LAS VEGAS – Closer adherence by U.S. physicians to the “39-week rule” for elective deliveries appears to have cut net neonatal mortality in an analysis of more than 14 million deliveries during 2008-2012.

This net drop in mortality occurred despite a concurrent rise in stillbirths, Rachel A. Pilliod, MD, said at the annual Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. The increase in stillbirths was more than counterbalanced by a larger drop in infant deaths during the same period.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

LAS VEGAS – Closer adherence by U.S. physicians to the “39-week rule” for elective deliveries appears to have cut net neonatal mortality in an analysis of more than 14 million deliveries during 2008-2012.

This net drop in mortality occurred despite a concurrent rise in stillbirths, Rachel A. Pilliod, MD, said at the annual Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. The increase in stillbirths was more than counterbalanced by a larger drop in infant deaths during the same period.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

LAS VEGAS – Closer adherence by U.S. physicians to the “39-week rule” for elective deliveries appears to have cut net neonatal mortality in an analysis of more than 14 million deliveries during 2008-2012.

This net drop in mortality occurred despite a concurrent rise in stillbirths, Rachel A. Pilliod, MD, said at the annual Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. The increase in stillbirths was more than counterbalanced by a larger drop in infant deaths during the same period.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

About 10% of patients with colorectal cancer had at least one germline mutation known to increase the risk of cancer, according to results from a large single-center retrospective cohort study published in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The findings “raise the provocative question of whether all patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) should undergo multigene germline testing for inherited cancer susceptibility,” especially because the results have implications for both patients and family members, said Matthew B. Yurgelun, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and his associates.

Hereditary factors long have been known to play a role in CRC, but clinicians have routinely limited genetic testing to phenotypically high-risk patients and to specific syndromes. For example, all patients with CRC are now typically tested for microsatellite instability (MSI) and mismatch repair deficiency (MRD) to identify the 2%-4% with Lynch syndrome. Likewise, patients with colorectal polyposis are routinely tested for familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) and MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP), the researchers noted.

copyright Gio_tto/Thinkstock

About 10% of patients with colorectal cancer had at least one germline mutation known to increase the risk of cancer, according to results from a large single-center retrospective cohort study published in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The findings “raise the provocative question of whether all patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) should undergo multigene germline testing for inherited cancer susceptibility,” especially because the results have implications for both patients and family members, said Matthew B. Yurgelun, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and his associates.

Hereditary factors long have been known to play a role in CRC, but clinicians have routinely limited genetic testing to phenotypically high-risk patients and to specific syndromes. For example, all patients with CRC are now typically tested for microsatellite instability (MSI) and mismatch repair deficiency (MRD) to identify the 2%-4% with Lynch syndrome. Likewise, patients with colorectal polyposis are routinely tested for familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) and MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP), the researchers noted.

copyright Gio_tto/Thinkstock

About 10% of patients with colorectal cancer had at least one germline mutation known to increase the risk of cancer, according to results from a large single-center retrospective cohort study published in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The findings “raise the provocative question of whether all patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) should undergo multigene germline testing for inherited cancer susceptibility,” especially because the results have implications for both patients and family members, said Matthew B. Yurgelun, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and his associates.

Hereditary factors long have been known to play a role in CRC, but clinicians have routinely limited genetic testing to phenotypically high-risk patients and to specific syndromes. For example, all patients with CRC are now typically tested for microsatellite instability (MSI) and mismatch repair deficiency (MRD) to identify the 2%-4% with Lynch syndrome. Likewise, patients with colorectal polyposis are routinely tested for familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) and MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP), the researchers noted.

copyright Gio_tto/Thinkstock

To the Editor:

A 43-year-old woman with recently diagnosed diabetes mellitus and a history of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura on chronic oral steroids presented with a several-year history of small bumps and bilateral hyperpigmentation on the feet. On physical examination 2- to 3-mm dark brown, hyperkeratotic, firm papules were present on the medial aspects of the feet as well as the dorsal and medial aspects of the thumbs (Figure 1). There also were brown thickened firm plaques on the heels and soles of the feet. 

A punch biopsy of the medial aspect of the right foot was performed (Figure 2). Microscopic examination revealed acral skin with hyperkeratosis, parakeratosis, mild hypergranulosis, mild basilar pigmentation, and mild dermal fibrosis (Figure 2A). A periodic acid–Schiff stain for fungus was negative. An elastic van Gieson stain showed fragmentation of the dermal elastic fibers (Figure 2B). The patient was diagnosed with acrokeratoelastoidosis (AKE).

Acrokeratoelastoidosis is a rare autosomal-dominant genodermatosis characterized by firm yellow papules and plaques that appear along the margins of the hands and feet and increase in number over time.¹ Histopathologically, hyperkeratosis with hypergranulosis and acanthosis can be seen. Elastorrhexis, resulting in fragmentation of elastic fibers within the dermis, typically is present, a feature that distinguishes AKE from focal acral hyperkeratosis.² Also, the dermis may be normal with hematoxylin and eosin stain or slightly thickened with mild depression and thin elastic fibers. There is no reported racial or sex predilection, but rapid progression of the disease during pregnancy has been observed.³

The pathogenesis of AKE is not completely understood. However, it has been implicated that abnormalities in the secretion of elastic fibers from fibroblasts may be involved in disease pathogenesis.^4,5 Electron microscopy has demonstrated fibroblasts with dense granules at the periphery of their cytoplasm and an absence of surrounding elastic fibers. Genetic studies have linked underlying mutations in chromosome 2 to the disease.⁶ Defects in keratinization and overproduction of filaggrin also may be involved in the disease process.⁷

Most therapies generally are ineffective but have included urea, salicylic acid, prednisone, and tretinoin.⁸ Six-month treatment with etretinate 25 to 50 mg has shown promising results, though recurrences occurred with dosage reduction or discontinuation.⁹ Our patient demonstrated mild improvement with urea cream 30%.

To the Editor:

A 43-year-old woman with recently diagnosed diabetes mellitus and a history of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura on chronic oral steroids presented with a several-year history of small bumps and bilateral hyperpigmentation on the feet. On physical examination 2- to 3-mm dark brown, hyperkeratotic, firm papules were present on the medial aspects of the feet as well as the dorsal and medial aspects of the thumbs (Figure 1). There also were brown thickened firm plaques on the heels and soles of the feet. 

A punch biopsy of the medial aspect of the right foot was performed (Figure 2). Microscopic examination revealed acral skin with hyperkeratosis, parakeratosis, mild hypergranulosis, mild basilar pigmentation, and mild dermal fibrosis (Figure 2A). A periodic acid–Schiff stain for fungus was negative. An elastic van Gieson stain showed fragmentation of the dermal elastic fibers (Figure 2B). The patient was diagnosed with acrokeratoelastoidosis (AKE).

Acrokeratoelastoidosis is a rare autosomal-dominant genodermatosis characterized by firm yellow papules and plaques that appear along the margins of the hands and feet and increase in number over time.¹ Histopathologically, hyperkeratosis with hypergranulosis and acanthosis can be seen. Elastorrhexis, resulting in fragmentation of elastic fibers within the dermis, typically is present, a feature that distinguishes AKE from focal acral hyperkeratosis.² Also, the dermis may be normal with hematoxylin and eosin stain or slightly thickened with mild depression and thin elastic fibers. There is no reported racial or sex predilection, but rapid progression of the disease during pregnancy has been observed.³

The pathogenesis of AKE is not completely understood. However, it has been implicated that abnormalities in the secretion of elastic fibers from fibroblasts may be involved in disease pathogenesis.^4,5 Electron microscopy has demonstrated fibroblasts with dense granules at the periphery of their cytoplasm and an absence of surrounding elastic fibers. Genetic studies have linked underlying mutations in chromosome 2 to the disease.⁶ Defects in keratinization and overproduction of filaggrin also may be involved in the disease process.⁷

Most therapies generally are ineffective but have included urea, salicylic acid, prednisone, and tretinoin.⁸ Six-month treatment with etretinate 25 to 50 mg has shown promising results, though recurrences occurred with dosage reduction or discontinuation.⁹ Our patient demonstrated mild improvement with urea cream 30%.

To the Editor:

A 43-year-old woman with recently diagnosed diabetes mellitus and a history of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura on chronic oral steroids presented with a several-year history of small bumps and bilateral hyperpigmentation on the feet. On physical examination 2- to 3-mm dark brown, hyperkeratotic, firm papules were present on the medial aspects of the feet as well as the dorsal and medial aspects of the thumbs (Figure 1). There also were brown thickened firm plaques on the heels and soles of the feet. 

A punch biopsy of the medial aspect of the right foot was performed (Figure 2). Microscopic examination revealed acral skin with hyperkeratosis, parakeratosis, mild hypergranulosis, mild basilar pigmentation, and mild dermal fibrosis (Figure 2A). A periodic acid–Schiff stain for fungus was negative. An elastic van Gieson stain showed fragmentation of the dermal elastic fibers (Figure 2B). The patient was diagnosed with acrokeratoelastoidosis (AKE).

Acrokeratoelastoidosis is a rare autosomal-dominant genodermatosis characterized by firm yellow papules and plaques that appear along the margins of the hands and feet and increase in number over time.¹ Histopathologically, hyperkeratosis with hypergranulosis and acanthosis can be seen. Elastorrhexis, resulting in fragmentation of elastic fibers within the dermis, typically is present, a feature that distinguishes AKE from focal acral hyperkeratosis.² Also, the dermis may be normal with hematoxylin and eosin stain or slightly thickened with mild depression and thin elastic fibers. There is no reported racial or sex predilection, but rapid progression of the disease during pregnancy has been observed.³

The pathogenesis of AKE is not completely understood. However, it has been implicated that abnormalities in the secretion of elastic fibers from fibroblasts may be involved in disease pathogenesis.^4,5 Electron microscopy has demonstrated fibroblasts with dense granules at the periphery of their cytoplasm and an absence of surrounding elastic fibers. Genetic studies have linked underlying mutations in chromosome 2 to the disease.⁶ Defects in keratinization and overproduction of filaggrin also may be involved in the disease process.⁷

Most therapies generally are ineffective but have included urea, salicylic acid, prednisone, and tretinoin.⁸ Six-month treatment with etretinate 25 to 50 mg has shown promising results, though recurrences occurred with dosage reduction or discontinuation.⁹ Our patient demonstrated mild improvement with urea cream 30%.

The Food and Drug Administration has proposed a regulatory path for biosimilar biologics that are interchangeable with the reference product, paving the way for a new generation of less-expensive versions of these unique treatments.

But bringing an interchangeable biosimilar to market won’t be easy. The bar for interchangeability will be high, requiring that manufacturers prove switching between the new and older products is safe. And clinicians, while cautiously optimistic, aren’t thrilled with the industry payoff that could come with the designation: freedom for insurance companies and pharmacies to switch products at the dispensing level without requiring a new prescription.

The draft FDA guidance for industry, “Considerations in Demonstrating Interchangeability With a Reference Product,” arises from the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. That section of the Affordable Care Act provides for abbreviated approval pathways for biological products that are demonstrated to be “highly similar” (biosimilar) to or “interchangeable” with an FDA-approved biological product.

The difference between these appellations is subtle but critical to the regulatory process – and perhaps to patient safety. Regulators recognize that the structure of these large, highly complex molecules can never precisely replicate the reference product. But to be labeled a “biosimilar,” developers must prove that the new product functions essentially the same; there can be no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety, purity, and potency. Unlike a generic medication, a biosimilar can’t be substituted for its reference product at the pharmacy level. If a physician wants the patient on that biosimilar, the script must specify it.

Interchangeables jump a higher regulatory bar

An “interchangeable biosimilar,” though, would have to jump a higher regulatory bar. Not only must it produce the same clinical result as the reference product, it also must be benignly interchangeable with it, conferring no additional risk if a patient switches from the reference to the biosimilar and back again. A pharmacist could, if permitted by state law, substitute an interchangeable product for the reference product without going through the prescriber.

Like biosimilars, interchangeable products need not be tested in every disease for which the reference product is approved, according to the document. Once they are proved safe for one indication, those data can be extrapolated to allow approval for the other indications as well. Nor do biosimilars need to prove efficacy per se, as their molecular similarity to the reference product ensures that they bind to the same receptor and exert the same therapeutic effect.

The biosimilar/interchangeable market has been slow to take off in the United States. There are no approved interchangeable biosimilars, and only four biosimilars – three of which were approved in 2016:

• Sandoz’ filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio).

• Pfizer’s and Celltrion’s infliximab-dyyb (Inflectra).

• Sandoz’ etanercept-szzs (Erelzi).

• Amgen’s adalimumab-atto (Amjevita).

Switching studies is the key to achieving the interchangeable designation, according to the FDA document. They must include at least two full switches between the candidate product and the reference product, which must be licensed in the United States.

But because these products are so structurally diverse, the FDA isn’t imposing a one-size-fits-all process on them. Instead, the molecular complexity and immunogenicity of each product will dictate its approval requirements.

Those with relatively low structural complexity, high molecular similarity to the reference product, and a low incidence of immunogenic adverse events may only need a single switching study to achieve the “interchangeability” designation.

The bar will be higher for a product with high structural complexity that is not as similar to the reference product, or which has been associated with immunogenic adverse events. For this product, FDA might also require extensive safety postmarketing data for the product as a licensed biosimilar, as well as a switching study.

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and safety will be the primary endpoints of a switching study. Efficacy data are not necessary but can be used as supportive endpoints. Any safety signals in a switching study would raise regulatory eyebrows whether they came from the candidate product or the reference product. Since the study replicates what could happen if the two were used sequentially, it makes little difference from which product the event might arise.

“If an apparent difference in immune response or adverse events is noticed between the switching and nonswitching arms of the study ... it would raise concerns as to whether the proposed interchangeable product is interchangeable, regardless of whether the proposed interchangeable product or the reference product or the switching of the two products actually caused the event,” the document notes.

The E.U. vs. U.S. experience

The United States is only now getting a taste of what has become common fare in the European Union, said Angus Worthing, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Government Affairs Committee. The European Medicines Agency approved its first biosimilar in 2006. Since then, 23 such biosimilars have come on the market, at an average price of about 30% less than the reference product. Prices have dropped as much as 70% in countries in which national health care systems abandoned the reference product in favor of the competing biosimilar, Dr. Worthing said in an interview.

“But the U.S. doesn’t have a national health care system, so it won’t work like that here.” In fact, he noted, brand-new data show that Medicare actually paid 22% more for the infliximab biosimilar Inflectra than it did for Remicade in the last quarter of 2016.

It’s not immediately apparent why this is the case, but it’s probably related to company discounts and rebates on these very expensive treatments. According to the report in Inside Health Policy, Janssen Biotech may have increased its discount to compete with Inflectra’s launch price of 15% below Remicade’s wholesale cost. Prices won’t moderate as much in the United States as in the European Union until several biosimilars of the same class appear, Dr. Worthing said.

There have already been allegations that big pharma manipulates international and national pricing to reduce biosimilar competition.

In June, Russian biotech company Biocad filed a lawsuit in New York charging Roche/Genentech with price fixing. The suit alleges that the companies cut the cost of three cancer treatments (Avastin, Herceptin, and Rituxan/MabThera) in Russia, where Biocad markets biosimilars for each. At the same time, Biocad alleges, the companies raised U.S. prices on those products to make up for the money they were losing on the Russian market.

Nonmedical switching raises concerns

Academic medical societies and clinicians interviewed for this article view the proposed approval pathway with cautious optimism. While acknowledging the potential benefit of reducing the costs of prohibitively expensive treatments, they uniformly insist that patient safety – not economic pressure – should be the driving force here.

“I was initially skeptical, and I do believe that we need very close pharmacovigilance in monitoring these for safety,” said Gideon Smith, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “But there has been huge uptake of these products in the E.U., and the data are so extensive that we can be reasonably confident these drugs are effective, and no good reason to believe the safety will be any different.”

He is not as comfortable with the prospect of pharmacy-level substitution of an interchangeable biosimilar with the reference product – a feeling that other clinicians echoed.

“I think this is a fundamental issue that should have been dealt with on a federal level. Physicians should always be involved in the decision,” said Dr. Smith, who spoke at an FDA advisory committee meeting last summer on behalf of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD).

[email protected]

On Twitter @alz_gal

The Food and Drug Administration has proposed a regulatory path for biosimilar biologics that are interchangeable with the reference product, paving the way for a new generation of less-expensive versions of these unique treatments.

But bringing an interchangeable biosimilar to market won’t be easy. The bar for interchangeability will be high, requiring that manufacturers prove switching between the new and older products is safe. And clinicians, while cautiously optimistic, aren’t thrilled with the industry payoff that could come with the designation: freedom for insurance companies and pharmacies to switch products at the dispensing level without requiring a new prescription.

The draft FDA guidance for industry, “Considerations in Demonstrating Interchangeability With a Reference Product,” arises from the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. That section of the Affordable Care Act provides for abbreviated approval pathways for biological products that are demonstrated to be “highly similar” (biosimilar) to or “interchangeable” with an FDA-approved biological product.

The difference between these appellations is subtle but critical to the regulatory process – and perhaps to patient safety. Regulators recognize that the structure of these large, highly complex molecules can never precisely replicate the reference product. But to be labeled a “biosimilar,” developers must prove that the new product functions essentially the same; there can be no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety, purity, and potency. Unlike a generic medication, a biosimilar can’t be substituted for its reference product at the pharmacy level. If a physician wants the patient on that biosimilar, the script must specify it.

Interchangeables jump a higher regulatory bar

An “interchangeable biosimilar,” though, would have to jump a higher regulatory bar. Not only must it produce the same clinical result as the reference product, it also must be benignly interchangeable with it, conferring no additional risk if a patient switches from the reference to the biosimilar and back again. A pharmacist could, if permitted by state law, substitute an interchangeable product for the reference product without going through the prescriber.

Like biosimilars, interchangeable products need not be tested in every disease for which the reference product is approved, according to the document. Once they are proved safe for one indication, those data can be extrapolated to allow approval for the other indications as well. Nor do biosimilars need to prove efficacy per se, as their molecular similarity to the reference product ensures that they bind to the same receptor and exert the same therapeutic effect.

The biosimilar/interchangeable market has been slow to take off in the United States. There are no approved interchangeable biosimilars, and only four biosimilars – three of which were approved in 2016:

• Sandoz’ filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio).

• Pfizer’s and Celltrion’s infliximab-dyyb (Inflectra).

• Sandoz’ etanercept-szzs (Erelzi).

• Amgen’s adalimumab-atto (Amjevita).

Switching studies is the key to achieving the interchangeable designation, according to the FDA document. They must include at least two full switches between the candidate product and the reference product, which must be licensed in the United States.

But because these products are so structurally diverse, the FDA isn’t imposing a one-size-fits-all process on them. Instead, the molecular complexity and immunogenicity of each product will dictate its approval requirements.

Those with relatively low structural complexity, high molecular similarity to the reference product, and a low incidence of immunogenic adverse events may only need a single switching study to achieve the “interchangeability” designation.

The bar will be higher for a product with high structural complexity that is not as similar to the reference product, or which has been associated with immunogenic adverse events. For this product, FDA might also require extensive safety postmarketing data for the product as a licensed biosimilar, as well as a switching study.

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and safety will be the primary endpoints of a switching study. Efficacy data are not necessary but can be used as supportive endpoints. Any safety signals in a switching study would raise regulatory eyebrows whether they came from the candidate product or the reference product. Since the study replicates what could happen if the two were used sequentially, it makes little difference from which product the event might arise.

“If an apparent difference in immune response or adverse events is noticed between the switching and nonswitching arms of the study ... it would raise concerns as to whether the proposed interchangeable product is interchangeable, regardless of whether the proposed interchangeable product or the reference product or the switching of the two products actually caused the event,” the document notes.

The E.U. vs. U.S. experience

The United States is only now getting a taste of what has become common fare in the European Union, said Angus Worthing, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Government Affairs Committee. The European Medicines Agency approved its first biosimilar in 2006. Since then, 23 such biosimilars have come on the market, at an average price of about 30% less than the reference product. Prices have dropped as much as 70% in countries in which national health care systems abandoned the reference product in favor of the competing biosimilar, Dr. Worthing said in an interview.

“But the U.S. doesn’t have a national health care system, so it won’t work like that here.” In fact, he noted, brand-new data show that Medicare actually paid 22% more for the infliximab biosimilar Inflectra than it did for Remicade in the last quarter of 2016.

It’s not immediately apparent why this is the case, but it’s probably related to company discounts and rebates on these very expensive treatments. According to the report in Inside Health Policy, Janssen Biotech may have increased its discount to compete with Inflectra’s launch price of 15% below Remicade’s wholesale cost. Prices won’t moderate as much in the United States as in the European Union until several biosimilars of the same class appear, Dr. Worthing said.

There have already been allegations that big pharma manipulates international and national pricing to reduce biosimilar competition.

In June, Russian biotech company Biocad filed a lawsuit in New York charging Roche/Genentech with price fixing. The suit alleges that the companies cut the cost of three cancer treatments (Avastin, Herceptin, and Rituxan/MabThera) in Russia, where Biocad markets biosimilars for each. At the same time, Biocad alleges, the companies raised U.S. prices on those products to make up for the money they were losing on the Russian market.

Nonmedical switching raises concerns

Academic medical societies and clinicians interviewed for this article view the proposed approval pathway with cautious optimism. While acknowledging the potential benefit of reducing the costs of prohibitively expensive treatments, they uniformly insist that patient safety – not economic pressure – should be the driving force here.

“I was initially skeptical, and I do believe that we need very close pharmacovigilance in monitoring these for safety,” said Gideon Smith, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “But there has been huge uptake of these products in the E.U., and the data are so extensive that we can be reasonably confident these drugs are effective, and no good reason to believe the safety will be any different.”

He is not as comfortable with the prospect of pharmacy-level substitution of an interchangeable biosimilar with the reference product – a feeling that other clinicians echoed.

“I think this is a fundamental issue that should have been dealt with on a federal level. Physicians should always be involved in the decision,” said Dr. Smith, who spoke at an FDA advisory committee meeting last summer on behalf of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD).

[email protected]

On Twitter @alz_gal

The Food and Drug Administration has proposed a regulatory path for biosimilar biologics that are interchangeable with the reference product, paving the way for a new generation of less-expensive versions of these unique treatments.

But bringing an interchangeable biosimilar to market won’t be easy. The bar for interchangeability will be high, requiring that manufacturers prove switching between the new and older products is safe. And clinicians, while cautiously optimistic, aren’t thrilled with the industry payoff that could come with the designation: freedom for insurance companies and pharmacies to switch products at the dispensing level without requiring a new prescription.

The draft FDA guidance for industry, “Considerations in Demonstrating Interchangeability With a Reference Product,” arises from the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. That section of the Affordable Care Act provides for abbreviated approval pathways for biological products that are demonstrated to be “highly similar” (biosimilar) to or “interchangeable” with an FDA-approved biological product.

The difference between these appellations is subtle but critical to the regulatory process – and perhaps to patient safety. Regulators recognize that the structure of these large, highly complex molecules can never precisely replicate the reference product. But to be labeled a “biosimilar,” developers must prove that the new product functions essentially the same; there can be no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety, purity, and potency. Unlike a generic medication, a biosimilar can’t be substituted for its reference product at the pharmacy level. If a physician wants the patient on that biosimilar, the script must specify it.

Interchangeables jump a higher regulatory bar

An “interchangeable biosimilar,” though, would have to jump a higher regulatory bar. Not only must it produce the same clinical result as the reference product, it also must be benignly interchangeable with it, conferring no additional risk if a patient switches from the reference to the biosimilar and back again. A pharmacist could, if permitted by state law, substitute an interchangeable product for the reference product without going through the prescriber.

Like biosimilars, interchangeable products need not be tested in every disease for which the reference product is approved, according to the document. Once they are proved safe for one indication, those data can be extrapolated to allow approval for the other indications as well. Nor do biosimilars need to prove efficacy per se, as their molecular similarity to the reference product ensures that they bind to the same receptor and exert the same therapeutic effect.

The biosimilar/interchangeable market has been slow to take off in the United States. There are no approved interchangeable biosimilars, and only four biosimilars – three of which were approved in 2016:

• Sandoz’ filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio).

• Pfizer’s and Celltrion’s infliximab-dyyb (Inflectra).

• Sandoz’ etanercept-szzs (Erelzi).

• Amgen’s adalimumab-atto (Amjevita).

Switching studies is the key to achieving the interchangeable designation, according to the FDA document. They must include at least two full switches between the candidate product and the reference product, which must be licensed in the United States.

But because these products are so structurally diverse, the FDA isn’t imposing a one-size-fits-all process on them. Instead, the molecular complexity and immunogenicity of each product will dictate its approval requirements.

Those with relatively low structural complexity, high molecular similarity to the reference product, and a low incidence of immunogenic adverse events may only need a single switching study to achieve the “interchangeability” designation.

The bar will be higher for a product with high structural complexity that is not as similar to the reference product, or which has been associated with immunogenic adverse events. For this product, FDA might also require extensive safety postmarketing data for the product as a licensed biosimilar, as well as a switching study.

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and safety will be the primary endpoints of a switching study. Efficacy data are not necessary but can be used as supportive endpoints. Any safety signals in a switching study would raise regulatory eyebrows whether they came from the candidate product or the reference product. Since the study replicates what could happen if the two were used sequentially, it makes little difference from which product the event might arise.

“If an apparent difference in immune response or adverse events is noticed between the switching and nonswitching arms of the study ... it would raise concerns as to whether the proposed interchangeable product is interchangeable, regardless of whether the proposed interchangeable product or the reference product or the switching of the two products actually caused the event,” the document notes.

The E.U. vs. U.S. experience

The United States is only now getting a taste of what has become common fare in the European Union, said Angus Worthing, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Government Affairs Committee. The European Medicines Agency approved its first biosimilar in 2006. Since then, 23 such biosimilars have come on the market, at an average price of about 30% less than the reference product. Prices have dropped as much as 70% in countries in which national health care systems abandoned the reference product in favor of the competing biosimilar, Dr. Worthing said in an interview.

“But the U.S. doesn’t have a national health care system, so it won’t work like that here.” In fact, he noted, brand-new data show that Medicare actually paid 22% more for the infliximab biosimilar Inflectra than it did for Remicade in the last quarter of 2016.

It’s not immediately apparent why this is the case, but it’s probably related to company discounts and rebates on these very expensive treatments. According to the report in Inside Health Policy, Janssen Biotech may have increased its discount to compete with Inflectra’s launch price of 15% below Remicade’s wholesale cost. Prices won’t moderate as much in the United States as in the European Union until several biosimilars of the same class appear, Dr. Worthing said.

There have already been allegations that big pharma manipulates international and national pricing to reduce biosimilar competition.

In June, Russian biotech company Biocad filed a lawsuit in New York charging Roche/Genentech with price fixing. The suit alleges that the companies cut the cost of three cancer treatments (Avastin, Herceptin, and Rituxan/MabThera) in Russia, where Biocad markets biosimilars for each. At the same time, Biocad alleges, the companies raised U.S. prices on those products to make up for the money they were losing on the Russian market.

Nonmedical switching raises concerns

Academic medical societies and clinicians interviewed for this article view the proposed approval pathway with cautious optimism. While acknowledging the potential benefit of reducing the costs of prohibitively expensive treatments, they uniformly insist that patient safety – not economic pressure – should be the driving force here.

“I was initially skeptical, and I do believe that we need very close pharmacovigilance in monitoring these for safety,” said Gideon Smith, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “But there has been huge uptake of these products in the E.U., and the data are so extensive that we can be reasonably confident these drugs are effective, and no good reason to believe the safety will be any different.”

He is not as comfortable with the prospect of pharmacy-level substitution of an interchangeable biosimilar with the reference product – a feeling that other clinicians echoed.

“I think this is a fundamental issue that should have been dealt with on a federal level. Physicians should always be involved in the decision,” said Dr. Smith, who spoke at an FDA advisory committee meeting last summer on behalf of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD).

[email protected]

On Twitter @alz_gal

Clinical question: Does the increasing number of ICU beds in the U.S. affect the use of mechanical ventilation in nursing home patients with advanced dementia?

Background: Some physicians are concerned that increases in ICU beds in the U.S. will translate to increased treatment of advanced dementia in the ICU, which might not line up with their preferences, nor improve mortality.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Hospitals that completed the American Hospital Association (AHA) annual survey.

Synopsis: From 2000 to 2013, there were 635,008 hospitalizations of 380,060 Medicare patients with advanced dementia who had been in a nursing home in the 120 days prior to hospital admission. ICU admissions increased to 38.5% from 16.9% during the same period. The rate of mechanical ventilation per 1,000 hospital admissions increased to 78 from 39, and 1-year mortality for ventilation was unchanged.

For each increase in 10 ICU beds within a hospital, the adjusted odds ratio for receiving mechanical ventilation was 1.06 (95% CI, 1.05-1.07).

Limitations of the study include that only hospitals completing the AHA annual survey were studied, and also lacked information on individual patients.

Bottom line: The use of mechanical ventilation increased in hospitalized nursing home patients with advanced dementia, correlating with increased ICU bed capacity, yet with no changes in survival.

Citation: Teno JM, Gozalo P, Khandelwal N, et al. Association of increasing use of mechanical ventilation among nursing home residents with advanced dementia and intensive care unit beds [published online ahead of print, Oct. 10, 2016]. JAMA Int Med. 2016;176(12):1809-16.

Dr. Balch is a clinical instructor at the University of Utah School of Medicine and an academic hospitalist at the University of Utah Hospital.

Clinical question: Does the increasing number of ICU beds in the U.S. affect the use of mechanical ventilation in nursing home patients with advanced dementia?

Background: Some physicians are concerned that increases in ICU beds in the U.S. will translate to increased treatment of advanced dementia in the ICU, which might not line up with their preferences, nor improve mortality.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Hospitals that completed the American Hospital Association (AHA) annual survey.

Synopsis: From 2000 to 2013, there were 635,008 hospitalizations of 380,060 Medicare patients with advanced dementia who had been in a nursing home in the 120 days prior to hospital admission. ICU admissions increased to 38.5% from 16.9% during the same period. The rate of mechanical ventilation per 1,000 hospital admissions increased to 78 from 39, and 1-year mortality for ventilation was unchanged.

For each increase in 10 ICU beds within a hospital, the adjusted odds ratio for receiving mechanical ventilation was 1.06 (95% CI, 1.05-1.07).

Limitations of the study include that only hospitals completing the AHA annual survey were studied, and also lacked information on individual patients.

Bottom line: The use of mechanical ventilation increased in hospitalized nursing home patients with advanced dementia, correlating with increased ICU bed capacity, yet with no changes in survival.

Citation: Teno JM, Gozalo P, Khandelwal N, et al. Association of increasing use of mechanical ventilation among nursing home residents with advanced dementia and intensive care unit beds [published online ahead of print, Oct. 10, 2016]. JAMA Int Med. 2016;176(12):1809-16.

Dr. Balch is a clinical instructor at the University of Utah School of Medicine and an academic hospitalist at the University of Utah Hospital.

Clinical question: Does the increasing number of ICU beds in the U.S. affect the use of mechanical ventilation in nursing home patients with advanced dementia?

Background: Some physicians are concerned that increases in ICU beds in the U.S. will translate to increased treatment of advanced dementia in the ICU, which might not line up with their preferences, nor improve mortality.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Hospitals that completed the American Hospital Association (AHA) annual survey.

Synopsis: From 2000 to 2013, there were 635,008 hospitalizations of 380,060 Medicare patients with advanced dementia who had been in a nursing home in the 120 days prior to hospital admission. ICU admissions increased to 38.5% from 16.9% during the same period. The rate of mechanical ventilation per 1,000 hospital admissions increased to 78 from 39, and 1-year mortality for ventilation was unchanged.

For each increase in 10 ICU beds within a hospital, the adjusted odds ratio for receiving mechanical ventilation was 1.06 (95% CI, 1.05-1.07).

Limitations of the study include that only hospitals completing the AHA annual survey were studied, and also lacked information on individual patients.

Bottom line: The use of mechanical ventilation increased in hospitalized nursing home patients with advanced dementia, correlating with increased ICU bed capacity, yet with no changes in survival.

Citation: Teno JM, Gozalo P, Khandelwal N, et al. Association of increasing use of mechanical ventilation among nursing home residents with advanced dementia and intensive care unit beds [published online ahead of print, Oct. 10, 2016]. JAMA Int Med. 2016;176(12):1809-16.

Dr. Balch is a clinical instructor at the University of Utah School of Medicine and an academic hospitalist at the University of Utah Hospital.

Clinical question: What is the best management approach for adults who are admitted to the hospital with a calcium channel blocker (CCB) overdose?

Background: There is significant morbidity and mortality from cardiac drug poisoning. Overall, the level of evidence in the literature on the treatment of CCB toxicity is very low. Prior to the current publication there were no guidelines for treating patients admitted to the hospital with a CCB overdose.

Further lower-strength suggestions were made: insulin therapy as monotherapy if cardiac dysfunction present, or in combination with other therapies if there is no cardiac dysfunction; atropine in the setting of symptomatic bradycardia; and dobutamine or epinephrine in the presence of cardiogenic shock.

For refractory CCB, toxicity suggestions included incremental doses of high-dose insulin (if myocardial dysfunction is present, or even if it is not present in periarrest situations), IV lipid emulsion therapy, and pacemaker for unstable bradycardia (if there is no evidence of cardiac dysfunction). If the patient is in refractory shock or periarrest, the panel suggests the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO).

Limitations included the limited availability of evidence.

Bottom line: Management of CCB toxicity should include IV calcium and high-dose IV insulin, with vasopressors for shock, and other additional therapies for refractory cases.

Citation: St-Onge M, Anseeuw K, Cantrell FL, et al. Experts’ consensus recommendations for the management of calcium channel blocker poisoning in adults [published online ahead of print, Oct. 3, 2016]. Crit Care Med. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002087.

Dr. Balch is a clinical instructor at the University of Utah School of Medicine and an academic hospitalist at the University of Utah Hospital.

Clinical question: What is the best management approach for adults who are admitted to the hospital with a calcium channel blocker (CCB) overdose?

Background: There is significant morbidity and mortality from cardiac drug poisoning. Overall, the level of evidence in the literature on the treatment of CCB toxicity is very low. Prior to the current publication there were no guidelines for treating patients admitted to the hospital with a CCB overdose.

Further lower-strength suggestions were made: insulin therapy as monotherapy if cardiac dysfunction present, or in combination with other therapies if there is no cardiac dysfunction; atropine in the setting of symptomatic bradycardia; and dobutamine or epinephrine in the presence of cardiogenic shock.

For refractory CCB, toxicity suggestions included incremental doses of high-dose insulin (if myocardial dysfunction is present, or even if it is not present in periarrest situations), IV lipid emulsion therapy, and pacemaker for unstable bradycardia (if there is no evidence of cardiac dysfunction). If the patient is in refractory shock or periarrest, the panel suggests the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO).

Limitations included the limited availability of evidence.

Bottom line: Management of CCB toxicity should include IV calcium and high-dose IV insulin, with vasopressors for shock, and other additional therapies for refractory cases.

Citation: St-Onge M, Anseeuw K, Cantrell FL, et al. Experts’ consensus recommendations for the management of calcium channel blocker poisoning in adults [published online ahead of print, Oct. 3, 2016]. Crit Care Med. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002087.

Dr. Balch is a clinical instructor at the University of Utah School of Medicine and an academic hospitalist at the University of Utah Hospital.

Clinical question: What is the best management approach for adults who are admitted to the hospital with a calcium channel blocker (CCB) overdose?

Background: There is significant morbidity and mortality from cardiac drug poisoning. Overall, the level of evidence in the literature on the treatment of CCB toxicity is very low. Prior to the current publication there were no guidelines for treating patients admitted to the hospital with a CCB overdose.

Further lower-strength suggestions were made: insulin therapy as monotherapy if cardiac dysfunction present, or in combination with other therapies if there is no cardiac dysfunction; atropine in the setting of symptomatic bradycardia; and dobutamine or epinephrine in the presence of cardiogenic shock.

For refractory CCB, toxicity suggestions included incremental doses of high-dose insulin (if myocardial dysfunction is present, or even if it is not present in periarrest situations), IV lipid emulsion therapy, and pacemaker for unstable bradycardia (if there is no evidence of cardiac dysfunction). If the patient is in refractory shock or periarrest, the panel suggests the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO).

Limitations included the limited availability of evidence.

Bottom line: Management of CCB toxicity should include IV calcium and high-dose IV insulin, with vasopressors for shock, and other additional therapies for refractory cases.

Citation: St-Onge M, Anseeuw K, Cantrell FL, et al. Experts’ consensus recommendations for the management of calcium channel blocker poisoning in adults [published online ahead of print, Oct. 3, 2016]. Crit Care Med. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002087.

Dr. Balch is a clinical instructor at the University of Utah School of Medicine and an academic hospitalist at the University of Utah Hospital.

Practice Gap

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

Diagnostic Tool

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

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

Practice Implications

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

Practice Gap

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

Diagnostic Tool

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

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

Practice Implications

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

Practice Gap

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

Diagnostic Tool

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

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

Practice Implications

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

LAS VEGAS – Analysis of nearly 13 million U.S. deliveries during 2009-2013 identified two new, significant dangers posed to neonates delivered by planned home births: nulliparous pregnancies and deliveries at 41 weeks gestational age or older.

Both conditions linked with a substantially increased risk for neonatal mortality, compared with babies delivered at a hospital, either by a nurse midwife or a physician, said Amos Grünebaum, MD, at the annual Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

LAS VEGAS – Analysis of nearly 13 million U.S. deliveries during 2009-2013 identified two new, significant dangers posed to neonates delivered by planned home births: nulliparous pregnancies and deliveries at 41 weeks gestational age or older.

Both conditions linked with a substantially increased risk for neonatal mortality, compared with babies delivered at a hospital, either by a nurse midwife or a physician, said Amos Grünebaum, MD, at the annual Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

LAS VEGAS – Analysis of nearly 13 million U.S. deliveries during 2009-2013 identified two new, significant dangers posed to neonates delivered by planned home births: nulliparous pregnancies and deliveries at 41 weeks gestational age or older.

Both conditions linked with a substantially increased risk for neonatal mortality, compared with babies delivered at a hospital, either by a nurse midwife or a physician, said Amos Grünebaum, MD, at the annual Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Comment

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Comment

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Comment

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

IL-23 Inhibitors

Risankizumab

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

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

Guselkumab

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

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

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

Tildrakizumab

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

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

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

IL-17 Inhibitors

Ixekizumab

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

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

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

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

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

Brodalumab

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

IL-23 Inhibitors

Risankizumab

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

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

Guselkumab

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

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

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

Tildrakizumab

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

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

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

IL-17 Inhibitors

Ixekizumab

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

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

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

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

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

Brodalumab

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

IL-23 Inhibitors

Risankizumab

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

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

Guselkumab

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

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

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

Tildrakizumab

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

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

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

IL-17 Inhibitors

Ixekizumab

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

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

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

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

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

Brodalumab

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

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

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

Conclusion

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