User login
Study of twins quantifies diabetes, obesity link with psoriasis
The statistically significant association between psoriasis and both obesity and type 2 diabetes comes down to genetics, according to a large population-based study of twins.
Across the entire cohort of 33,588 Danish twins, researchers found the prevalence of psoriasis was 53% higher in individuals with type 2 diabetes, while the prevalence of psoriasis was 81% higher in individuals with a body mass index of at least 35, after adjustment for confounders such as sex, age, and smoking (JAMA Dermatol. 2016 April 27. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.6262).
Among the 449 twin pairs discordant for psoriasis, the risk for obesity was more than double in the twin with psoriasis compared to the unaffected twin, although this was significant only among dizygotic pairs, not monozygotic pairs.
The twin analysis also found that the risk of type 2 diabetes was the same between twins with and without psoriasis.
“Increased plasma levels of tumor necrosis factor, tumor necrosis factor receptors, and interleukin 6, which have important roles in the pathogenesis of psoriasis, have been found to be linked with obesity,” wrote Dr. Ann Sophie Lønnberg of the department of dermato-allergology, Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, and her associates.
“The association between type 2 diabetes mellitus and psoriasis also might be owing to increased tumor necrosis factor production from psoriatic inflammation and low-grade obesity inflammation, because it contributes to insulin resistance,” they wrote.
While obesity and type 2 diabetes are known comorbidities of psoriasis, Dr. Lønnberg and colleagues said this was the first study, to their knowledge, to explore the contribution of genetic and environmental factors to this interaction, and they suggested that future studies could look for genes and epigenetic factors that might underlie these associations.
Their analysis showed the genetic correlation between psoriasis and type 2 diabetes was 0.13, while the environmental correlation was 0.10. Similarly, the genetic correlation between psoriasis and BMI was 0.12, while environmental correlation was –0.05.
No conflicts of interest were declared.
Given the association of psoriasis – particularly more severe disease – and increases in BMI, most of our patients would be recommended for diabetes screening based on standard recommendations.
Dr. Joel M. Gelfand |
Therefore, dermatologists have the opportunity to educate patients with psoriasis and initiate appropriate screenings (or refer them to primary care physicians), which can result in better health outcomes through evidence-based interventions.
Dr. Joel M. Gelfand is from the department of dermatology and Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. He made this comments in an accompanying editorial (JAMA Dermatol. 2016 April 27. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.0670). Dr. Gelfand declared consultancies for Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Coherus, Eli Lilly, Janssen Biologics (formerly Centocor), Sanofi, Merck, Novartis, Endo, Valeant, and Pfizer; research grant support from Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Regeneron, and Pfizer (to the trustees of the University of Pennsylvania); and having received payment for continuing medical education work related to psoriasis. He is is a co–patent holder of resiquimod for treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.
Given the association of psoriasis – particularly more severe disease – and increases in BMI, most of our patients would be recommended for diabetes screening based on standard recommendations.
Dr. Joel M. Gelfand |
Therefore, dermatologists have the opportunity to educate patients with psoriasis and initiate appropriate screenings (or refer them to primary care physicians), which can result in better health outcomes through evidence-based interventions.
Dr. Joel M. Gelfand is from the department of dermatology and Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. He made this comments in an accompanying editorial (JAMA Dermatol. 2016 April 27. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.0670). Dr. Gelfand declared consultancies for Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Coherus, Eli Lilly, Janssen Biologics (formerly Centocor), Sanofi, Merck, Novartis, Endo, Valeant, and Pfizer; research grant support from Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Regeneron, and Pfizer (to the trustees of the University of Pennsylvania); and having received payment for continuing medical education work related to psoriasis. He is is a co–patent holder of resiquimod for treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.
Given the association of psoriasis – particularly more severe disease – and increases in BMI, most of our patients would be recommended for diabetes screening based on standard recommendations.
Dr. Joel M. Gelfand |
Therefore, dermatologists have the opportunity to educate patients with psoriasis and initiate appropriate screenings (or refer them to primary care physicians), which can result in better health outcomes through evidence-based interventions.
Dr. Joel M. Gelfand is from the department of dermatology and Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. He made this comments in an accompanying editorial (JAMA Dermatol. 2016 April 27. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.0670). Dr. Gelfand declared consultancies for Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Coherus, Eli Lilly, Janssen Biologics (formerly Centocor), Sanofi, Merck, Novartis, Endo, Valeant, and Pfizer; research grant support from Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Regeneron, and Pfizer (to the trustees of the University of Pennsylvania); and having received payment for continuing medical education work related to psoriasis. He is is a co–patent holder of resiquimod for treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.
The statistically significant association between psoriasis and both obesity and type 2 diabetes comes down to genetics, according to a large population-based study of twins.
Across the entire cohort of 33,588 Danish twins, researchers found the prevalence of psoriasis was 53% higher in individuals with type 2 diabetes, while the prevalence of psoriasis was 81% higher in individuals with a body mass index of at least 35, after adjustment for confounders such as sex, age, and smoking (JAMA Dermatol. 2016 April 27. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.6262).
Among the 449 twin pairs discordant for psoriasis, the risk for obesity was more than double in the twin with psoriasis compared to the unaffected twin, although this was significant only among dizygotic pairs, not monozygotic pairs.
The twin analysis also found that the risk of type 2 diabetes was the same between twins with and without psoriasis.
“Increased plasma levels of tumor necrosis factor, tumor necrosis factor receptors, and interleukin 6, which have important roles in the pathogenesis of psoriasis, have been found to be linked with obesity,” wrote Dr. Ann Sophie Lønnberg of the department of dermato-allergology, Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, and her associates.
“The association between type 2 diabetes mellitus and psoriasis also might be owing to increased tumor necrosis factor production from psoriatic inflammation and low-grade obesity inflammation, because it contributes to insulin resistance,” they wrote.
While obesity and type 2 diabetes are known comorbidities of psoriasis, Dr. Lønnberg and colleagues said this was the first study, to their knowledge, to explore the contribution of genetic and environmental factors to this interaction, and they suggested that future studies could look for genes and epigenetic factors that might underlie these associations.
Their analysis showed the genetic correlation between psoriasis and type 2 diabetes was 0.13, while the environmental correlation was 0.10. Similarly, the genetic correlation between psoriasis and BMI was 0.12, while environmental correlation was –0.05.
No conflicts of interest were declared.
The statistically significant association between psoriasis and both obesity and type 2 diabetes comes down to genetics, according to a large population-based study of twins.
Across the entire cohort of 33,588 Danish twins, researchers found the prevalence of psoriasis was 53% higher in individuals with type 2 diabetes, while the prevalence of psoriasis was 81% higher in individuals with a body mass index of at least 35, after adjustment for confounders such as sex, age, and smoking (JAMA Dermatol. 2016 April 27. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.6262).
Among the 449 twin pairs discordant for psoriasis, the risk for obesity was more than double in the twin with psoriasis compared to the unaffected twin, although this was significant only among dizygotic pairs, not monozygotic pairs.
The twin analysis also found that the risk of type 2 diabetes was the same between twins with and without psoriasis.
“Increased plasma levels of tumor necrosis factor, tumor necrosis factor receptors, and interleukin 6, which have important roles in the pathogenesis of psoriasis, have been found to be linked with obesity,” wrote Dr. Ann Sophie Lønnberg of the department of dermato-allergology, Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, and her associates.
“The association between type 2 diabetes mellitus and psoriasis also might be owing to increased tumor necrosis factor production from psoriatic inflammation and low-grade obesity inflammation, because it contributes to insulin resistance,” they wrote.
While obesity and type 2 diabetes are known comorbidities of psoriasis, Dr. Lønnberg and colleagues said this was the first study, to their knowledge, to explore the contribution of genetic and environmental factors to this interaction, and they suggested that future studies could look for genes and epigenetic factors that might underlie these associations.
Their analysis showed the genetic correlation between psoriasis and type 2 diabetes was 0.13, while the environmental correlation was 0.10. Similarly, the genetic correlation between psoriasis and BMI was 0.12, while environmental correlation was –0.05.
No conflicts of interest were declared.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
Key clinical point: The prevalence of both type 2 diabetes and psoriasis is significantly higher in individuals with psoriasis.
Major finding: The risk of obesity is twofold higher in a twin with psoriasis compared to the co-twin without psoriasis.
Data source: Cross-sectional, population-based study of 33,588 Danish twins, including 449 pairs discordant for psoriasis.
Disclosures: No conflicts of interest were declared.
Psoriasis and Erectile Dysfunction
According to a study by Ji et al published online on February 11 in the International Journal of Impotence Research, men with psoriasis may be more prone to erectile dysfunction (ED) than those without this skin disease, and their odds of sexual difficulties are even higher if they are depressed or have other health problems such as diabetes mellitus or high blood pressure.
The investigators evaluated 191 psoriasis patients and 191 healthy men. Of the 191 patients with psoriasis, 52.9% had symptoms of ED compared with 40.3% of the control group, reflecting an age-adjusted odds ratio of 1.965 in favor of the psoriasis group. A univariate analysis of the psoriasis cohort demonstrated that age, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, and depressive symptoms were risk factors for ED. A multivariate logistic regression model indicated that increasing age, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and depressive symptoms were independent risk factors for ED in those with psoriasis. More severe depressive symptoms increased the risk of ED, especially moderate to severe ED.
Ji et al noted that ED is a predictor of future cardiovascular disease; therefore, it is important to identify ED early in treatment to evaluate cardiovascular issues in psoriasis patients. They noted that screening of ED may become a part of routine care in the management of psoriasis patients.
What’s the issue?
Even though it was a small study from one location, it still sheds light on many important issues. Psoriasis and its comorbidities appear to increase the risk for ED. In addition, ED also may be an indicator of cardiovascular disease.
How will these data impact your evaluation of psoriasis patients?
According to a study by Ji et al published online on February 11 in the International Journal of Impotence Research, men with psoriasis may be more prone to erectile dysfunction (ED) than those without this skin disease, and their odds of sexual difficulties are even higher if they are depressed or have other health problems such as diabetes mellitus or high blood pressure.
The investigators evaluated 191 psoriasis patients and 191 healthy men. Of the 191 patients with psoriasis, 52.9% had symptoms of ED compared with 40.3% of the control group, reflecting an age-adjusted odds ratio of 1.965 in favor of the psoriasis group. A univariate analysis of the psoriasis cohort demonstrated that age, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, and depressive symptoms were risk factors for ED. A multivariate logistic regression model indicated that increasing age, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and depressive symptoms were independent risk factors for ED in those with psoriasis. More severe depressive symptoms increased the risk of ED, especially moderate to severe ED.
Ji et al noted that ED is a predictor of future cardiovascular disease; therefore, it is important to identify ED early in treatment to evaluate cardiovascular issues in psoriasis patients. They noted that screening of ED may become a part of routine care in the management of psoriasis patients.
What’s the issue?
Even though it was a small study from one location, it still sheds light on many important issues. Psoriasis and its comorbidities appear to increase the risk for ED. In addition, ED also may be an indicator of cardiovascular disease.
How will these data impact your evaluation of psoriasis patients?
According to a study by Ji et al published online on February 11 in the International Journal of Impotence Research, men with psoriasis may be more prone to erectile dysfunction (ED) than those without this skin disease, and their odds of sexual difficulties are even higher if they are depressed or have other health problems such as diabetes mellitus or high blood pressure.
The investigators evaluated 191 psoriasis patients and 191 healthy men. Of the 191 patients with psoriasis, 52.9% had symptoms of ED compared with 40.3% of the control group, reflecting an age-adjusted odds ratio of 1.965 in favor of the psoriasis group. A univariate analysis of the psoriasis cohort demonstrated that age, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, and depressive symptoms were risk factors for ED. A multivariate logistic regression model indicated that increasing age, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and depressive symptoms were independent risk factors for ED in those with psoriasis. More severe depressive symptoms increased the risk of ED, especially moderate to severe ED.
Ji et al noted that ED is a predictor of future cardiovascular disease; therefore, it is important to identify ED early in treatment to evaluate cardiovascular issues in psoriasis patients. They noted that screening of ED may become a part of routine care in the management of psoriasis patients.
What’s the issue?
Even though it was a small study from one location, it still sheds light on many important issues. Psoriasis and its comorbidities appear to increase the risk for ED. In addition, ED also may be an indicator of cardiovascular disease.
How will these data impact your evaluation of psoriasis patients?
Psoriasis tied to abdominal aortic aneurysm in nationwide study
Patients with severe psoriasis were nearly 70% more likely to develop abdominal aortic aneurysms compared with the general population, according to a Danish population-based cohort study.
The findings augment existing evidence linking psoriasis and cardiovascular diseases, wrote Dr. Usman Khalid of Copenhagen University Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Denmark. The report was published online April 14 in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.
While the mechanisms for the link are unclear, “emerging evidence suggests that AAA is a focal representation of a systemic disease with a distinct inflammatory component, rather than a mere consequence of atherosclerosis,” wrote Dr. Khalid and his associates.
Several case series have linked AAA with other autoimmune disorders, including systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis, they noted. Their study comprised nearly 5.5 million adults in Denmark between 1997 and 2011. The researchers identified 59,423 patients with mild psoriasis and 11,566 patients with severe psoriasis (Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2016 April 14. doi: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.116.307449).
The incidence of AAA in the reference population was 3.72 cases per 10,000 person-years, with an average follow-up period of 14.4 years. In contrast, the incidence of AAA in patients with mild psoriasis was 7.30 cases per 10,000 person-years, and the rate in patients with severe psoriasis was 9.87 cases of per 10,000 person-years, with average follow-up periods of 5.7 years. Both mild and severe psoriasis were significantly associated with AAA after the researchers accounted for age, sex, comorbidities, medications, socioeconomic status, and smoking, with adjusted incidence rate ratios of 1.20 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.39) and 1.67 (95% CI, 1.21-2.32), respectively.
The historical view that AAA is caused mainly by atherosclerosis has largely been upended, the researchers noted. Instead, AAA appears to be a multifactorial process involving inflammation, matrix degradation, thrombosis, and aortic wall stress. Furthermore, inflammation in both AAA and psoriasis is centrally mediated by T-helper-17 cells and interleukin-17. Together, the data suggest that shared inflammatory mechanisms link psoriasis and AAA, especially because the association correlates with psoriatic disease activity, they said. “This finding clearly requires independent replication, and the clinical consequences are unclear at present.”
The LEO Foundation and the Novo Nordisk Foundation funded the study. Dr. Khalid had no disclosures. Four coinvestigators reported financial ties with Abbott, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and several other pharmaceutical companies.
Patients with severe psoriasis were nearly 70% more likely to develop abdominal aortic aneurysms compared with the general population, according to a Danish population-based cohort study.
The findings augment existing evidence linking psoriasis and cardiovascular diseases, wrote Dr. Usman Khalid of Copenhagen University Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Denmark. The report was published online April 14 in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.
While the mechanisms for the link are unclear, “emerging evidence suggests that AAA is a focal representation of a systemic disease with a distinct inflammatory component, rather than a mere consequence of atherosclerosis,” wrote Dr. Khalid and his associates.
Several case series have linked AAA with other autoimmune disorders, including systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis, they noted. Their study comprised nearly 5.5 million adults in Denmark between 1997 and 2011. The researchers identified 59,423 patients with mild psoriasis and 11,566 patients with severe psoriasis (Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2016 April 14. doi: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.116.307449).
The incidence of AAA in the reference population was 3.72 cases per 10,000 person-years, with an average follow-up period of 14.4 years. In contrast, the incidence of AAA in patients with mild psoriasis was 7.30 cases per 10,000 person-years, and the rate in patients with severe psoriasis was 9.87 cases of per 10,000 person-years, with average follow-up periods of 5.7 years. Both mild and severe psoriasis were significantly associated with AAA after the researchers accounted for age, sex, comorbidities, medications, socioeconomic status, and smoking, with adjusted incidence rate ratios of 1.20 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.39) and 1.67 (95% CI, 1.21-2.32), respectively.
The historical view that AAA is caused mainly by atherosclerosis has largely been upended, the researchers noted. Instead, AAA appears to be a multifactorial process involving inflammation, matrix degradation, thrombosis, and aortic wall stress. Furthermore, inflammation in both AAA and psoriasis is centrally mediated by T-helper-17 cells and interleukin-17. Together, the data suggest that shared inflammatory mechanisms link psoriasis and AAA, especially because the association correlates with psoriatic disease activity, they said. “This finding clearly requires independent replication, and the clinical consequences are unclear at present.”
The LEO Foundation and the Novo Nordisk Foundation funded the study. Dr. Khalid had no disclosures. Four coinvestigators reported financial ties with Abbott, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and several other pharmaceutical companies.
Patients with severe psoriasis were nearly 70% more likely to develop abdominal aortic aneurysms compared with the general population, according to a Danish population-based cohort study.
The findings augment existing evidence linking psoriasis and cardiovascular diseases, wrote Dr. Usman Khalid of Copenhagen University Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Denmark. The report was published online April 14 in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.
While the mechanisms for the link are unclear, “emerging evidence suggests that AAA is a focal representation of a systemic disease with a distinct inflammatory component, rather than a mere consequence of atherosclerosis,” wrote Dr. Khalid and his associates.
Several case series have linked AAA with other autoimmune disorders, including systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis, they noted. Their study comprised nearly 5.5 million adults in Denmark between 1997 and 2011. The researchers identified 59,423 patients with mild psoriasis and 11,566 patients with severe psoriasis (Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2016 April 14. doi: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.116.307449).
The incidence of AAA in the reference population was 3.72 cases per 10,000 person-years, with an average follow-up period of 14.4 years. In contrast, the incidence of AAA in patients with mild psoriasis was 7.30 cases per 10,000 person-years, and the rate in patients with severe psoriasis was 9.87 cases of per 10,000 person-years, with average follow-up periods of 5.7 years. Both mild and severe psoriasis were significantly associated with AAA after the researchers accounted for age, sex, comorbidities, medications, socioeconomic status, and smoking, with adjusted incidence rate ratios of 1.20 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.39) and 1.67 (95% CI, 1.21-2.32), respectively.
The historical view that AAA is caused mainly by atherosclerosis has largely been upended, the researchers noted. Instead, AAA appears to be a multifactorial process involving inflammation, matrix degradation, thrombosis, and aortic wall stress. Furthermore, inflammation in both AAA and psoriasis is centrally mediated by T-helper-17 cells and interleukin-17. Together, the data suggest that shared inflammatory mechanisms link psoriasis and AAA, especially because the association correlates with psoriatic disease activity, they said. “This finding clearly requires independent replication, and the clinical consequences are unclear at present.”
The LEO Foundation and the Novo Nordisk Foundation funded the study. Dr. Khalid had no disclosures. Four coinvestigators reported financial ties with Abbott, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and several other pharmaceutical companies.
FROM ARTERIOSCLEROSIS, THROMBOSIS, AND VASCULAR BIOLOGY
Key clinical point: Psoriasis predicted abdominal aortic aneurysm in a large, population-based study.
Major finding: The adjusted risk of abdominal aortic aneurysm was 1.67 times greater among patients with severe psoriasis than in the reference population.
Data source: A retrospective cohort study of 5.5 million Danish adults, including 59,423 patients with mild psoriasis and 11,566 patients with severe psoriasis.
Disclosures: The LEO Foundation and the Novo Nordisk Foundation funded the study. Dr. Khalid had no disclosures. Four coinvestigators reported financial ties with Abbott, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and several other pharmaceutical companies.
Inflectra becomes first FDA-approved biosimilar for inflammatory diseases
A biosimilar version of the anti–tumor necrosis factor–alpha agent Remicade has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, making it the first biosimilar drug approved by the agency for inflammatory diseases and just the second biosimilar it has approved.
The agency said in its April 5 announcement that the biosimilar drug, to be marketed as Inflectra, will have the same indications as Remicade: moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease in patients aged 6 years and older who have had an inadequate response to conventional therapy; moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis that has inadequately responded to conventional therapy; moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis in combination with methotrexate; active ankylosing spondylitis; active psoriatic arthritis; and chronic, severe plaque psoriasis.
The drug, given the generic name of infliximab-dyyb under the agency’s nomenclature for biosimilar products, earned its approval as a biosimilar by showing it has no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety and effectiveness from Remicade. According to FDA regulations, biosimilar products can have only minor differences in clinically inactive components and must have the same mechanism(s) of action (to the extent that it is known) and route(s) of administration, dosage form(s), and strength(s) as the reference product; and can be approved only for the indication(s) and condition(s) of use that have been approved for the reference product.
Inflectra’s approval is only as a biosimilar, not as an interchangeable product. The agency has yet to define the regulatory requirements for interchangeability that are necessary to meet the requirements of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. That Act states that an approved biosimilar “may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the health care provider who prescribed the reference product.” A statement about implementation of the Act on the FDA website explains that for interchangeability, “a sponsor must demonstrate that the biosimilar product can be expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient and, for a biological product that is administered more than once, that the risk of alternating or switching between use of the biosimilar product and the reference product is not greater than the risk of maintaining the patient on the reference product.”
Like Remicade, Inflectra will come with a boxed warning and a Medication Guide that describes important information about its uses and risks, which include serious infections (tuberculosis, bacterial sepsis, invasive fungal infections, and others), lymphoma and other malignancies, liver injury, blood problems, lupuslike syndrome, psoriasis, and in rare cases, nervous system disorders.
Inflectra is manufactured by Celltrion, based in South Korea, for Illinois-based Hospira. Inflectra’s label can be found here.
A biosimilar version of the anti–tumor necrosis factor–alpha agent Remicade has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, making it the first biosimilar drug approved by the agency for inflammatory diseases and just the second biosimilar it has approved.
The agency said in its April 5 announcement that the biosimilar drug, to be marketed as Inflectra, will have the same indications as Remicade: moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease in patients aged 6 years and older who have had an inadequate response to conventional therapy; moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis that has inadequately responded to conventional therapy; moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis in combination with methotrexate; active ankylosing spondylitis; active psoriatic arthritis; and chronic, severe plaque psoriasis.
The drug, given the generic name of infliximab-dyyb under the agency’s nomenclature for biosimilar products, earned its approval as a biosimilar by showing it has no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety and effectiveness from Remicade. According to FDA regulations, biosimilar products can have only minor differences in clinically inactive components and must have the same mechanism(s) of action (to the extent that it is known) and route(s) of administration, dosage form(s), and strength(s) as the reference product; and can be approved only for the indication(s) and condition(s) of use that have been approved for the reference product.
Inflectra’s approval is only as a biosimilar, not as an interchangeable product. The agency has yet to define the regulatory requirements for interchangeability that are necessary to meet the requirements of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. That Act states that an approved biosimilar “may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the health care provider who prescribed the reference product.” A statement about implementation of the Act on the FDA website explains that for interchangeability, “a sponsor must demonstrate that the biosimilar product can be expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient and, for a biological product that is administered more than once, that the risk of alternating or switching between use of the biosimilar product and the reference product is not greater than the risk of maintaining the patient on the reference product.”
Like Remicade, Inflectra will come with a boxed warning and a Medication Guide that describes important information about its uses and risks, which include serious infections (tuberculosis, bacterial sepsis, invasive fungal infections, and others), lymphoma and other malignancies, liver injury, blood problems, lupuslike syndrome, psoriasis, and in rare cases, nervous system disorders.
Inflectra is manufactured by Celltrion, based in South Korea, for Illinois-based Hospira. Inflectra’s label can be found here.
A biosimilar version of the anti–tumor necrosis factor–alpha agent Remicade has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, making it the first biosimilar drug approved by the agency for inflammatory diseases and just the second biosimilar it has approved.
The agency said in its April 5 announcement that the biosimilar drug, to be marketed as Inflectra, will have the same indications as Remicade: moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease in patients aged 6 years and older who have had an inadequate response to conventional therapy; moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis that has inadequately responded to conventional therapy; moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis in combination with methotrexate; active ankylosing spondylitis; active psoriatic arthritis; and chronic, severe plaque psoriasis.
The drug, given the generic name of infliximab-dyyb under the agency’s nomenclature for biosimilar products, earned its approval as a biosimilar by showing it has no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety and effectiveness from Remicade. According to FDA regulations, biosimilar products can have only minor differences in clinically inactive components and must have the same mechanism(s) of action (to the extent that it is known) and route(s) of administration, dosage form(s), and strength(s) as the reference product; and can be approved only for the indication(s) and condition(s) of use that have been approved for the reference product.
Inflectra’s approval is only as a biosimilar, not as an interchangeable product. The agency has yet to define the regulatory requirements for interchangeability that are necessary to meet the requirements of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. That Act states that an approved biosimilar “may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the health care provider who prescribed the reference product.” A statement about implementation of the Act on the FDA website explains that for interchangeability, “a sponsor must demonstrate that the biosimilar product can be expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient and, for a biological product that is administered more than once, that the risk of alternating or switching between use of the biosimilar product and the reference product is not greater than the risk of maintaining the patient on the reference product.”
Like Remicade, Inflectra will come with a boxed warning and a Medication Guide that describes important information about its uses and risks, which include serious infections (tuberculosis, bacterial sepsis, invasive fungal infections, and others), lymphoma and other malignancies, liver injury, blood problems, lupuslike syndrome, psoriasis, and in rare cases, nervous system disorders.
Inflectra is manufactured by Celltrion, based in South Korea, for Illinois-based Hospira. Inflectra’s label can be found here.
Severe psoriasis, kidney disease linked
WASHINGTON – Another population-based study has found a link between severe psoriasis and kidney disease – this one discovering almost a fivefold increase in the risk of immunoglobulin A nephropathy (IgAN) and a doubling in the risk of glomerular disease.
The findings suggest yet again that psoriasis is a systemic illness, and not something that affects only the skin, Sungat Grewal said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
“Numerous case reports have generated a hypothesis that psoriasis may be associated,” with an increased risk of IgAN, said Ms. Grewal, of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “Our study is the first to test this, and it supports the notion that this is no coincidence. Now we need further research to determine if this association is due to causality or to a shared pathophysiology.”
The link between psoriasis and kidney disease has long been noted, but the first study formally investigating this association was published in 2013 (BMJ. 2013 Oct;347:f5961). The study, also conducted by University of Pennsylvania investigators, used a large patient database in the United Kingdom, matched about 143,000 patients with psoriasis with up to five controls without psoriasis each, and found the risk of chronic kidney disease was nearly doubled for those with severe psoriasis (hazard ratio, 1.93).
A similar finding emerged from Taiwan in 2015. Using the national healthcare database, researchers matched about 4,600 patients with psoriasis with about 923,000 controls. They found that having severe psoriasis was associated with almost a doubling in the risk of chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.90) and almost a tripling in the risk of end stage renal disease (HR, 2.97), after adjusting for age, gender, comorbidities, and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (J Dermatol Sci. 2015 Jun;78[3]:232-8).
Ms. Grewal and her coinvestigators used data from The Health Improvement Network in the United Kingdom – the same database used in the 2013 study. The study group comprised 206,000 patients with psoriasis and about 1 million controls.
In the overall group of patients, the risk of IgAN was not significantly increased. Nor was there a significant overall association with glomerular disease. And when the group was divided by disease severity, there were no significant associations with either IgAN or glomerular disease in the group with mild psoriasis.
Among those with severe psoriasis, however, the risk of IgAN was almost five times higher (HR, 4.75) and the risk of glomerular disease was doubled (HR, 2.05).
But although the hazard ratios look impressive, the clinical reality shouldn’t spark too much concern, Ms. Grewal said. “To keep things in context, it’s very important to remember that the excess risk of nephropathy attributed to severe psoriasis was still quite small – similar to the chance of a spontaneous pregnancy resulting in triplets.”
Still, she said, the link is intriguing, and something clinicians should keep in mind when managing patients with severe psoriasis.
Ms. Grewal had no financial disclosures. She is a medical student at the Commonwealth Medical College (Scranton, Pa.), and is currently spending a year at the Gelfand Clinical Research Lab at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
WASHINGTON – Another population-based study has found a link between severe psoriasis and kidney disease – this one discovering almost a fivefold increase in the risk of immunoglobulin A nephropathy (IgAN) and a doubling in the risk of glomerular disease.
The findings suggest yet again that psoriasis is a systemic illness, and not something that affects only the skin, Sungat Grewal said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
“Numerous case reports have generated a hypothesis that psoriasis may be associated,” with an increased risk of IgAN, said Ms. Grewal, of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “Our study is the first to test this, and it supports the notion that this is no coincidence. Now we need further research to determine if this association is due to causality or to a shared pathophysiology.”
The link between psoriasis and kidney disease has long been noted, but the first study formally investigating this association was published in 2013 (BMJ. 2013 Oct;347:f5961). The study, also conducted by University of Pennsylvania investigators, used a large patient database in the United Kingdom, matched about 143,000 patients with psoriasis with up to five controls without psoriasis each, and found the risk of chronic kidney disease was nearly doubled for those with severe psoriasis (hazard ratio, 1.93).
A similar finding emerged from Taiwan in 2015. Using the national healthcare database, researchers matched about 4,600 patients with psoriasis with about 923,000 controls. They found that having severe psoriasis was associated with almost a doubling in the risk of chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.90) and almost a tripling in the risk of end stage renal disease (HR, 2.97), after adjusting for age, gender, comorbidities, and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (J Dermatol Sci. 2015 Jun;78[3]:232-8).
Ms. Grewal and her coinvestigators used data from The Health Improvement Network in the United Kingdom – the same database used in the 2013 study. The study group comprised 206,000 patients with psoriasis and about 1 million controls.
In the overall group of patients, the risk of IgAN was not significantly increased. Nor was there a significant overall association with glomerular disease. And when the group was divided by disease severity, there were no significant associations with either IgAN or glomerular disease in the group with mild psoriasis.
Among those with severe psoriasis, however, the risk of IgAN was almost five times higher (HR, 4.75) and the risk of glomerular disease was doubled (HR, 2.05).
But although the hazard ratios look impressive, the clinical reality shouldn’t spark too much concern, Ms. Grewal said. “To keep things in context, it’s very important to remember that the excess risk of nephropathy attributed to severe psoriasis was still quite small – similar to the chance of a spontaneous pregnancy resulting in triplets.”
Still, she said, the link is intriguing, and something clinicians should keep in mind when managing patients with severe psoriasis.
Ms. Grewal had no financial disclosures. She is a medical student at the Commonwealth Medical College (Scranton, Pa.), and is currently spending a year at the Gelfand Clinical Research Lab at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
WASHINGTON – Another population-based study has found a link between severe psoriasis and kidney disease – this one discovering almost a fivefold increase in the risk of immunoglobulin A nephropathy (IgAN) and a doubling in the risk of glomerular disease.
The findings suggest yet again that psoriasis is a systemic illness, and not something that affects only the skin, Sungat Grewal said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
“Numerous case reports have generated a hypothesis that psoriasis may be associated,” with an increased risk of IgAN, said Ms. Grewal, of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “Our study is the first to test this, and it supports the notion that this is no coincidence. Now we need further research to determine if this association is due to causality or to a shared pathophysiology.”
The link between psoriasis and kidney disease has long been noted, but the first study formally investigating this association was published in 2013 (BMJ. 2013 Oct;347:f5961). The study, also conducted by University of Pennsylvania investigators, used a large patient database in the United Kingdom, matched about 143,000 patients with psoriasis with up to five controls without psoriasis each, and found the risk of chronic kidney disease was nearly doubled for those with severe psoriasis (hazard ratio, 1.93).
A similar finding emerged from Taiwan in 2015. Using the national healthcare database, researchers matched about 4,600 patients with psoriasis with about 923,000 controls. They found that having severe psoriasis was associated with almost a doubling in the risk of chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.90) and almost a tripling in the risk of end stage renal disease (HR, 2.97), after adjusting for age, gender, comorbidities, and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (J Dermatol Sci. 2015 Jun;78[3]:232-8).
Ms. Grewal and her coinvestigators used data from The Health Improvement Network in the United Kingdom – the same database used in the 2013 study. The study group comprised 206,000 patients with psoriasis and about 1 million controls.
In the overall group of patients, the risk of IgAN was not significantly increased. Nor was there a significant overall association with glomerular disease. And when the group was divided by disease severity, there were no significant associations with either IgAN or glomerular disease in the group with mild psoriasis.
Among those with severe psoriasis, however, the risk of IgAN was almost five times higher (HR, 4.75) and the risk of glomerular disease was doubled (HR, 2.05).
But although the hazard ratios look impressive, the clinical reality shouldn’t spark too much concern, Ms. Grewal said. “To keep things in context, it’s very important to remember that the excess risk of nephropathy attributed to severe psoriasis was still quite small – similar to the chance of a spontaneous pregnancy resulting in triplets.”
Still, she said, the link is intriguing, and something clinicians should keep in mind when managing patients with severe psoriasis.
Ms. Grewal had no financial disclosures. She is a medical student at the Commonwealth Medical College (Scranton, Pa.), and is currently spending a year at the Gelfand Clinical Research Lab at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
AT AAD 16
Key clinical point: Severe psoriasis appears to increase the risk of both immunoglobulin A glomerulonephritis and glomerular disease.
Major finding: The risk of glomerulonephritis was five-fold higher and the risk of glomerular disease doubled in those with severe psoriasis.
Data source: A population based cohort study comprised about 1.2 million subjects.
Disclosures: Ms. Sungat Grewal had no financial disclosures.
How to beat apremilast-induced diarrhea
MAUI, HAWAII – If you’re going to prescribe apremilast for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis – and more and more physicians are doing so because of the drug’s exceptional safety profile – you’d better get familiar with the oral phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor’s gastrointestinal side effects, Dr. George M. Martin advised at the 2016 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
“One of the biggest hurdles we have to deal with when we prescribe apremilast is the fact that there are these GI side effects,” said Dr. Martin, a dermatologist practicing in Maui and codirector of the rheumatology symposium.
Celgene, which markets apremilast (Otezla), sponsored an analysis of the pattern of diarrhea that emerged in the pooled results of the phase III ESTEEM 1 and 2 trials of apremilast at 30 mg twice daily for psoriasis and the PALACE 1-3 phase III psoriatic arthritis trials.
Diarrhea occurred in 16%-18% of patients on apremilast, a rate roughly threefold greater than in placebo-treated controls. Diarrhea onset was usually within the first 14 days of therapy. When it occurred, the duration was typically about 2 weeks.
“This you can relay to your patients so they’re not surprised if it happens,” the dermatologist said.
It’s a secretory diarrhea, and it is believed to be a classwide effect for the phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitors. For example, roflumilast (Daliresp), an oral PDE-4 inhibitor used in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, has the same diarrhea issues. The mechanism has been worked out: The drug increases intracellular cyclic adenosine monophosphate, with resultant activation of chloride channels in crypts in the small bowel, which in turn leads to secretion of chloride ions. It takes the large bowel a couple of weeks to adapt. Caffeine causes diarrhea in some individuals through a similar mechanism.
Apremilast-related diarrhea often responds to the time-tested OTC remedies, including bismuth salicylate or fiber supplements. Alternatively, Dr. Martin said he is a fan of the oral prescription agent crofelemer (Fulyzaq) because of its exceptional safety, tolerability, and effectiveness. Plus, many residents of the garden islands of Hawaii like the idea of using a botanical derived from the latexlike sap – known as ‘dragon’s blood – of a South American tree. Crofelemer’s approved indication is the treatment of diarrhea associated with anti-HIV agents.
Diphenoxylate/atropine (Lomotil) is another effective prescription option.
Nausea and/or vomiting occurred in 15%-17% of apremilast-treated patients in the phase III trials. As with diarrhea, if nausea and/or vomiting is going to happen, it occurs early, within the first week or two. Dr. Martin said he finds in his own practice that the nausea/vomiting is less bothersome for patients than the diarrhea. Drug discontinuation due to any GI side effects is rarely necessary.
The nausea/vomiting is usually readily managed by encouraging affected patients to make sure that they’re well hydrated, take their apremilast with food, and eat smaller, more frequent meals. OTC diphenhydramine (Benadryl) is often effective, as are the usual prescription antiemetic agents.
Pharmaceutical industry data indicate apremilast has quickly captured a 17% share of the market for systemic psoriasis therapies. There is a good reason for that, according to Dr. Martin: “Dermatologists have historically been risk averse. And apremilast is arguably the safest systemic agent we have to treat psoriasis. The beauty of apremilast is it requires no laboratory monitoring. That makes it attractive to dermatologists who are concerned about systemic therapy. It’s why there has been a huge jump in adoption of apremilast.”
Apremilast is comparable to methotrexate in terms of efficacy as reflected in week 16 PASI-75 response rates of about 35%, meaning 35% of treated patients obtain at least a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores, he continued. Apremilast is particularly effective for scalp and nail psoriasis, making it a good option for patients who have psoriasis at those sites but not extensive involvement elsewhere, which might call for the use of a more potent biologic agent.
Surveys indicate that 20% of dermatologists write 80% of all prescriptions for biologic agents used to treat psoriasis. The thinking was that apremilast would appeal to the 80% of dermatologists who have steered clear of the biologics, and that after becoming comfortable with apremilast, they might become more receptive to using biologics for their patients with an inadequate response to the oral PDE-4 inhibitor. That hasn’t happened yet.
“We’re not seeing apremilast function as the gateway drug we thought it would be. It’s just going to take some time for those prescribers either to refer their patients who aren’t getting a good response to the next doctor who’s more adept at treating with biologic agents, or perhaps they themselves will get more involved,” Dr. Martin predicted.
He reported serving on scientific advisory boards for, and/or as a consultant to, nine pharmaceutical companies.
MAUI, HAWAII – If you’re going to prescribe apremilast for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis – and more and more physicians are doing so because of the drug’s exceptional safety profile – you’d better get familiar with the oral phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor’s gastrointestinal side effects, Dr. George M. Martin advised at the 2016 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
“One of the biggest hurdles we have to deal with when we prescribe apremilast is the fact that there are these GI side effects,” said Dr. Martin, a dermatologist practicing in Maui and codirector of the rheumatology symposium.
Celgene, which markets apremilast (Otezla), sponsored an analysis of the pattern of diarrhea that emerged in the pooled results of the phase III ESTEEM 1 and 2 trials of apremilast at 30 mg twice daily for psoriasis and the PALACE 1-3 phase III psoriatic arthritis trials.
Diarrhea occurred in 16%-18% of patients on apremilast, a rate roughly threefold greater than in placebo-treated controls. Diarrhea onset was usually within the first 14 days of therapy. When it occurred, the duration was typically about 2 weeks.
“This you can relay to your patients so they’re not surprised if it happens,” the dermatologist said.
It’s a secretory diarrhea, and it is believed to be a classwide effect for the phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitors. For example, roflumilast (Daliresp), an oral PDE-4 inhibitor used in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, has the same diarrhea issues. The mechanism has been worked out: The drug increases intracellular cyclic adenosine monophosphate, with resultant activation of chloride channels in crypts in the small bowel, which in turn leads to secretion of chloride ions. It takes the large bowel a couple of weeks to adapt. Caffeine causes diarrhea in some individuals through a similar mechanism.
Apremilast-related diarrhea often responds to the time-tested OTC remedies, including bismuth salicylate or fiber supplements. Alternatively, Dr. Martin said he is a fan of the oral prescription agent crofelemer (Fulyzaq) because of its exceptional safety, tolerability, and effectiveness. Plus, many residents of the garden islands of Hawaii like the idea of using a botanical derived from the latexlike sap – known as ‘dragon’s blood – of a South American tree. Crofelemer’s approved indication is the treatment of diarrhea associated with anti-HIV agents.
Diphenoxylate/atropine (Lomotil) is another effective prescription option.
Nausea and/or vomiting occurred in 15%-17% of apremilast-treated patients in the phase III trials. As with diarrhea, if nausea and/or vomiting is going to happen, it occurs early, within the first week or two. Dr. Martin said he finds in his own practice that the nausea/vomiting is less bothersome for patients than the diarrhea. Drug discontinuation due to any GI side effects is rarely necessary.
The nausea/vomiting is usually readily managed by encouraging affected patients to make sure that they’re well hydrated, take their apremilast with food, and eat smaller, more frequent meals. OTC diphenhydramine (Benadryl) is often effective, as are the usual prescription antiemetic agents.
Pharmaceutical industry data indicate apremilast has quickly captured a 17% share of the market for systemic psoriasis therapies. There is a good reason for that, according to Dr. Martin: “Dermatologists have historically been risk averse. And apremilast is arguably the safest systemic agent we have to treat psoriasis. The beauty of apremilast is it requires no laboratory monitoring. That makes it attractive to dermatologists who are concerned about systemic therapy. It’s why there has been a huge jump in adoption of apremilast.”
Apremilast is comparable to methotrexate in terms of efficacy as reflected in week 16 PASI-75 response rates of about 35%, meaning 35% of treated patients obtain at least a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores, he continued. Apremilast is particularly effective for scalp and nail psoriasis, making it a good option for patients who have psoriasis at those sites but not extensive involvement elsewhere, which might call for the use of a more potent biologic agent.
Surveys indicate that 20% of dermatologists write 80% of all prescriptions for biologic agents used to treat psoriasis. The thinking was that apremilast would appeal to the 80% of dermatologists who have steered clear of the biologics, and that after becoming comfortable with apremilast, they might become more receptive to using biologics for their patients with an inadequate response to the oral PDE-4 inhibitor. That hasn’t happened yet.
“We’re not seeing apremilast function as the gateway drug we thought it would be. It’s just going to take some time for those prescribers either to refer their patients who aren’t getting a good response to the next doctor who’s more adept at treating with biologic agents, or perhaps they themselves will get more involved,” Dr. Martin predicted.
He reported serving on scientific advisory boards for, and/or as a consultant to, nine pharmaceutical companies.
MAUI, HAWAII – If you’re going to prescribe apremilast for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis – and more and more physicians are doing so because of the drug’s exceptional safety profile – you’d better get familiar with the oral phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor’s gastrointestinal side effects, Dr. George M. Martin advised at the 2016 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
“One of the biggest hurdles we have to deal with when we prescribe apremilast is the fact that there are these GI side effects,” said Dr. Martin, a dermatologist practicing in Maui and codirector of the rheumatology symposium.
Celgene, which markets apremilast (Otezla), sponsored an analysis of the pattern of diarrhea that emerged in the pooled results of the phase III ESTEEM 1 and 2 trials of apremilast at 30 mg twice daily for psoriasis and the PALACE 1-3 phase III psoriatic arthritis trials.
Diarrhea occurred in 16%-18% of patients on apremilast, a rate roughly threefold greater than in placebo-treated controls. Diarrhea onset was usually within the first 14 days of therapy. When it occurred, the duration was typically about 2 weeks.
“This you can relay to your patients so they’re not surprised if it happens,” the dermatologist said.
It’s a secretory diarrhea, and it is believed to be a classwide effect for the phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitors. For example, roflumilast (Daliresp), an oral PDE-4 inhibitor used in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, has the same diarrhea issues. The mechanism has been worked out: The drug increases intracellular cyclic adenosine monophosphate, with resultant activation of chloride channels in crypts in the small bowel, which in turn leads to secretion of chloride ions. It takes the large bowel a couple of weeks to adapt. Caffeine causes diarrhea in some individuals through a similar mechanism.
Apremilast-related diarrhea often responds to the time-tested OTC remedies, including bismuth salicylate or fiber supplements. Alternatively, Dr. Martin said he is a fan of the oral prescription agent crofelemer (Fulyzaq) because of its exceptional safety, tolerability, and effectiveness. Plus, many residents of the garden islands of Hawaii like the idea of using a botanical derived from the latexlike sap – known as ‘dragon’s blood – of a South American tree. Crofelemer’s approved indication is the treatment of diarrhea associated with anti-HIV agents.
Diphenoxylate/atropine (Lomotil) is another effective prescription option.
Nausea and/or vomiting occurred in 15%-17% of apremilast-treated patients in the phase III trials. As with diarrhea, if nausea and/or vomiting is going to happen, it occurs early, within the first week or two. Dr. Martin said he finds in his own practice that the nausea/vomiting is less bothersome for patients than the diarrhea. Drug discontinuation due to any GI side effects is rarely necessary.
The nausea/vomiting is usually readily managed by encouraging affected patients to make sure that they’re well hydrated, take their apremilast with food, and eat smaller, more frequent meals. OTC diphenhydramine (Benadryl) is often effective, as are the usual prescription antiemetic agents.
Pharmaceutical industry data indicate apremilast has quickly captured a 17% share of the market for systemic psoriasis therapies. There is a good reason for that, according to Dr. Martin: “Dermatologists have historically been risk averse. And apremilast is arguably the safest systemic agent we have to treat psoriasis. The beauty of apremilast is it requires no laboratory monitoring. That makes it attractive to dermatologists who are concerned about systemic therapy. It’s why there has been a huge jump in adoption of apremilast.”
Apremilast is comparable to methotrexate in terms of efficacy as reflected in week 16 PASI-75 response rates of about 35%, meaning 35% of treated patients obtain at least a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores, he continued. Apremilast is particularly effective for scalp and nail psoriasis, making it a good option for patients who have psoriasis at those sites but not extensive involvement elsewhere, which might call for the use of a more potent biologic agent.
Surveys indicate that 20% of dermatologists write 80% of all prescriptions for biologic agents used to treat psoriasis. The thinking was that apremilast would appeal to the 80% of dermatologists who have steered clear of the biologics, and that after becoming comfortable with apremilast, they might become more receptive to using biologics for their patients with an inadequate response to the oral PDE-4 inhibitor. That hasn’t happened yet.
“We’re not seeing apremilast function as the gateway drug we thought it would be. It’s just going to take some time for those prescribers either to refer their patients who aren’t getting a good response to the next doctor who’s more adept at treating with biologic agents, or perhaps they themselves will get more involved,” Dr. Martin predicted.
He reported serving on scientific advisory boards for, and/or as a consultant to, nine pharmaceutical companies.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM RWCS 2016
How to beat apremilast-induced diarrhea
MAUI, HAWAII – If you’re going to prescribe apremilast for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis – and more and more physicians are doing so because of the drug’s exceptional safety profile – you’d better get familiar with the oral phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor’s gastrointestinal side effects, Dr. George M. Martin advised at the 2016 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
“One of the biggest hurdles we have to deal with when we prescribe apremilast is the fact that there are these GI side effects,” said Dr. Martin, a dermatologist practicing in Maui and codirector of the rheumatology symposium.
Celgene, which markets apremilast (Otezla), sponsored an analysis of the pattern of diarrhea that emerged in the pooled results of the phase III ESTEEM 1 and 2 trials of apremilast at 30 mg twice daily for psoriasis and the PALACE 1-3 phase III psoriatic arthritis trials.
Diarrhea occurred in 16%-18% of patients on apremilast, a rate roughly threefold greater than in placebo-treated controls. Diarrhea onset was usually within the first 14 days of therapy. When it occurred, the duration was typically about 2 weeks.
“This you can relay to your patients so they’re not surprised if it happens,” the dermatologist said.
It’s a secretory diarrhea, and it is believed to be a classwide effect for the phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitors. For example, roflumilast (Daliresp), an oral PDE-4 inhibitor used in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, has the same diarrhea issues. The mechanism has been worked out: The drug increases intracellular cyclic adenosine monophosphate, with resultant activation of chloride channels in crypts in the small bowel, which in turn leads to secretion of chloride ions. It takes the large bowel a couple of weeks to adapt. Caffeine causes diarrhea in some individuals through a similar mechanism.
Apremilast-related diarrhea often responds to the time-tested OTC remedies, including bismuth salicylate or fiber supplements. Alternatively, Dr. Martin said he is a fan of the oral prescription agent crofelemer (Fulyzaq) because of its exceptional safety, tolerability, and effectiveness. Plus, many residents of the garden islands of Hawaii like the idea of using a botanical derived from the latexlike sap – known as ‘dragon’s blood – of a South American tree. Crofelemer’s approved indication is the treatment of diarrhea associated with anti-HIV agents.
Diphenoxylate/atropine (Lomotil) is another effective prescription option.
Nausea and/or vomiting occurred in 15%-17% of apremilast-treated patients in the phase III trials. As with diarrhea, if nausea and/or vomiting is going to happen, it occurs early, within the first week or two. Dr. Martin said he finds in his own practice that the nausea/vomiting is less bothersome for patients than the diarrhea. Drug discontinuation due to any GI side effects is rarely necessary.
The nausea/vomiting is usually readily managed by encouraging affected patients to make sure that they’re well hydrated, take their apremilast with food, and eat smaller, more frequent meals. OTC diphenhydramine (Benadryl) is often effective, as are the usual prescription antiemetic agents.
Pharmaceutical industry data indicate apremilast has quickly captured a 17% share of the market for systemic psoriasis therapies. There is a good reason for that, according to Dr. Martin: “Dermatologists have historically been risk averse. And apremilast is arguably the safest systemic agent we have to treat psoriasis. The beauty of apremilast is it requires no laboratory monitoring. That makes it attractive to dermatologists who are concerned about systemic therapy. It’s why there has been a huge jump in adoption of apremilast.”
Apremilast is comparable to methotrexate in terms of efficacy as reflected in week 16 PASI-75 response rates of about 35%, meaning 35% of treated patients obtain at least a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores, he continued. Apremilast is particularly effective for scalp and nail psoriasis, making it a good option for patients who have psoriasis at those sites but not extensive involvement elsewhere, which might call for the use of a more potent biologic agent.
Surveys indicate that 20% of dermatologists write 80% of all prescriptions for biologic agents used to treat psoriasis. The thinking was that apremilast would appeal to the 80% of dermatologists who have steered clear of the biologics, and that after becoming comfortable with apremilast, they might become more receptive to using biologics for their patients with an inadequate response to the oral PDE-4 inhibitor. That hasn’t happened yet.
“We’re not seeing apremilast function as the gateway drug we thought it would be. It’s just going to take some time for those prescribers either to refer their patients who aren’t getting a good response to the next doctor who’s more adept at treating with biologic agents, or perhaps they themselves will get more involved,” Dr. Martin predicted.
He reported serving on scientific advisory boards for, and/or as a consultant to, nine pharmaceutical companies.
MAUI, HAWAII – If you’re going to prescribe apremilast for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis – and more and more physicians are doing so because of the drug’s exceptional safety profile – you’d better get familiar with the oral phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor’s gastrointestinal side effects, Dr. George M. Martin advised at the 2016 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
“One of the biggest hurdles we have to deal with when we prescribe apremilast is the fact that there are these GI side effects,” said Dr. Martin, a dermatologist practicing in Maui and codirector of the rheumatology symposium.
Celgene, which markets apremilast (Otezla), sponsored an analysis of the pattern of diarrhea that emerged in the pooled results of the phase III ESTEEM 1 and 2 trials of apremilast at 30 mg twice daily for psoriasis and the PALACE 1-3 phase III psoriatic arthritis trials.
Diarrhea occurred in 16%-18% of patients on apremilast, a rate roughly threefold greater than in placebo-treated controls. Diarrhea onset was usually within the first 14 days of therapy. When it occurred, the duration was typically about 2 weeks.
“This you can relay to your patients so they’re not surprised if it happens,” the dermatologist said.
It’s a secretory diarrhea, and it is believed to be a classwide effect for the phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitors. For example, roflumilast (Daliresp), an oral PDE-4 inhibitor used in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, has the same diarrhea issues. The mechanism has been worked out: The drug increases intracellular cyclic adenosine monophosphate, with resultant activation of chloride channels in crypts in the small bowel, which in turn leads to secretion of chloride ions. It takes the large bowel a couple of weeks to adapt. Caffeine causes diarrhea in some individuals through a similar mechanism.
Apremilast-related diarrhea often responds to the time-tested OTC remedies, including bismuth salicylate or fiber supplements. Alternatively, Dr. Martin said he is a fan of the oral prescription agent crofelemer (Fulyzaq) because of its exceptional safety, tolerability, and effectiveness. Plus, many residents of the garden islands of Hawaii like the idea of using a botanical derived from the latexlike sap – known as ‘dragon’s blood – of a South American tree. Crofelemer’s approved indication is the treatment of diarrhea associated with anti-HIV agents.
Diphenoxylate/atropine (Lomotil) is another effective prescription option.
Nausea and/or vomiting occurred in 15%-17% of apremilast-treated patients in the phase III trials. As with diarrhea, if nausea and/or vomiting is going to happen, it occurs early, within the first week or two. Dr. Martin said he finds in his own practice that the nausea/vomiting is less bothersome for patients than the diarrhea. Drug discontinuation due to any GI side effects is rarely necessary.
The nausea/vomiting is usually readily managed by encouraging affected patients to make sure that they’re well hydrated, take their apremilast with food, and eat smaller, more frequent meals. OTC diphenhydramine (Benadryl) is often effective, as are the usual prescription antiemetic agents.
Pharmaceutical industry data indicate apremilast has quickly captured a 17% share of the market for systemic psoriasis therapies. There is a good reason for that, according to Dr. Martin: “Dermatologists have historically been risk averse. And apremilast is arguably the safest systemic agent we have to treat psoriasis. The beauty of apremilast is it requires no laboratory monitoring. That makes it attractive to dermatologists who are concerned about systemic therapy. It’s why there has been a huge jump in adoption of apremilast.”
Apremilast is comparable to methotrexate in terms of efficacy as reflected in week 16 PASI-75 response rates of about 35%, meaning 35% of treated patients obtain at least a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores, he continued. Apremilast is particularly effective for scalp and nail psoriasis, making it a good option for patients who have psoriasis at those sites but not extensive involvement elsewhere, which might call for the use of a more potent biologic agent.
Surveys indicate that 20% of dermatologists write 80% of all prescriptions for biologic agents used to treat psoriasis. The thinking was that apremilast would appeal to the 80% of dermatologists who have steered clear of the biologics, and that after becoming comfortable with apremilast, they might become more receptive to using biologics for their patients with an inadequate response to the oral PDE-4 inhibitor. That hasn’t happened yet.
“We’re not seeing apremilast function as the gateway drug we thought it would be. It’s just going to take some time for those prescribers either to refer their patients who aren’t getting a good response to the next doctor who’s more adept at treating with biologic agents, or perhaps they themselves will get more involved,” Dr. Martin predicted.
He reported serving on scientific advisory boards for, and/or as a consultant to, nine pharmaceutical companies.
MAUI, HAWAII – If you’re going to prescribe apremilast for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis – and more and more physicians are doing so because of the drug’s exceptional safety profile – you’d better get familiar with the oral phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor’s gastrointestinal side effects, Dr. George M. Martin advised at the 2016 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
“One of the biggest hurdles we have to deal with when we prescribe apremilast is the fact that there are these GI side effects,” said Dr. Martin, a dermatologist practicing in Maui and codirector of the rheumatology symposium.
Celgene, which markets apremilast (Otezla), sponsored an analysis of the pattern of diarrhea that emerged in the pooled results of the phase III ESTEEM 1 and 2 trials of apremilast at 30 mg twice daily for psoriasis and the PALACE 1-3 phase III psoriatic arthritis trials.
Diarrhea occurred in 16%-18% of patients on apremilast, a rate roughly threefold greater than in placebo-treated controls. Diarrhea onset was usually within the first 14 days of therapy. When it occurred, the duration was typically about 2 weeks.
“This you can relay to your patients so they’re not surprised if it happens,” the dermatologist said.
It’s a secretory diarrhea, and it is believed to be a classwide effect for the phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitors. For example, roflumilast (Daliresp), an oral PDE-4 inhibitor used in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, has the same diarrhea issues. The mechanism has been worked out: The drug increases intracellular cyclic adenosine monophosphate, with resultant activation of chloride channels in crypts in the small bowel, which in turn leads to secretion of chloride ions. It takes the large bowel a couple of weeks to adapt. Caffeine causes diarrhea in some individuals through a similar mechanism.
Apremilast-related diarrhea often responds to the time-tested OTC remedies, including bismuth salicylate or fiber supplements. Alternatively, Dr. Martin said he is a fan of the oral prescription agent crofelemer (Fulyzaq) because of its exceptional safety, tolerability, and effectiveness. Plus, many residents of the garden islands of Hawaii like the idea of using a botanical derived from the latexlike sap – known as ‘dragon’s blood – of a South American tree. Crofelemer’s approved indication is the treatment of diarrhea associated with anti-HIV agents.
Diphenoxylate/atropine (Lomotil) is another effective prescription option.
Nausea and/or vomiting occurred in 15%-17% of apremilast-treated patients in the phase III trials. As with diarrhea, if nausea and/or vomiting is going to happen, it occurs early, within the first week or two. Dr. Martin said he finds in his own practice that the nausea/vomiting is less bothersome for patients than the diarrhea. Drug discontinuation due to any GI side effects is rarely necessary.
The nausea/vomiting is usually readily managed by encouraging affected patients to make sure that they’re well hydrated, take their apremilast with food, and eat smaller, more frequent meals. OTC diphenhydramine (Benadryl) is often effective, as are the usual prescription antiemetic agents.
Pharmaceutical industry data indicate apremilast has quickly captured a 17% share of the market for systemic psoriasis therapies. There is a good reason for that, according to Dr. Martin: “Dermatologists have historically been risk averse. And apremilast is arguably the safest systemic agent we have to treat psoriasis. The beauty of apremilast is it requires no laboratory monitoring. That makes it attractive to dermatologists who are concerned about systemic therapy. It’s why there has been a huge jump in adoption of apremilast.”
Apremilast is comparable to methotrexate in terms of efficacy as reflected in week 16 PASI-75 response rates of about 35%, meaning 35% of treated patients obtain at least a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores, he continued. Apremilast is particularly effective for scalp and nail psoriasis, making it a good option for patients who have psoriasis at those sites but not extensive involvement elsewhere, which might call for the use of a more potent biologic agent.
Surveys indicate that 20% of dermatologists write 80% of all prescriptions for biologic agents used to treat psoriasis. The thinking was that apremilast would appeal to the 80% of dermatologists who have steered clear of the biologics, and that after becoming comfortable with apremilast, they might become more receptive to using biologics for their patients with an inadequate response to the oral PDE-4 inhibitor. That hasn’t happened yet.
“We’re not seeing apremilast function as the gateway drug we thought it would be. It’s just going to take some time for those prescribers either to refer their patients who aren’t getting a good response to the next doctor who’s more adept at treating with biologic agents, or perhaps they themselves will get more involved,” Dr. Martin predicted.
He reported serving on scientific advisory boards for, and/or as a consultant to, nine pharmaceutical companies.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM RWCS 2016
Biologics for Psoriasis
Review the PDF of the fact sheet on biologics for psoriasis with board-relevant, easy-to-review material. This month's fact sheet discusses the current US Food and Drug Administration–approved biologic medications for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, including the mechanism of action, dosing, and side effects.
Practice Questions
1. Which biologic is administered as an intravenous infusion?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
2. Which biologic is dosed based on body weight?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
3. Which biologic has been shown to worsen existing Crohn disease?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
4. Which biologic is a fusion protein?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
5. Which biologic has been shown to cause reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
Answers to practice questions provided on next page
Practice Question Answers
1. Which biologic is administered as an intravenous infusion?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
2. Which biologic is dosed based on body weight?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
3. Which biologic has been shown to worsen existing Crohn disease?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
4. Which biologic is a fusion protein?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
5. Which biologic has been shown to cause reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
Review the PDF of the fact sheet on biologics for psoriasis with board-relevant, easy-to-review material. This month's fact sheet discusses the current US Food and Drug Administration–approved biologic medications for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, including the mechanism of action, dosing, and side effects.
Practice Questions
1. Which biologic is administered as an intravenous infusion?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
2. Which biologic is dosed based on body weight?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
3. Which biologic has been shown to worsen existing Crohn disease?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
4. Which biologic is a fusion protein?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
5. Which biologic has been shown to cause reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
Answers to practice questions provided on next page
Practice Question Answers
1. Which biologic is administered as an intravenous infusion?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
2. Which biologic is dosed based on body weight?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
3. Which biologic has been shown to worsen existing Crohn disease?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
4. Which biologic is a fusion protein?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
5. Which biologic has been shown to cause reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
Review the PDF of the fact sheet on biologics for psoriasis with board-relevant, easy-to-review material. This month's fact sheet discusses the current US Food and Drug Administration–approved biologic medications for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, including the mechanism of action, dosing, and side effects.
Practice Questions
1. Which biologic is administered as an intravenous infusion?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
2. Which biologic is dosed based on body weight?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
3. Which biologic has been shown to worsen existing Crohn disease?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
4. Which biologic is a fusion protein?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
5. Which biologic has been shown to cause reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
Answers to practice questions provided on next page
Practice Question Answers
1. Which biologic is administered as an intravenous infusion?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
2. Which biologic is dosed based on body weight?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
3. Which biologic has been shown to worsen existing Crohn disease?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
4. Which biologic is a fusion protein?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
5. Which biologic has been shown to cause reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome?
a. adalimumab
b. etanercept
c. infliximab
d. secukinumab
e. ustekinumab
Biologics for Pediatric Psoriasis Patients?
Biologic agents for the treatment of psoriasis are approved for patients 18 years and older. Although some biologics are approved for juvenile idiopathic arthritis, the lack of approved biologic therapies for children with psoriasis has been a major gap in our treatment of the disease. The incidence of moderate to severe psoriasis in the pediatric population is much lower than in adults, but there are still many patients younger than 18 years who would benefit from systemic therapies.
A recent press release indicates that the US Food and Drug Administration has accepted for review a supplemental biologics license application for the expanded use of etanercept to treat pediatric patients with chronic severe plaque psoriasis.
In February 2016 Paller et al (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74:280.e3-287.e3) published data evaluating long-term safety and efficacy of etanercept in children and adolescents with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. This 5-year, open-label extension study enrolled those patients aged 4 to 17 years who had participated in an initial 48-week parent study. End points included occurrence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs including infections as well as rates of 75% and 90% improvement in psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) score and clear or almost clear status on the static physician global assessment.
Of 182 patients enrolled, 181 received etanercept and 69 completed 264 weeks of treatment. Through week 264, 161 (89.0%) patients reported an AE, most commonly upper respiratory tract infection (37.6%), nasopharyngitis (26.0%), and headache (21.5%). Seven patients reported 8 Serious AEs (n=8) were reported in 7 patients, and only 1 case of cellulitis was considered treatment related. No cases of opportunistic infections or malignancy were reported. Rates of 75% improvement (∼60%–70%) and 90% improvement (∼30%–40%) in PASI score were maintained through week 264 as well as static physician global assessment status of clear or almost clear (∼40%–50%).
What’s the issue?
If approved, etanercept would be the first US Food and Drug Administration–approved systemic drug for pediatric psoriasis patients, which would open up options for many patients in need. Would you be willing to treat your pediatric psoriasis patients with a biologic?
Biologic agents for the treatment of psoriasis are approved for patients 18 years and older. Although some biologics are approved for juvenile idiopathic arthritis, the lack of approved biologic therapies for children with psoriasis has been a major gap in our treatment of the disease. The incidence of moderate to severe psoriasis in the pediatric population is much lower than in adults, but there are still many patients younger than 18 years who would benefit from systemic therapies.
A recent press release indicates that the US Food and Drug Administration has accepted for review a supplemental biologics license application for the expanded use of etanercept to treat pediatric patients with chronic severe plaque psoriasis.
In February 2016 Paller et al (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74:280.e3-287.e3) published data evaluating long-term safety and efficacy of etanercept in children and adolescents with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. This 5-year, open-label extension study enrolled those patients aged 4 to 17 years who had participated in an initial 48-week parent study. End points included occurrence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs including infections as well as rates of 75% and 90% improvement in psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) score and clear or almost clear status on the static physician global assessment.
Of 182 patients enrolled, 181 received etanercept and 69 completed 264 weeks of treatment. Through week 264, 161 (89.0%) patients reported an AE, most commonly upper respiratory tract infection (37.6%), nasopharyngitis (26.0%), and headache (21.5%). Seven patients reported 8 Serious AEs (n=8) were reported in 7 patients, and only 1 case of cellulitis was considered treatment related. No cases of opportunistic infections or malignancy were reported. Rates of 75% improvement (∼60%–70%) and 90% improvement (∼30%–40%) in PASI score were maintained through week 264 as well as static physician global assessment status of clear or almost clear (∼40%–50%).
What’s the issue?
If approved, etanercept would be the first US Food and Drug Administration–approved systemic drug for pediatric psoriasis patients, which would open up options for many patients in need. Would you be willing to treat your pediatric psoriasis patients with a biologic?
Biologic agents for the treatment of psoriasis are approved for patients 18 years and older. Although some biologics are approved for juvenile idiopathic arthritis, the lack of approved biologic therapies for children with psoriasis has been a major gap in our treatment of the disease. The incidence of moderate to severe psoriasis in the pediatric population is much lower than in adults, but there are still many patients younger than 18 years who would benefit from systemic therapies.
A recent press release indicates that the US Food and Drug Administration has accepted for review a supplemental biologics license application for the expanded use of etanercept to treat pediatric patients with chronic severe plaque psoriasis.
In February 2016 Paller et al (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74:280.e3-287.e3) published data evaluating long-term safety and efficacy of etanercept in children and adolescents with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. This 5-year, open-label extension study enrolled those patients aged 4 to 17 years who had participated in an initial 48-week parent study. End points included occurrence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs including infections as well as rates of 75% and 90% improvement in psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) score and clear or almost clear status on the static physician global assessment.
Of 182 patients enrolled, 181 received etanercept and 69 completed 264 weeks of treatment. Through week 264, 161 (89.0%) patients reported an AE, most commonly upper respiratory tract infection (37.6%), nasopharyngitis (26.0%), and headache (21.5%). Seven patients reported 8 Serious AEs (n=8) were reported in 7 patients, and only 1 case of cellulitis was considered treatment related. No cases of opportunistic infections or malignancy were reported. Rates of 75% improvement (∼60%–70%) and 90% improvement (∼30%–40%) in PASI score were maintained through week 264 as well as static physician global assessment status of clear or almost clear (∼40%–50%).
What’s the issue?
If approved, etanercept would be the first US Food and Drug Administration–approved systemic drug for pediatric psoriasis patients, which would open up options for many patients in need. Would you be willing to treat your pediatric psoriasis patients with a biologic?
Ustekinumab Linked to More Outpatient Visits and Greater Pharmacy Costs Versus Adalimumab in Psoriasis Patients
Psoriasis patients who switched from etanercept (ETA) to ustekinumab (UST) incurred higher health care resource utilization and health care costs over 12 months compared to patients who switched from ETA to adalimumab (ADA), according to a study presented at the 74th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology in Washington, DC (March 4–8, 2016).
In the poster, Wu et al explained that although tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents are effective therapies for psoriasis, treatment failure with anti-TNF agents may occur and switching to another anti-TNF agent or another biologic with a different mechanism of action may be needed. Both biologic therapies ADA and UST are effective therapies for psoriasis patients who previously received ETA. The investigators sought to compare health care resource utilization and health care costs in adult psoriasis patients who were switched from ETA to UST (n=365) versus from ETA to ADA (n=1335).
Health care resource utilization included the total number of days with medical services, including outpatient visits, inpatient days, emergency department visits, and other medical services measured over the 12-month study period. Health care costs included total pharmacy costs and total medical service costs incurred over the 12-month study period and were measured from a payer’s perspective.
The investigators reported that UST patients had statistically significantly more days with medical services (P=.02) compared to ADA patients, mainly driven by more outpatient visits (P<.01). Ustekinumab patients also had a greater total annual health care cost by $14,356 (P<.01). The cost difference was primarily driven by greater pharmacy costs (cost difference, $13,682; P<.01).
This study was funded by AbbVie Inc.
Data from: Wu JJ, Sundaram M, Guérin A, et al. Comparison of outcomes between psoriasis patients who switched from etanercept to adalimumab versus to ustekinumab. Posted presented at: 74th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology; March 4-8, 2016; Washington, DC. P2524.
Psoriasis patients who switched from etanercept (ETA) to ustekinumab (UST) incurred higher health care resource utilization and health care costs over 12 months compared to patients who switched from ETA to adalimumab (ADA), according to a study presented at the 74th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology in Washington, DC (March 4–8, 2016).
In the poster, Wu et al explained that although tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents are effective therapies for psoriasis, treatment failure with anti-TNF agents may occur and switching to another anti-TNF agent or another biologic with a different mechanism of action may be needed. Both biologic therapies ADA and UST are effective therapies for psoriasis patients who previously received ETA. The investigators sought to compare health care resource utilization and health care costs in adult psoriasis patients who were switched from ETA to UST (n=365) versus from ETA to ADA (n=1335).
Health care resource utilization included the total number of days with medical services, including outpatient visits, inpatient days, emergency department visits, and other medical services measured over the 12-month study period. Health care costs included total pharmacy costs and total medical service costs incurred over the 12-month study period and were measured from a payer’s perspective.
The investigators reported that UST patients had statistically significantly more days with medical services (P=.02) compared to ADA patients, mainly driven by more outpatient visits (P<.01). Ustekinumab patients also had a greater total annual health care cost by $14,356 (P<.01). The cost difference was primarily driven by greater pharmacy costs (cost difference, $13,682; P<.01).
This study was funded by AbbVie Inc.
Psoriasis patients who switched from etanercept (ETA) to ustekinumab (UST) incurred higher health care resource utilization and health care costs over 12 months compared to patients who switched from ETA to adalimumab (ADA), according to a study presented at the 74th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology in Washington, DC (March 4–8, 2016).
In the poster, Wu et al explained that although tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents are effective therapies for psoriasis, treatment failure with anti-TNF agents may occur and switching to another anti-TNF agent or another biologic with a different mechanism of action may be needed. Both biologic therapies ADA and UST are effective therapies for psoriasis patients who previously received ETA. The investigators sought to compare health care resource utilization and health care costs in adult psoriasis patients who were switched from ETA to UST (n=365) versus from ETA to ADA (n=1335).
Health care resource utilization included the total number of days with medical services, including outpatient visits, inpatient days, emergency department visits, and other medical services measured over the 12-month study period. Health care costs included total pharmacy costs and total medical service costs incurred over the 12-month study period and were measured from a payer’s perspective.
The investigators reported that UST patients had statistically significantly more days with medical services (P=.02) compared to ADA patients, mainly driven by more outpatient visits (P<.01). Ustekinumab patients also had a greater total annual health care cost by $14,356 (P<.01). The cost difference was primarily driven by greater pharmacy costs (cost difference, $13,682; P<.01).
This study was funded by AbbVie Inc.
Data from: Wu JJ, Sundaram M, Guérin A, et al. Comparison of outcomes between psoriasis patients who switched from etanercept to adalimumab versus to ustekinumab. Posted presented at: 74th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology; March 4-8, 2016; Washington, DC. P2524.
Data from: Wu JJ, Sundaram M, Guérin A, et al. Comparison of outcomes between psoriasis patients who switched from etanercept to adalimumab versus to ustekinumab. Posted presented at: 74th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology; March 4-8, 2016; Washington, DC. P2524.