-effective to be diagnosed by a PCP versus a dermatologist.

Comment

For the management of common skin disorders such as psoriasis and rosacea, there is little cost difference in seeing a dermatologist versus a PCP. Through extensive training and repeated exposure to many skin diseases, dermatologists are expected to be more comfortable in diagnosing and managing psoriasis and rosacea. Compared to PCPs, dermatologists have demonstrated increased diagnostic accuracy and efficiency when examining pigmented lesions and other dermatologic diseases in several studies.^3-6 Although the current study shows that diagnosis-related costs for psoriasis and rosacea are essentially equal between dermatologists and PCPs, it actually may be less expensive for patients to see a dermatologist, as unnecessary tests, biopsies, or medications are more likely to be ordered/prescribed when there is less clinical diagnostic certainty.^7,8 Additionally, seeing a PCP for diagnosis of a skin disease may be inefficient if subsequent referral to a dermatologist is needed, a common scenario that occurs when patients see a PCP for skin conditions.⁹

Our study had limitations, which is typical of a study using a claims database. We used ICD-9 codes recorded in patients’ medical claims to determine diagnosis of psoriasis and rosacea; therefore, our study and data are subject to coding errors. We could not assess the severity of disease, only the presence of disease. Further confirmation of diagnosis could have been made through searching for a second ICD-9 code in the patient’s history. Our data also are from a limited time period and may not represent costs from other time periods.

Conclusion

Given the lack of cost difference between both specialties, we conclude that ACOs should consider encouraging patients to seek care for dermatologic diseases by dermatologists who generally are more accurate and efficient skin diagnosticians, particularly if there is a shortage of PCPs within the ACO network.

Growing incentives to control health care costs may cause accountable care organizations (ACOs) to reconsider how diseases are best managed. Few studies have examined the cost difference between primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists in managing the same disease. Limited data have suggested that management of some diseases by a PCP may be less costly compared to a specialist^1,2; however, it is not clear if this finding extends to skin disease. This study sought to assess the cost of seeing a dermatologist versus a PCP for diagnosis of the common skin diseases psoriasis and rosacea.

Methods

Patient data were obtained from the Humana database, a large commercial data set for claims and reimbursed costs encompassing 18,162,539 patients covered between January 2007 and December 2014. Our study population consisted of 3,944,465 patients with claims that included International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), codes for dermatological diagnoses (680.0–709.9). We searched by ICD-9 code for US patients with primary diagnoses of psoriasis (696.1) and rosacea (695.3). We narrowed the search to include patients aged 30 to 64 years, as the diagnoses for these diseases are most common in patients older than 30 years. Patients who were older than 64 years were not included in the study, as most are covered by Medicare and therefore costs covered by Humana in this age group would not be as representative as in younger age groups. Total and average diagnosis-related costs per patient were compared between dermatologists and PCPs. Diagnosis-related costs encompassed physician reimbursement; laboratory and imaging costs, including skin biopsies; inpatient hospitalization cost; and any other charge that could be coded or billed by providers and reimbursed by the insurance company. To be eligible for reimbursement from Humana, dermatologists and PCPs must be registered with the insurer according to specialty board certification and practice credentialing, and they are reimbursed differently based on specialty. Drug costs, which would possibly skew the data toward providers using more expensive systemic medications (ie, dermatologists), were not included in this study, as the discussion is better reserved for long-term management of disease rather than diagnosis-related costs. All diagnoses of psoriasis were included in the study, which likely includes all severities of psoriasis, though we did not have the ability to further break down these diagnoses by severity.

Results

We identified 30,217 psoriasis patients and 37,561 rosacea patients. Of those patients with a primary diagnosis of psoriasis, 26,112 (86%) were seen by a dermatologist and 4105 (14%) were seen by a PCP (Table). Of those patients with a primary diagnosis of rosacea, 34,694 (92%) were seen by a dermatologist and 2867 (8%) were seen by a PCP (Table). There was little difference in the average diagnosis-related cost per patient for psoriasis in males (dermatologists, $638; PCPs, $657) versus females (dermatologists, $592; PCPs, $586) or between specialties (Figure). Findings were similar for rosacea in males (dermatologists, $179; PCPs, $168) versus females (dermatologists, $157; PCPs, $161). For these skin diseases, it was concluded that it is not more cost-effective to be diagnosed by a PCP versus a dermatologist.

Comment

For the management of common skin disorders such as psoriasis and rosacea, there is little cost difference in seeing a dermatologist versus a PCP. Through extensive training and repeated exposure to many skin diseases, dermatologists are expected to be more comfortable in diagnosing and managing psoriasis and rosacea. Compared to PCPs, dermatologists have demonstrated increased diagnostic accuracy and efficiency when examining pigmented lesions and other dermatologic diseases in several studies.^3-6 Although the current study shows that diagnosis-related costs for psoriasis and rosacea are essentially equal between dermatologists and PCPs, it actually may be less expensive for patients to see a dermatologist, as unnecessary tests, biopsies, or medications are more likely to be ordered/prescribed when there is less clinical diagnostic certainty.^7,8 Additionally, seeing a PCP for diagnosis of a skin disease may be inefficient if subsequent referral to a dermatologist is needed, a common scenario that occurs when patients see a PCP for skin conditions.⁹

Our study had limitations, which is typical of a study using a claims database. We used ICD-9 codes recorded in patients’ medical claims to determine diagnosis of psoriasis and rosacea; therefore, our study and data are subject to coding errors. We could not assess the severity of disease, only the presence of disease. Further confirmation of diagnosis could have been made through searching for a second ICD-9 code in the patient’s history. Our data also are from a limited time period and may not represent costs from other time periods.

Conclusion

Given the lack of cost difference between both specialties, we conclude that ACOs should consider encouraging patients to seek care for dermatologic diseases by dermatologists who generally are more accurate and efficient skin diagnosticians, particularly if there is a shortage of PCPs within the ACO network.

Growing incentives to control health care costs may cause accountable care organizations (ACOs) to reconsider how diseases are best managed. Few studies have examined the cost difference between primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists in managing the same disease. Limited data have suggested that management of some diseases by a PCP may be less costly compared to a specialist^1,2; however, it is not clear if this finding extends to skin disease. This study sought to assess the cost of seeing a dermatologist versus a PCP for diagnosis of the common skin diseases psoriasis and rosacea.

Methods

Patient data were obtained from the Humana database, a large commercial data set for claims and reimbursed costs encompassing 18,162,539 patients covered between January 2007 and December 2014. Our study population consisted of 3,944,465 patients with claims that included International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), codes for dermatological diagnoses (680.0–709.9). We searched by ICD-9 code for US patients with primary diagnoses of psoriasis (696.1) and rosacea (695.3). We narrowed the search to include patients aged 30 to 64 years, as the diagnoses for these diseases are most common in patients older than 30 years. Patients who were older than 64 years were not included in the study, as most are covered by Medicare and therefore costs covered by Humana in this age group would not be as representative as in younger age groups. Total and average diagnosis-related costs per patient were compared between dermatologists and PCPs. Diagnosis-related costs encompassed physician reimbursement; laboratory and imaging costs, including skin biopsies; inpatient hospitalization cost; and any other charge that could be coded or billed by providers and reimbursed by the insurance company. To be eligible for reimbursement from Humana, dermatologists and PCPs must be registered with the insurer according to specialty board certification and practice credentialing, and they are reimbursed differently based on specialty. Drug costs, which would possibly skew the data toward providers using more expensive systemic medications (ie, dermatologists), were not included in this study, as the discussion is better reserved for long-term management of disease rather than diagnosis-related costs. All diagnoses of psoriasis were included in the study, which likely includes all severities of psoriasis, though we did not have the ability to further break down these diagnoses by severity.

Results

We identified 30,217 psoriasis patients and 37,561 rosacea patients. Of those patients with a primary diagnosis of psoriasis, 26,112 (86%) were seen by a dermatologist and 4105 (14%) were seen by a PCP (Table). Of those patients with a primary diagnosis of rosacea, 34,694 (92%) were seen by a dermatologist and 2867 (8%) were seen by a PCP (Table). There was little difference in the average diagnosis-related cost per patient for psoriasis in males (dermatologists, $638; PCPs, $657) versus females (dermatologists, $592; PCPs, $586) or between specialties (Figure). Findings were similar for rosacea in males (dermatologists, $179; PCPs, $168) versus females (dermatologists, $157; PCPs, $161). For these skin diseases, it was concluded that it is not more cost-effective to be diagnosed by a PCP versus a dermatologist.

Comment

For the management of common skin disorders such as psoriasis and rosacea, there is little cost difference in seeing a dermatologist versus a PCP. Through extensive training and repeated exposure to many skin diseases, dermatologists are expected to be more comfortable in diagnosing and managing psoriasis and rosacea. Compared to PCPs, dermatologists have demonstrated increased diagnostic accuracy and efficiency when examining pigmented lesions and other dermatologic diseases in several studies.^3-6 Although the current study shows that diagnosis-related costs for psoriasis and rosacea are essentially equal between dermatologists and PCPs, it actually may be less expensive for patients to see a dermatologist, as unnecessary tests, biopsies, or medications are more likely to be ordered/prescribed when there is less clinical diagnostic certainty.^7,8 Additionally, seeing a PCP for diagnosis of a skin disease may be inefficient if subsequent referral to a dermatologist is needed, a common scenario that occurs when patients see a PCP for skin conditions.⁹

Our study had limitations, which is typical of a study using a claims database. We used ICD-9 codes recorded in patients’ medical claims to determine diagnosis of psoriasis and rosacea; therefore, our study and data are subject to coding errors. We could not assess the severity of disease, only the presence of disease. Further confirmation of diagnosis could have been made through searching for a second ICD-9 code in the patient’s history. Our data also are from a limited time period and may not represent costs from other time periods.

Conclusion

Given the lack of cost difference between both specialties, we conclude that ACOs should consider encouraging patients to seek care for dermatologic diseases by dermatologists who generally are more accurate and efficient skin diagnosticians, particularly if there is a shortage of PCPs within the ACO network.

The role of current biologic therapies in psoriasis predicates on the pathogenic role of upregulated, immune-related mechanisms that result in the activation of myeloid dendritic cells, which release IL-17, IL-23, and other cytokines to activate T cells, including helper T cell T_H17. Along with other immune cells, T_H17 produces IL-17. This proinflammatory cascade results in keratinocyte proliferation, angiogenesis, and migration of immune cells toward psoriatic lesions.¹ Thus, the newest classes of biologics target IL-12, IL-23, and IL-17 to disrupt this inflammatory cascade.

We provide an updated review of the most recent clinical efficacy and safety data on the newest IL-23 and IL-17 inhibitors in the pipeline or approved for psoriasis, including risankizumab, guselkumab, tildrakizumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab (Table). Ustekinumab and adalimumab, which have been previously approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), will be discussed here only as comparators.

IL-23 Inhibitors

Risankizumab

Risankizumab (formerly known as BI 655066)(Boehringer Ingelheim) is a selective human monoclonal antibody targeting the p19 subunit of IL-23 and currently is undergoing phase 3 trials for psoriasis. A proof-of-concept phase 1 study of 39 participants demonstrated efficacy after 12 weeks of treatment at varying subcutaneous and intravenous doses with placebo control.¹¹ At week 12, 87% (27/31)(P<.001) of all risankizumab-treated participants achieved 75% reduction in psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) score compared to 0% of 8 placebo-treated participants. Common adverse effects (AEs) occurred in 65% (20/31) of risankizumab-treated participants, including non–dose-dependent upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, and headache. Serious adverse events (SAEs) that occurred were considered unrelated to the study medication.¹¹

A phase 2 trial of 166 participants compared 3 dosing regimens of subcutaneous risankizumab (single 18-mg dose at week 0; single 90-mg dose at weeks 0, 4, and 16; or single 180-mg dose at weeks 0, 4, and 16) and ustekinumab (weight-based single 45- or 90-mg dose at weeks 0, 4, and 16), demonstrating noninferiority at higher doses of risankizumab.² Preliminary primary end point results at week 12 showed PASI 90 in 32.6% (P=.4667), 73.2% (P=.0013), 81.0% (P<.0001), and 40.0% of the treatment groups, respectively. Participants in the 180-mg risankizumab group achieved PASI 90 eight weeks faster than those on ustekinumab, lasting more than 2 months longer. Adverse effects were similar across all treatment groups and SAEs were unrelated to the study medications.²

Guselkumab

Guselkumab (Janssen Biotech, Inc) is a selective human monoclonal antibody against the p19 subunit of IL-23. The 52-week phase 2 X-PLORE trial compared dose-ranging subcutaneous guselkumab (5 mg at weeks 0 and 4, then every 12 weeks; 15 mg every 8 weeks; 50 mg at weeks 0 and 4, then every 12 weeks; 100 mg every 8 weeks; or 200 mg at weeks 0 and 4, then every 12 weeks), adalimumab (80-mg loading dose, followed by 40 mg at week 1, then every other week), and placebo in 293 randomized participants.⁴ At week 16, 34% (P=.002) of participants in the 5-mg guselkumab group, 61% (P<.001) in the 15-mg group, 79% (P<.001) in the 50-mg group, 86% (P<.001) in the 100-mg group, 83% (P<.001) in the 200-mg group, and 58% (P<.001) in the adalimumab group achieved physician global assessment (PGA) scores of 0 (clear) or 1 (minimal psoriasis) compared to 7% of the placebo group. Achievement of PASI 75 similarly favored the guselkumab (44% [P<.001]; 76% [no P value given]; 81% [P<.001]; 79% [P<.001]; and 81% [P<.001], respectively) and adalimumab treatment arms (70% [P<.001]) compared to 5% in the placebo group. In longer-term comparisons to week 40, participants in the 50-, 100-, and 200-mg guselkumab groups showed significantly greater remission of psoriatic lesions, measured by a PGA score of 0 or 1, than participants in the adalimumab group (71% [P=.05]; 77% [P=.005]; 81% [P=.01]; and 49%, respectively).⁴

Preliminary results from VOYAGE 1 (N=837), the first of several phase 3 trials, further demonstrate the superiority of guselkumab 100 mg at weeks 0 and 4 and then every 8 weeks over adalimumab (standard dosing) and placebo; at week 16, 73.3% (P<.001 for both comparisons) versus 49.7% and 2.9% of participants, respectively, achieved PASI 90, with sustained superiority of skin clearance in guselkumab-treated participants compared to adalimumab and placebo through week 48.³

Long-term safety data showed no dose dependence or trend from 0 to 16 weeks and 16 to 52 weeks of treatment regarding rates of AEs, SAEs, or serious infections.⁴ Between weeks 16 and 52, 48.9% of all guselkumab-treated participants exhibited AEs compared to 60.5% of adalimumab-treated participants and 51.3% of placebo participants. Overall infection rates also were lowest in the guselkumab group at 29.8% compared to 36.8% and 35.9%, respectively. Three participants treated with guselkumab had major cardiovascular events, including a fatal myocardial infarction. No cases of tuberculosis or serious opportunistic infections were reported.⁴

Tildrakizumab

Tildrakizumab (formerly known as MK-3222)(Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd) is a human monoclonal antibody also targeting the p19 subunit of IL-23. In a phase 2 study of 355 participants with chronic plaque psoriasis, participants received 5-, 25-, 100-, or 200-mg subcutaneous tildrakizumab or placebo at weeks 0 and 4 and then every 12 weeks for a total of 52 weeks.⁶ At week 16, PASI 75 results were 33.3%, 64.4%, 66.3%, 74.4%, and 4.4%, respectively (P<.001 for each comparison). Improvement began within the first month of treatment, with median times to PASI 75 of 57 days at 200-mg dosing and 84 days at 100-mg dosing. Of those participants achieving PASI 75 by drug discontinuation at week 52, 96% of the 100-mg group and 93% of the 200-mg group maintained PASI 75 through week 72, suggesting low relapse rates after treatment cessation.⁶

In October 2016, the efficacy results of 2 pivotal phase 3 trials (reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2) involving more than 1800 participants combined revealed PASI 90 achievement in an average of 54% of participants on tildrakizumab 100 mg and 59% of participants on tildrakizumab 200 mg at week 28.⁵ Achievement of PASI 100 occurred in 24% and 30% of participants at week 28, respectively. The second of these trials included an etanercept comparison group and demonstrated head-to-head superiority of 100 and 200 mg subcutaneous tildrakizumab at week 12 by end point measures.⁵

Treatment-related AEs occurred at rates of 25% in tildrakizumab-treated participants and 22% in placebo-treated participants, most frequently nasopharyngitis and headache.⁶ At least 1 AE occurred in 64% of tildrakizumab-treated participants without dose dependence compared to 69% of placebo-treated participants. Severe AEs thought to be drug treatment related were bacterial arthritis, lymphedema, melanoma, stroke, and epiglottitis.⁶

IL-17 Inhibitors

Ixekizumab

Ixekizumab (Eli Lilly and Company), a monoclonal inhibitor of IL-17A, is the most recently approved psoriasis biologic on the market and has been cleared for use in adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Recommended dosing is 160 mg (given in two 80-mg subcutaneous injections via an autoinjector or prefilled syringe) at week 0, followed by an 80-mg injection at weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12, and then 80 mg every 4 weeks thereafter. The FDA approved ixekizumab in March 2016 following favorable results of several phase 3 trials: UNCOVER-1, UNCOVER-2, and UNCOVER-3.^7,8

In UNCOVER-1, 1296 participants were randomized to 1 of 2 ixekizumab treatment arms—160 mg starting dose at week 0, 80 mg every 2 or 4 weeks thereafter—or placebo.⁷ At week 12, 89.1%, 82.6%, and 3.9% achieved PASI 75, respectively (P<.001 for both). Importantly, high numbers of participants also achieved PASI 90 (70.9% in the 2-week group and 64.6% in the 4-week group vs 0.5% in the placebo group [P<.001]) and PASI 100 (35.3% and 33.6% vs 0%, respectively [P<.001]), suggesting high rates of disease clearance.⁷

UNCOVER-2 (N=1224) and UNCOVER-3 (N=1346) investigated the same 2 dosing regimens of ixekizumab compared to etanercept 50 mg biweekly and placebo.⁸ At week 12, the percentage of participants achieving PASI 90 in UNCOVER-2 was 70.7%, 59.7%, 18.7%, and 0.6%, respectively, and 68.1%, 65.3%, 25.7%, and 3.1%, respectively, in UNCOVER-3 (P<.0001 for all comparisons to placebo and etanercept). At week 12, PASI 100 results also showed striking superiority, with 40.5%, 30.8%, 5.3%, and 0.6% of participants, respectively, in UNCOVER-2, and 37.7%, 35%, 7.3%, and 0%, respectively, in UNCOVER-3, achieving complete clearance of disease (P<.0001 for all comparisons to placebo and etanercept). Responses to ixekizumab were observed as early as weeks 1 and 2, while no participants in the etanercept and placebo treatment groups achieved comparative efficiency.⁸

In an extension of UNCOVER-3, efficacy increased from week 12 to week 60 according to PASI 90 (68%–73% in the 2-week group; 65%–72% in the 4-week group) and PASI 100 measures (38%–55% in the 2-week group; 35%–52% in the 4-week group).⁷

The most common AEs associated with ixekizumab treatment from weeks 0 to 12 occurred at higher rates in the 2-week and 4-week ixekizumab groups compared to placebo, including nasopharyngitis (9.5% and 9% vs 8.7%, respectively), upper respiratory tract infection (4.4% and 3.9% vs 3.5%, respectively), injection-site reaction (10% and 7.7% vs 1%, respectively), arthralgia (4.4% and 4.3% vs 2.9%, respectively), and headache (2.5% and 1.9% vs 2.1%, respectively). Infections, including candidal, oral, vulvovaginal, and cutaneous, occurred in 27% of the 2-week dosing group and 27.4% of the 4-week dosing group compared to 22.9% of the placebo group during weeks 0 to 12, with candidal infections in particular occurring more frequently in the active treatment groups and exhibiting dose dependence. Other AEs of special interest that occurred among all ixekizumab-treated participants (n=3736) from weeks 0 to 60 were cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (22 [0.6%]), inflammatory bowel disease (11 [0.3%]), non–skin cancer malignancy (14 [0.4%]), and nonmelanoma skin cancer (20 [0.5%]). Neutropenia occurred at higher rates in ixekizumab-treated participants (9.3% in the 2-week group and 8.6% in the 4-week group) compared to placebo (3.3%) and occurred in 11.5% of all ixekizumab participants over 60 weeks.⁷

Brodalumab

Brodalumab (Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc) is a human monoclonal antibody targeting the IL-17A receptor currently under review for FDA approval after undergoing phase 3 trials. The first of these trials, AMAGINE-1, showed efficacy of subcutaneous brodalumab (140 or 210 mg administered every 2 weeks with an extra dose at week 1) compared to placebo in 661 participants.⁹ At week 12, 60%, 83%, and 3%, respectively, achieved PASI 75; 43%, 70%, and 1%, respectively, achieved PASI 90; and 23%, 42%, and 1%, respectively, achieved PASI 100 (P<.001 for all respective comparisons to placebo). These effects were retained through 52 weeks of treatment. The median time to complete disease clearance in participants reaching PASI 100 was 12 weeks. Conversely, participants who were re-randomized to placebo after week 12 of brodalumab treatment relapsed within weeks to months.⁹

AMAGINE-2 and AMAGINE-3 further demonstrated the efficacy of brodalumab (140 or 210 mg every 2 weeks with extra dose at week 1) compared to ustekinumab (45 or 90 mg weight-based standard dosing) and placebo in 1831 participants, respectively.¹⁰ In AMAGINE-2, 49% of participants in the 140-mg group (P<.001 vs placebo), 70% in the 210-mg group (P<.001 vs placebo), 47% in the ustekinumab group, and 3% in the placebo group achieved PASI 90 at week 12. Similarly, in AMAGINE-3, 52% of participants in the 140-mg group (P<.001), 69% in the 210-mg group (P<.001), 48% in the ustekinumab group, and 2% in the placebo group achieved PASI 90. Impressively, complete clearance (PASI 100) at week 12 occurred in 26% of the 140-mg group (P<.001 vs placebo), 44% of the 210-mg group (P<.001 vs placebo), and 22% of the ustekinumab group compared to 2% of the placebo group in AMAGINE-2, with similar rates in AMAGINE-3. Brodalumab was significantly superior to ustekinumab at the 210-mg dose by PASI 90 measures (P<.001) in both studies and at the 140-mg dose by PASI 100 measures (P=.007) in AMAGINE-3 only.¹⁰

Common AEs were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, and arthralgia, all occurring at grossly similar rates (49%–60%) across all experimental groups in AMAGINE-1, AMAGINE-2, and AMAGINE-3 during the first 12-week treatment period.^9,10 Brodalumab treatment groups had high rates of specific interest AEs compared to ustekinumab and placebo groups, including neutropenia (0.8%, 1.1%, 0.3%, and 0%, respectively) and candidal infections (0.8%, 1.3%, 0.3%, and 0.3%, respectively). Induction phase (weeks 0–12) depression rates were concerning, with 6 cases each in AMAGINE-2 (4 [0.7%] in the 140-mg group, 2 [0.3%] in the 210-mg group) and AMAGINE-3 (4 [0.6%] in the 140-mg group, 2 [0.3%] in the 210-mg group). Cases of neutropenia were mild, were not associated with major infection, and were transient or reversible. Depression rates after 52 weeks of treatment were 1.7% (23/1567) of brodalumab participants in AMAGINE-2 and 1.8% (21/1613) in AMAGINE-3. Three participants, all on constant 210-mg dosing through week 52, attempted suicide with 1 completion¹⁰; however, because no other IL-17 inhibitors were associated with depression or suicide in other trials, it has been suggested that these cases were incidental and not treatment related.¹² An FDA advisory panel recommended approval of brodalumab in July 2016 despite ongoing concerns of depression and suicide.¹³

Conclusion

The robust investigation into IL-23 and IL-17 inhibitors to treat plaque psoriasis has yielded promising results, including the unprecedented rates of PASI 100 achievement with these new biologics. Risankizumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab have demonstrated superior efficacy in trials compared to ustekinumab. Tildrakizumab has shown low disease relapse after drug cessation. Ixekizumab and brodalumab have shown high rates of total disease clearance. Thus far, safety findings for these pipeline biologics have been consistent with those of ustekinumab. With ixekizumab approved in 2016 and brodalumab under review, new options in biologic therapy will offer patients and clinicians greater choices in treating severe and recalcitrant psoriasis.

The role of current biologic therapies in psoriasis predicates on the pathogenic role of upregulated, immune-related mechanisms that result in the activation of myeloid dendritic cells, which release IL-17, IL-23, and other cytokines to activate T cells, including helper T cell T_H17. Along with other immune cells, T_H17 produces IL-17. This proinflammatory cascade results in keratinocyte proliferation, angiogenesis, and migration of immune cells toward psoriatic lesions.¹ Thus, the newest classes of biologics target IL-12, IL-23, and IL-17 to disrupt this inflammatory cascade.

We provide an updated review of the most recent clinical efficacy and safety data on the newest IL-23 and IL-17 inhibitors in the pipeline or approved for psoriasis, including risankizumab, guselkumab, tildrakizumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab (Table). Ustekinumab and adalimumab, which have been previously approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), will be discussed here only as comparators.

IL-23 Inhibitors

Risankizumab

Risankizumab (formerly known as BI 655066)(Boehringer Ingelheim) is a selective human monoclonal antibody targeting the p19 subunit of IL-23 and currently is undergoing phase 3 trials for psoriasis. A proof-of-concept phase 1 study of 39 participants demonstrated efficacy after 12 weeks of treatment at varying subcutaneous and intravenous doses with placebo control.¹¹ At week 12, 87% (27/31)(P<.001) of all risankizumab-treated participants achieved 75% reduction in psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) score compared to 0% of 8 placebo-treated participants. Common adverse effects (AEs) occurred in 65% (20/31) of risankizumab-treated participants, including non–dose-dependent upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, and headache. Serious adverse events (SAEs) that occurred were considered unrelated to the study medication.¹¹

A phase 2 trial of 166 participants compared 3 dosing regimens of subcutaneous risankizumab (single 18-mg dose at week 0; single 90-mg dose at weeks 0, 4, and 16; or single 180-mg dose at weeks 0, 4, and 16) and ustekinumab (weight-based single 45- or 90-mg dose at weeks 0, 4, and 16), demonstrating noninferiority at higher doses of risankizumab.² Preliminary primary end point results at week 12 showed PASI 90 in 32.6% (P=.4667), 73.2% (P=.0013), 81.0% (P<.0001), and 40.0% of the treatment groups, respectively. Participants in the 180-mg risankizumab group achieved PASI 90 eight weeks faster than those on ustekinumab, lasting more than 2 months longer. Adverse effects were similar across all treatment groups and SAEs were unrelated to the study medications.²

Guselkumab

Guselkumab (Janssen Biotech, Inc) is a selective human monoclonal antibody against the p19 subunit of IL-23. The 52-week phase 2 X-PLORE trial compared dose-ranging subcutaneous guselkumab (5 mg at weeks 0 and 4, then every 12 weeks; 15 mg every 8 weeks; 50 mg at weeks 0 and 4, then every 12 weeks; 100 mg every 8 weeks; or 200 mg at weeks 0 and 4, then every 12 weeks), adalimumab (80-mg loading dose, followed by 40 mg at week 1, then every other week), and placebo in 293 randomized participants.⁴ At week 16, 34% (P=.002) of participants in the 5-mg guselkumab group, 61% (P<.001) in the 15-mg group, 79% (P<.001) in the 50-mg group, 86% (P<.001) in the 100-mg group, 83% (P<.001) in the 200-mg group, and 58% (P<.001) in the adalimumab group achieved physician global assessment (PGA) scores of 0 (clear) or 1 (minimal psoriasis) compared to 7% of the placebo group. Achievement of PASI 75 similarly favored the guselkumab (44% [P<.001]; 76% [no P value given]; 81% [P<.001]; 79% [P<.001]; and 81% [P<.001], respectively) and adalimumab treatment arms (70% [P<.001]) compared to 5% in the placebo group. In longer-term comparisons to week 40, participants in the 50-, 100-, and 200-mg guselkumab groups showed significantly greater remission of psoriatic lesions, measured by a PGA score of 0 or 1, than participants in the adalimumab group (71% [P=.05]; 77% [P=.005]; 81% [P=.01]; and 49%, respectively).⁴

Preliminary results from VOYAGE 1 (N=837), the first of several phase 3 trials, further demonstrate the superiority of guselkumab 100 mg at weeks 0 and 4 and then every 8 weeks over adalimumab (standard dosing) and placebo; at week 16, 73.3% (P<.001 for both comparisons) versus 49.7% and 2.9% of participants, respectively, achieved PASI 90, with sustained superiority of skin clearance in guselkumab-treated participants compared to adalimumab and placebo through week 48.³

Long-term safety data showed no dose dependence or trend from 0 to 16 weeks and 16 to 52 weeks of treatment regarding rates of AEs, SAEs, or serious infections.⁴ Between weeks 16 and 52, 48.9% of all guselkumab-treated participants exhibited AEs compared to 60.5% of adalimumab-treated participants and 51.3% of placebo participants. Overall infection rates also were lowest in the guselkumab group at 29.8% compared to 36.8% and 35.9%, respectively. Three participants treated with guselkumab had major cardiovascular events, including a fatal myocardial infarction. No cases of tuberculosis or serious opportunistic infections were reported.⁴

Tildrakizumab

Tildrakizumab (formerly known as MK-3222)(Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd) is a human monoclonal antibody also targeting the p19 subunit of IL-23. In a phase 2 study of 355 participants with chronic plaque psoriasis, participants received 5-, 25-, 100-, or 200-mg subcutaneous tildrakizumab or placebo at weeks 0 and 4 and then every 12 weeks for a total of 52 weeks.⁶ At week 16, PASI 75 results were 33.3%, 64.4%, 66.3%, 74.4%, and 4.4%, respectively (P<.001 for each comparison). Improvement began within the first month of treatment, with median times to PASI 75 of 57 days at 200-mg dosing and 84 days at 100-mg dosing. Of those participants achieving PASI 75 by drug discontinuation at week 52, 96% of the 100-mg group and 93% of the 200-mg group maintained PASI 75 through week 72, suggesting low relapse rates after treatment cessation.⁶

In October 2016, the efficacy results of 2 pivotal phase 3 trials (reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2) involving more than 1800 participants combined revealed PASI 90 achievement in an average of 54% of participants on tildrakizumab 100 mg and 59% of participants on tildrakizumab 200 mg at week 28.⁵ Achievement of PASI 100 occurred in 24% and 30% of participants at week 28, respectively. The second of these trials included an etanercept comparison group and demonstrated head-to-head superiority of 100 and 200 mg subcutaneous tildrakizumab at week 12 by end point measures.⁵

Treatment-related AEs occurred at rates of 25% in tildrakizumab-treated participants and 22% in placebo-treated participants, most frequently nasopharyngitis and headache.⁶ At least 1 AE occurred in 64% of tildrakizumab-treated participants without dose dependence compared to 69% of placebo-treated participants. Severe AEs thought to be drug treatment related were bacterial arthritis, lymphedema, melanoma, stroke, and epiglottitis.⁶

IL-17 Inhibitors

Ixekizumab

Ixekizumab (Eli Lilly and Company), a monoclonal inhibitor of IL-17A, is the most recently approved psoriasis biologic on the market and has been cleared for use in adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Recommended dosing is 160 mg (given in two 80-mg subcutaneous injections via an autoinjector or prefilled syringe) at week 0, followed by an 80-mg injection at weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12, and then 80 mg every 4 weeks thereafter. The FDA approved ixekizumab in March 2016 following favorable results of several phase 3 trials: UNCOVER-1, UNCOVER-2, and UNCOVER-3.^7,8

In UNCOVER-1, 1296 participants were randomized to 1 of 2 ixekizumab treatment arms—160 mg starting dose at week 0, 80 mg every 2 or 4 weeks thereafter—or placebo.⁷ At week 12, 89.1%, 82.6%, and 3.9% achieved PASI 75, respectively (P<.001 for both). Importantly, high numbers of participants also achieved PASI 90 (70.9% in the 2-week group and 64.6% in the 4-week group vs 0.5% in the placebo group [P<.001]) and PASI 100 (35.3% and 33.6% vs 0%, respectively [P<.001]), suggesting high rates of disease clearance.⁷

UNCOVER-2 (N=1224) and UNCOVER-3 (N=1346) investigated the same 2 dosing regimens of ixekizumab compared to etanercept 50 mg biweekly and placebo.⁸ At week 12, the percentage of participants achieving PASI 90 in UNCOVER-2 was 70.7%, 59.7%, 18.7%, and 0.6%, respectively, and 68.1%, 65.3%, 25.7%, and 3.1%, respectively, in UNCOVER-3 (P<.0001 for all comparisons to placebo and etanercept). At week 12, PASI 100 results also showed striking superiority, with 40.5%, 30.8%, 5.3%, and 0.6% of participants, respectively, in UNCOVER-2, and 37.7%, 35%, 7.3%, and 0%, respectively, in UNCOVER-3, achieving complete clearance of disease (P<.0001 for all comparisons to placebo and etanercept). Responses to ixekizumab were observed as early as weeks 1 and 2, while no participants in the etanercept and placebo treatment groups achieved comparative efficiency.⁸

In an extension of UNCOVER-3, efficacy increased from week 12 to week 60 according to PASI 90 (68%–73% in the 2-week group; 65%–72% in the 4-week group) and PASI 100 measures (38%–55% in the 2-week group; 35%–52% in the 4-week group).⁷

The most common AEs associated with ixekizumab treatment from weeks 0 to 12 occurred at higher rates in the 2-week and 4-week ixekizumab groups compared to placebo, including nasopharyngitis (9.5% and 9% vs 8.7%, respectively), upper respiratory tract infection (4.4% and 3.9% vs 3.5%, respectively), injection-site reaction (10% and 7.7% vs 1%, respectively), arthralgia (4.4% and 4.3% vs 2.9%, respectively), and headache (2.5% and 1.9% vs 2.1%, respectively). Infections, including candidal, oral, vulvovaginal, and cutaneous, occurred in 27% of the 2-week dosing group and 27.4% of the 4-week dosing group compared to 22.9% of the placebo group during weeks 0 to 12, with candidal infections in particular occurring more frequently in the active treatment groups and exhibiting dose dependence. Other AEs of special interest that occurred among all ixekizumab-treated participants (n=3736) from weeks 0 to 60 were cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (22 [0.6%]), inflammatory bowel disease (11 [0.3%]), non–skin cancer malignancy (14 [0.4%]), and nonmelanoma skin cancer (20 [0.5%]). Neutropenia occurred at higher rates in ixekizumab-treated participants (9.3% in the 2-week group and 8.6% in the 4-week group) compared to placebo (3.3%) and occurred in 11.5% of all ixekizumab participants over 60 weeks.⁷

Brodalumab

Brodalumab (Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc) is a human monoclonal antibody targeting the IL-17A receptor currently under review for FDA approval after undergoing phase 3 trials. The first of these trials, AMAGINE-1, showed efficacy of subcutaneous brodalumab (140 or 210 mg administered every 2 weeks with an extra dose at week 1) compared to placebo in 661 participants.⁹ At week 12, 60%, 83%, and 3%, respectively, achieved PASI 75; 43%, 70%, and 1%, respectively, achieved PASI 90; and 23%, 42%, and 1%, respectively, achieved PASI 100 (P<.001 for all respective comparisons to placebo). These effects were retained through 52 weeks of treatment. The median time to complete disease clearance in participants reaching PASI 100 was 12 weeks. Conversely, participants who were re-randomized to placebo after week 12 of brodalumab treatment relapsed within weeks to months.⁹

AMAGINE-2 and AMAGINE-3 further demonstrated the efficacy of brodalumab (140 or 210 mg every 2 weeks with extra dose at week 1) compared to ustekinumab (45 or 90 mg weight-based standard dosing) and placebo in 1831 participants, respectively.¹⁰ In AMAGINE-2, 49% of participants in the 140-mg group (P<.001 vs placebo), 70% in the 210-mg group (P<.001 vs placebo), 47% in the ustekinumab group, and 3% in the placebo group achieved PASI 90 at week 12. Similarly, in AMAGINE-3, 52% of participants in the 140-mg group (P<.001), 69% in the 210-mg group (P<.001), 48% in the ustekinumab group, and 2% in the placebo group achieved PASI 90. Impressively, complete clearance (PASI 100) at week 12 occurred in 26% of the 140-mg group (P<.001 vs placebo), 44% of the 210-mg group (P<.001 vs placebo), and 22% of the ustekinumab group compared to 2% of the placebo group in AMAGINE-2, with similar rates in AMAGINE-3. Brodalumab was significantly superior to ustekinumab at the 210-mg dose by PASI 90 measures (P<.001) in both studies and at the 140-mg dose by PASI 100 measures (P=.007) in AMAGINE-3 only.¹⁰

Common AEs were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, and arthralgia, all occurring at grossly similar rates (49%–60%) across all experimental groups in AMAGINE-1, AMAGINE-2, and AMAGINE-3 during the first 12-week treatment period.^9,10 Brodalumab treatment groups had high rates of specific interest AEs compared to ustekinumab and placebo groups, including neutropenia (0.8%, 1.1%, 0.3%, and 0%, respectively) and candidal infections (0.8%, 1.3%, 0.3%, and 0.3%, respectively). Induction phase (weeks 0–12) depression rates were concerning, with 6 cases each in AMAGINE-2 (4 [0.7%] in the 140-mg group, 2 [0.3%] in the 210-mg group) and AMAGINE-3 (4 [0.6%] in the 140-mg group, 2 [0.3%] in the 210-mg group). Cases of neutropenia were mild, were not associated with major infection, and were transient or reversible. Depression rates after 52 weeks of treatment were 1.7% (23/1567) of brodalumab participants in AMAGINE-2 and 1.8% (21/1613) in AMAGINE-3. Three participants, all on constant 210-mg dosing through week 52, attempted suicide with 1 completion¹⁰; however, because no other IL-17 inhibitors were associated with depression or suicide in other trials, it has been suggested that these cases were incidental and not treatment related.¹² An FDA advisory panel recommended approval of brodalumab in July 2016 despite ongoing concerns of depression and suicide.¹³

Conclusion

The robust investigation into IL-23 and IL-17 inhibitors to treat plaque psoriasis has yielded promising results, including the unprecedented rates of PASI 100 achievement with these new biologics. Risankizumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab have demonstrated superior efficacy in trials compared to ustekinumab. Tildrakizumab has shown low disease relapse after drug cessation. Ixekizumab and brodalumab have shown high rates of total disease clearance. Thus far, safety findings for these pipeline biologics have been consistent with those of ustekinumab. With ixekizumab approved in 2016 and brodalumab under review, new options in biologic therapy will offer patients and clinicians greater choices in treating severe and recalcitrant psoriasis.

The role of current biologic therapies in psoriasis predicates on the pathogenic role of upregulated, immune-related mechanisms that result in the activation of myeloid dendritic cells, which release IL-17, IL-23, and other cytokines to activate T cells, including helper T cell T_H17. Along with other immune cells, T_H17 produces IL-17. This proinflammatory cascade results in keratinocyte proliferation, angiogenesis, and migration of immune cells toward psoriatic lesions.¹ Thus, the newest classes of biologics target IL-12, IL-23, and IL-17 to disrupt this inflammatory cascade.

We provide an updated review of the most recent clinical efficacy and safety data on the newest IL-23 and IL-17 inhibitors in the pipeline or approved for psoriasis, including risankizumab, guselkumab, tildrakizumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab (Table). Ustekinumab and adalimumab, which have been previously approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), will be discussed here only as comparators.

IL-23 Inhibitors

Risankizumab

Risankizumab (formerly known as BI 655066)(Boehringer Ingelheim) is a selective human monoclonal antibody targeting the p19 subunit of IL-23 and currently is undergoing phase 3 trials for psoriasis. A proof-of-concept phase 1 study of 39 participants demonstrated efficacy after 12 weeks of treatment at varying subcutaneous and intravenous doses with placebo control.¹¹ At week 12, 87% (27/31)(P<.001) of all risankizumab-treated participants achieved 75% reduction in psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) score compared to 0% of 8 placebo-treated participants. Common adverse effects (AEs) occurred in 65% (20/31) of risankizumab-treated participants, including non–dose-dependent upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, and headache. Serious adverse events (SAEs) that occurred were considered unrelated to the study medication.¹¹

A phase 2 trial of 166 participants compared 3 dosing regimens of subcutaneous risankizumab (single 18-mg dose at week 0; single 90-mg dose at weeks 0, 4, and 16; or single 180-mg dose at weeks 0, 4, and 16) and ustekinumab (weight-based single 45- or 90-mg dose at weeks 0, 4, and 16), demonstrating noninferiority at higher doses of risankizumab.² Preliminary primary end point results at week 12 showed PASI 90 in 32.6% (P=.4667), 73.2% (P=.0013), 81.0% (P<.0001), and 40.0% of the treatment groups, respectively. Participants in the 180-mg risankizumab group achieved PASI 90 eight weeks faster than those on ustekinumab, lasting more than 2 months longer. Adverse effects were similar across all treatment groups and SAEs were unrelated to the study medications.²

Guselkumab

Guselkumab (Janssen Biotech, Inc) is a selective human monoclonal antibody against the p19 subunit of IL-23. The 52-week phase 2 X-PLORE trial compared dose-ranging subcutaneous guselkumab (5 mg at weeks 0 and 4, then every 12 weeks; 15 mg every 8 weeks; 50 mg at weeks 0 and 4, then every 12 weeks; 100 mg every 8 weeks; or 200 mg at weeks 0 and 4, then every 12 weeks), adalimumab (80-mg loading dose, followed by 40 mg at week 1, then every other week), and placebo in 293 randomized participants.⁴ At week 16, 34% (P=.002) of participants in the 5-mg guselkumab group, 61% (P<.001) in the 15-mg group, 79% (P<.001) in the 50-mg group, 86% (P<.001) in the 100-mg group, 83% (P<.001) in the 200-mg group, and 58% (P<.001) in the adalimumab group achieved physician global assessment (PGA) scores of 0 (clear) or 1 (minimal psoriasis) compared to 7% of the placebo group. Achievement of PASI 75 similarly favored the guselkumab (44% [P<.001]; 76% [no P value given]; 81% [P<.001]; 79% [P<.001]; and 81% [P<.001], respectively) and adalimumab treatment arms (70% [P<.001]) compared to 5% in the placebo group. In longer-term comparisons to week 40, participants in the 50-, 100-, and 200-mg guselkumab groups showed significantly greater remission of psoriatic lesions, measured by a PGA score of 0 or 1, than participants in the adalimumab group (71% [P=.05]; 77% [P=.005]; 81% [P=.01]; and 49%, respectively).⁴

Preliminary results from VOYAGE 1 (N=837), the first of several phase 3 trials, further demonstrate the superiority of guselkumab 100 mg at weeks 0 and 4 and then every 8 weeks over adalimumab (standard dosing) and placebo; at week 16, 73.3% (P<.001 for both comparisons) versus 49.7% and 2.9% of participants, respectively, achieved PASI 90, with sustained superiority of skin clearance in guselkumab-treated participants compared to adalimumab and placebo through week 48.³

Long-term safety data showed no dose dependence or trend from 0 to 16 weeks and 16 to 52 weeks of treatment regarding rates of AEs, SAEs, or serious infections.⁴ Between weeks 16 and 52, 48.9% of all guselkumab-treated participants exhibited AEs compared to 60.5% of adalimumab-treated participants and 51.3% of placebo participants. Overall infection rates also were lowest in the guselkumab group at 29.8% compared to 36.8% and 35.9%, respectively. Three participants treated with guselkumab had major cardiovascular events, including a fatal myocardial infarction. No cases of tuberculosis or serious opportunistic infections were reported.⁴

Tildrakizumab

Tildrakizumab (formerly known as MK-3222)(Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd) is a human monoclonal antibody also targeting the p19 subunit of IL-23. In a phase 2 study of 355 participants with chronic plaque psoriasis, participants received 5-, 25-, 100-, or 200-mg subcutaneous tildrakizumab or placebo at weeks 0 and 4 and then every 12 weeks for a total of 52 weeks.⁶ At week 16, PASI 75 results were 33.3%, 64.4%, 66.3%, 74.4%, and 4.4%, respectively (P<.001 for each comparison). Improvement began within the first month of treatment, with median times to PASI 75 of 57 days at 200-mg dosing and 84 days at 100-mg dosing. Of those participants achieving PASI 75 by drug discontinuation at week 52, 96% of the 100-mg group and 93% of the 200-mg group maintained PASI 75 through week 72, suggesting low relapse rates after treatment cessation.⁶

In October 2016, the efficacy results of 2 pivotal phase 3 trials (reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2) involving more than 1800 participants combined revealed PASI 90 achievement in an average of 54% of participants on tildrakizumab 100 mg and 59% of participants on tildrakizumab 200 mg at week 28.⁵ Achievement of PASI 100 occurred in 24% and 30% of participants at week 28, respectively. The second of these trials included an etanercept comparison group and demonstrated head-to-head superiority of 100 and 200 mg subcutaneous tildrakizumab at week 12 by end point measures.⁵

Treatment-related AEs occurred at rates of 25% in tildrakizumab-treated participants and 22% in placebo-treated participants, most frequently nasopharyngitis and headache.⁶ At least 1 AE occurred in 64% of tildrakizumab-treated participants without dose dependence compared to 69% of placebo-treated participants. Severe AEs thought to be drug treatment related were bacterial arthritis, lymphedema, melanoma, stroke, and epiglottitis.⁶

IL-17 Inhibitors

Ixekizumab

Ixekizumab (Eli Lilly and Company), a monoclonal inhibitor of IL-17A, is the most recently approved psoriasis biologic on the market and has been cleared for use in adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Recommended dosing is 160 mg (given in two 80-mg subcutaneous injections via an autoinjector or prefilled syringe) at week 0, followed by an 80-mg injection at weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12, and then 80 mg every 4 weeks thereafter. The FDA approved ixekizumab in March 2016 following favorable results of several phase 3 trials: UNCOVER-1, UNCOVER-2, and UNCOVER-3.^7,8

In UNCOVER-1, 1296 participants were randomized to 1 of 2 ixekizumab treatment arms—160 mg starting dose at week 0, 80 mg every 2 or 4 weeks thereafter—or placebo.⁷ At week 12, 89.1%, 82.6%, and 3.9% achieved PASI 75, respectively (P<.001 for both). Importantly, high numbers of participants also achieved PASI 90 (70.9% in the 2-week group and 64.6% in the 4-week group vs 0.5% in the placebo group [P<.001]) and PASI 100 (35.3% and 33.6% vs 0%, respectively [P<.001]), suggesting high rates of disease clearance.⁷

UNCOVER-2 (N=1224) and UNCOVER-3 (N=1346) investigated the same 2 dosing regimens of ixekizumab compared to etanercept 50 mg biweekly and placebo.⁸ At week 12, the percentage of participants achieving PASI 90 in UNCOVER-2 was 70.7%, 59.7%, 18.7%, and 0.6%, respectively, and 68.1%, 65.3%, 25.7%, and 3.1%, respectively, in UNCOVER-3 (P<.0001 for all comparisons to placebo and etanercept). At week 12, PASI 100 results also showed striking superiority, with 40.5%, 30.8%, 5.3%, and 0.6% of participants, respectively, in UNCOVER-2, and 37.7%, 35%, 7.3%, and 0%, respectively, in UNCOVER-3, achieving complete clearance of disease (P<.0001 for all comparisons to placebo and etanercept). Responses to ixekizumab were observed as early as weeks 1 and 2, while no participants in the etanercept and placebo treatment groups achieved comparative efficiency.⁸

In an extension of UNCOVER-3, efficacy increased from week 12 to week 60 according to PASI 90 (68%–73% in the 2-week group; 65%–72% in the 4-week group) and PASI 100 measures (38%–55% in the 2-week group; 35%–52% in the 4-week group).⁷

The most common AEs associated with ixekizumab treatment from weeks 0 to 12 occurred at higher rates in the 2-week and 4-week ixekizumab groups compared to placebo, including nasopharyngitis (9.5% and 9% vs 8.7%, respectively), upper respiratory tract infection (4.4% and 3.9% vs 3.5%, respectively), injection-site reaction (10% and 7.7% vs 1%, respectively), arthralgia (4.4% and 4.3% vs 2.9%, respectively), and headache (2.5% and 1.9% vs 2.1%, respectively). Infections, including candidal, oral, vulvovaginal, and cutaneous, occurred in 27% of the 2-week dosing group and 27.4% of the 4-week dosing group compared to 22.9% of the placebo group during weeks 0 to 12, with candidal infections in particular occurring more frequently in the active treatment groups and exhibiting dose dependence. Other AEs of special interest that occurred among all ixekizumab-treated participants (n=3736) from weeks 0 to 60 were cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (22 [0.6%]), inflammatory bowel disease (11 [0.3%]), non–skin cancer malignancy (14 [0.4%]), and nonmelanoma skin cancer (20 [0.5%]). Neutropenia occurred at higher rates in ixekizumab-treated participants (9.3% in the 2-week group and 8.6% in the 4-week group) compared to placebo (3.3%) and occurred in 11.5% of all ixekizumab participants over 60 weeks.⁷

Brodalumab

Brodalumab (Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc) is a human monoclonal antibody targeting the IL-17A receptor currently under review for FDA approval after undergoing phase 3 trials. The first of these trials, AMAGINE-1, showed efficacy of subcutaneous brodalumab (140 or 210 mg administered every 2 weeks with an extra dose at week 1) compared to placebo in 661 participants.⁹ At week 12, 60%, 83%, and 3%, respectively, achieved PASI 75; 43%, 70%, and 1%, respectively, achieved PASI 90; and 23%, 42%, and 1%, respectively, achieved PASI 100 (P<.001 for all respective comparisons to placebo). These effects were retained through 52 weeks of treatment. The median time to complete disease clearance in participants reaching PASI 100 was 12 weeks. Conversely, participants who were re-randomized to placebo after week 12 of brodalumab treatment relapsed within weeks to months.⁹

AMAGINE-2 and AMAGINE-3 further demonstrated the efficacy of brodalumab (140 or 210 mg every 2 weeks with extra dose at week 1) compared to ustekinumab (45 or 90 mg weight-based standard dosing) and placebo in 1831 participants, respectively.¹⁰ In AMAGINE-2, 49% of participants in the 140-mg group (P<.001 vs placebo), 70% in the 210-mg group (P<.001 vs placebo), 47% in the ustekinumab group, and 3% in the placebo group achieved PASI 90 at week 12. Similarly, in AMAGINE-3, 52% of participants in the 140-mg group (P<.001), 69% in the 210-mg group (P<.001), 48% in the ustekinumab group, and 2% in the placebo group achieved PASI 90. Impressively, complete clearance (PASI 100) at week 12 occurred in 26% of the 140-mg group (P<.001 vs placebo), 44% of the 210-mg group (P<.001 vs placebo), and 22% of the ustekinumab group compared to 2% of the placebo group in AMAGINE-2, with similar rates in AMAGINE-3. Brodalumab was significantly superior to ustekinumab at the 210-mg dose by PASI 90 measures (P<.001) in both studies and at the 140-mg dose by PASI 100 measures (P=.007) in AMAGINE-3 only.¹⁰

Common AEs were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, and arthralgia, all occurring at grossly similar rates (49%–60%) across all experimental groups in AMAGINE-1, AMAGINE-2, and AMAGINE-3 during the first 12-week treatment period.^9,10 Brodalumab treatment groups had high rates of specific interest AEs compared to ustekinumab and placebo groups, including neutropenia (0.8%, 1.1%, 0.3%, and 0%, respectively) and candidal infections (0.8%, 1.3%, 0.3%, and 0.3%, respectively). Induction phase (weeks 0–12) depression rates were concerning, with 6 cases each in AMAGINE-2 (4 [0.7%] in the 140-mg group, 2 [0.3%] in the 210-mg group) and AMAGINE-3 (4 [0.6%] in the 140-mg group, 2 [0.3%] in the 210-mg group). Cases of neutropenia were mild, were not associated with major infection, and were transient or reversible. Depression rates after 52 weeks of treatment were 1.7% (23/1567) of brodalumab participants in AMAGINE-2 and 1.8% (21/1613) in AMAGINE-3. Three participants, all on constant 210-mg dosing through week 52, attempted suicide with 1 completion¹⁰; however, because no other IL-17 inhibitors were associated with depression or suicide in other trials, it has been suggested that these cases were incidental and not treatment related.¹² An FDA advisory panel recommended approval of brodalumab in July 2016 despite ongoing concerns of depression and suicide.¹³

Conclusion

The robust investigation into IL-23 and IL-17 inhibitors to treat plaque psoriasis has yielded promising results, including the unprecedented rates of PASI 100 achievement with these new biologics. Risankizumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab have demonstrated superior efficacy in trials compared to ustekinumab. Tildrakizumab has shown low disease relapse after drug cessation. Ixekizumab and brodalumab have shown high rates of total disease clearance. Thus far, safety findings for these pipeline biologics have been consistent with those of ustekinumab. With ixekizumab approved in 2016 and brodalumab under review, new options in biologic therapy will offer patients and clinicians greater choices in treating severe and recalcitrant psoriasis.

WAILEA, Hawaii – The first approval of a biologic for pediatric psoriasis, and ongoing clinical trials of other biologics in children with psoriasis, are among the encouraging therapeutic developments for this patient population, Wynnis Tom, MD, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

“We are incredibly excited ... as pediatric dermatologists that we’re finally seeing breakthroughs” in terms of Food and Drug Administration activity regarding the use of biologics for treating psoriasis in children, Dr. Tom said in a video interview at the seminar.

Etanercept (Enbrel) is now approved for children with psoriasis, the first biologic indicated for pediatric psoriasis, and clinical trials of other biologics that have been available for adults and nonbiologic products for pediatric psoriasis are underway, she said.

However, getting insurance coverage can still be a challenge, although having long-term efficacy and safety data helps, noted Dr. Tom of the department of dermatology and pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Also helpful is sending letters to insurers on behalf of the patient, describing the patient’s quality of life, descriptions of treatments that have been unsuccessful, and even photos documenting the disease in the child, she added.

Dr. Tom disclosed ties with Promius, Celgene, and Janssen.

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

WAILEA, Hawaii – The first approval of a biologic for pediatric psoriasis, and ongoing clinical trials of other biologics in children with psoriasis, are among the encouraging therapeutic developments for this patient population, Wynnis Tom, MD, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

“We are incredibly excited ... as pediatric dermatologists that we’re finally seeing breakthroughs” in terms of Food and Drug Administration activity regarding the use of biologics for treating psoriasis in children, Dr. Tom said in a video interview at the seminar.

Etanercept (Enbrel) is now approved for children with psoriasis, the first biologic indicated for pediatric psoriasis, and clinical trials of other biologics that have been available for adults and nonbiologic products for pediatric psoriasis are underway, she said.

However, getting insurance coverage can still be a challenge, although having long-term efficacy and safety data helps, noted Dr. Tom of the department of dermatology and pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Also helpful is sending letters to insurers on behalf of the patient, describing the patient’s quality of life, descriptions of treatments that have been unsuccessful, and even photos documenting the disease in the child, she added.

Dr. Tom disclosed ties with Promius, Celgene, and Janssen.

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

WAILEA, Hawaii – The first approval of a biologic for pediatric psoriasis, and ongoing clinical trials of other biologics in children with psoriasis, are among the encouraging therapeutic developments for this patient population, Wynnis Tom, MD, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

“We are incredibly excited ... as pediatric dermatologists that we’re finally seeing breakthroughs” in terms of Food and Drug Administration activity regarding the use of biologics for treating psoriasis in children, Dr. Tom said in a video interview at the seminar.

Etanercept (Enbrel) is now approved for children with psoriasis, the first biologic indicated for pediatric psoriasis, and clinical trials of other biologics that have been available for adults and nonbiologic products for pediatric psoriasis are underway, she said.

However, getting insurance coverage can still be a challenge, although having long-term efficacy and safety data helps, noted Dr. Tom of the department of dermatology and pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Also helpful is sending letters to insurers on behalf of the patient, describing the patient’s quality of life, descriptions of treatments that have been unsuccessful, and even photos documenting the disease in the child, she added.

Dr. Tom disclosed ties with Promius, Celgene, and Janssen.

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.