DOCSLIB.ORG

Alefacept for Severe Alopecia Areata a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Alefacept for Severe Alopecia Areata a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study STUDY Alefacept for Severe Alopecia Areata A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled Study Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD; Kavita Menon, MD; Amy McMichael, MD; Maria Hordinsky, MD; Gerald Krueger, MD; Jackie Panko, MD; Kimberly Siu, MD; Jonathan L. Lustgarten, PhD; Elizabeth K. Ross, MD; Jerry Shapiro, MD Objective: To assess the efficacy of alefacept for the treat- istration–approved T-cell biologic inhibitor for the treat- ment of severe alopecia areata (AA). ment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Design: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo- Main Outcome Measure: Improved Severity of Alo- controlled clinical trial. pecia Tool (SALT) score over 24 weeks. Results: Participants receiving alefacept for 12 consecu- Setting: Academic departments of dermatology in the tive weeks demonstrated no statistically significant im- United States. provement in AA when compared with a well-matched placebo-receiving group (P =.70). Participants: Forty-five individuals with chronic and severe AA affecting 50% to 95% of the scalp hair and re- Conclusion: Alefacept is ineffective for the treatment of sistant to previous therapies. severe AA. Intervention: Alefacept, a US Food and Drug Admin- Arch Dermatol. 2009;145(11):1262-1266 LOPECIA AREATA (AA) IS A lesions of AA are transplanted into mice chronic, potentially revers- with severe combined immunodefi- ible autoimmune skin dis- ciency that lack T lymphocytes, hair ease characterized by non- growth may resume, further confirming scarring patchy hair loss the potential pathogenic role of T lym- Ainvolving any hair-bearing surface.1 Alo- phocytes.8 pecia areata often causes considerable emo- Treatment options for more severe pre- tional distress and has limited treatment sentations of AA are limited, and neither Author Affiliations: options. The presentation and course of a cure nor preventive treatment is avail- Departments of Dermatology, AA differ from patient to patient and are able. Most of the effective therapies for AA New York University School of unpredictable.2 Most often involving the are either immunosuppressive or immuno- Medicine, New York scalp, AA typically presents as well- modulatory. Of the therapeutic options, (Drs Strober, Menon, Siu, and demarcated patches of hair loss that may corticosteroids (topical and intrale- Shapiro), Wake Forest be either isolated or numerous.1 Patients sional) remain the most popular, al- University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina may develop total loss of scalp hair (alo- though other therapies, including anthra- (Dr McMichael), University of pecia totalis) or loss of all body hair (alo- lin, minoxidil, systemic corticosteroids, 1,3 Minnesota, Minneapolis pecia universalis). Alopecia areata has an topical immunotherapy, psoralen–UV-A (Dr Hordinsky), University of incidence rate of 0.1% to 0.2%, with a life- (PUVA), and cyclosporine are also com- Utah, Salt Lake City time risk of roughly 1.7%.1,4 Most often it monly used with varying success.1 Inter- (Drs Krueger and Panko), is those with AA of the scalp who present estingly, the biologic agents etanercept Biomedical Informatics, for evaluation. and efalizumab—both effective in treat- University of Pittsburgh, T lymphocytes seem to play a central ing psoriasis, a T-cell–mediated disease— Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania role in AA through a targeted immuno- demonstrate no efficacy in treating AA.3,9 (Dr Lustgarten), Dermatology logic attack on the hair follicle leading to Despite these failures, other biologic and Laser Center NW, 3,5-7 Bellingham, Washington anagen arrest. Histologically, lesions of agents with different mechanisms of ac- (Dr Ross), and Dermatology active AA reveal dense peribulbar lym- tion may be effective. Alefacept (Ame- and Skin Science, University of phocytic infiltration, consisting of acti- vive; Astellas Pharma US Inc, Deerfield, Il- British Columbia, Vancouver, vated T lymphocytes and antigen- linois) is a bioengineered lymphocyte Canada (Dr Shapiro). presenting Langerhans cells.5-7 When function–associated antigen-3/immuno- (REPRINTED) ARCH DERMATOL/ VOL 145 (NO. 11), NOV 2009 WWW.ARCHDERMATOL.COM 1262 ©2009 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ on 09/24/2021 globulin fusion protein that interrupts T-lymphocyte ac- or Յ3 squamous cell carcinomas); a history of active tubercu- tivation by binding to CD2 on T lymphocytes and con- losis (TB) or were currently undergoing treatment for active sequently interrupting the costimulation between antigen- TB; or were pregnant or breastfeeding. Individuals with a his- presenting cells and T lymphocytes.10,11 Perhaps more tory of treatment with alefacept or treatment with another in- important, alefacept specifically induces the apoptosis of vestigational medication also were not allowed to participate ϩ ϩ in the study. Systemic therapies (eg, corticosteroids, fumaric both CD4 and CD8 memory effector T lymphocytes, acid derivatives, cyclosporine A, methotrexate, biologic medi- cells that comprise the peribulbar lymphocytic infiltrate cations, retinoids, azathioprine) and phototherapy (UV-B, 10-14 and have been implicated in the pathogenesis of AA. PUVA) were discontinued for 1 month prior and during the Case reports15,16 have shown that alefacept may be effec- entire study treatment period. Topical therapies (corticoste- tive in the treatment of AA. Herein, we report the re- roids, contact sensitizing agents, tacrolimus, or pimecroli- sults of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled mus) were discontinued for 2 weeks prior to and during the study of alefacept in patients with severe AA. entire study treatment period. The use of prescription medi- cations for conditions unrelated to AA was permitted. Serum samples, measuring hepatic, renal and hematologic METHODS function, and CD4ϩ T-lymphocyte count, were drawn through- out the study, and participants were assessed for signs and symp- The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and toms of infection. Study medication was withheld if the CD4ϩ therapeutic efficacy of a weekly regimen of intramuscular (IM) T-lymphocyte count fell below 250 cells/mm3. alefacept compared with placebo over a course of 12 weeks in pa- The severity of AA and clinical response were measured with tients with chronic, severe scalp AA. This was a double-blind, ran- the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) as detailed in the Alope- domized, placebo-controlled, multicenter, investigator-initiated cia Areata Investigational Guidelines.17 The SALT score is com- study in a voluntary population of patients with chronic, severe puted by measuring the percentage of hair loss in each of 4 areas scalp AA. There were 5 participating study sites. The study was of the scalp—vertex (40%), right profile (18%), left profile (18%), approved by the institutional review boards at each of the study and posterior (24%)—and adding the total to achieve a com- sites and was conducted in accordance with Good Clinical Prac- posite score. Hair regrowth is reflected by a decrease in the SALT tice guidelines, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) score (eg, complete hair regrowth would confer a SALT score guidelines for clinical trials, and the principles set forth by the of 0). The primary efficacy end point was the percentage of par- Declaration of Helsinki. All participants provided written in- ticipants with at least a 50% improvement from the baseline in formed consent prior to the initiation of any study procedures. their SALT score at week 24. Treatment response was also mea- Eligible individuals were randomized to receive either weekly sured at week 12. The SALT score was measured visually by IM administration of placebo or alefacept,15 mg, for 12 weeks, the study physician and corroborated by photographic analy- followed by a 12-week, posttreatment observation period. Safety sis. The participant’s perception of the extent of scalp disease and efficacy were assessed throughout the 24-week study pe- on completion of the treatment phase and at the end of the post- riod. Randomization lists detailing the person’s identification treatment, observational phase was also assessed. (ID) number and medication allocation were provided by a co- ordinating monitor. An unblinded study coordinator or phar- macist maintained the randomization lists responsible for par- STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ticipant ID number assignment and drug shipment and management. Once an individual was deemed eligible for study Efficacy and safety analyses were based on the modified intent- entry, the unblinded study coordinator or pharmacist as- to-treat population, which included all randomized patients who signed the participant an ID number and dispensed study medi- received at least 1 dose of the study medication. For the popu- cation as listed in the randomization list. Participants were moni- lation and safety analyses, patients were separated based on the tored for safety and efficacy throughout the entire study by a treatment groups to which they were randomized. The pro- blinded investigator. Efforts were made to ensure that the same portion of patients who achieved a 50% or greater reduction investigator monitored any specific participant for the entire in their SALT scores in the alefacept and placebo groups was ␹2 study period. analyzed using the test. Participants’ assessment of disease was analyzed by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. All statistical tests were 2-sided, and all tests for efficacy were performed at the ␣ PATIENT ELIGIBILITY =.05 level. The planned sample
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Advances in Immunosuppression for Renal Transplantation Antoine Durrbach, Helene Francois, Severine Beaudreuil, Antoine Jacquet and Bernard Charpentier
    REVIEWS Advances in immunosuppression for renal transplantation Antoine Durrbach, Helene Francois, Severine Beaudreuil, Antoine Jacquet and Bernard Charpentier Abstract | The development of immunosuppressants with minimal adverse and nephrotoxic effects is important to improve outcomes, such as acute and chronic antibody-mediated rejection, after organ transplantation. In addition, the application of expanded criteria for donors and transplantation in immunized patients necessitates the development of new therapies. Drug development over the past 10 years has generally been disappointing, but several new promising compounds have been or are being developed to prevent acute and chronic transplant rejection. In this Review, we report on several compounds that have been developed to remove allogenic T cells and/or to inhibit T-cell activation. We also discuss compounds that interfere with antibody-mediated rejection. Durrbach, A. et al. Nat. Rev. Nephrol. 6, 160–167 (2010); published online 2 February 2010; doi:10.1038/nrneph.2009.233 Introduction Renal transplantation has specific features that make or as a result of previous transplantation, has increased it different from transplantation procedures for other over the past decade. In addition, ABO­incompatible organs. For example, outcomes can be affected by grafts are becoming more frequently used. Together, these common states, such as donor and/or recipient age, high factors have led to a rise in the number of ‘immuno logically blood pressure, diabetes mellitus, metabolic disturbances at­risk’ kidney transplantations. Few immunosuppressants (such as high LDL cholesterol) and abnormalities in fluid targeted to B cells have, however, been available to control and electrolyte balance. The kidney is also very sensitive the antibody­mediated response.
    [Show full text]
  • Biologic Armamentarium in Psoriasis
    Vol 9, Issue 1, 2016 ISSN - 0974-2441 Review Article BIOLOGIC ARMAMENTARIUM IN PSORIASIS GANESH PAI1*, NITHIN SASHIDHARAN2 1Medical Director, Derma-Care ‘The Trade Centre’, Mangalore - 575 003, Karnataka, India. 2Consultant Clinical Pharmacologist, Derma-Care ‘The Trade Centre’, Mangalore - 575 003, Karnataka, India. Email: [email protected] Received: 14 July 2015, Revised and Accepted: 24 August 2015 ABSTRACT Psoriasis is an autoimmune disease and further classed as a chronic inflammatory skin condition serving as a global burden. A moderate to severe psoriasis can be treated with conventional therapies. Less efficacy, poor patient compliance, and toxicity issues were the major problems associated with conventional therapies. The introduction of biologic therapy has a great impression on psoriatic treatment duration and enhanced quality of life in psoriasis patients. The new biologic therapies are tailor-made medications with the goal of more specific and effective treatment; less toxicity. The biologic therapy is aimed to target antigen presentation and co-stimulation, T-cell activation, and leukocyte adhesion; and pro-inflammatory cascade. They act as effective and safer substitute to traditional therapy. Secukinumab, certolizumab, itolizumab, golimumab, ustekinumab, adalimumab, infliximab etanercept, alefacept, etc. are the approved biologic with the global market. This review briefs about psoriasis pathogenesis, traditional treatments, and biologic therapies potential. Keywords: Psoriasis, Biologic, Non-biologic treatment. INTRODUCTION migration, potentiation of Th1 type of response, angiogenesis, and epidermal hyperplasia [7]. Psoriasis is an autoimmune disease and further classed as a chronic inflammatory skin condition with prevalence ranging 1-3% in the TNF- is plays vital role in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. It acts by world [1].
    [Show full text]
  • (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2017/0209462 A1 Bilotti Et Al
    US 20170209462A1 (19) United States (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2017/0209462 A1 Bilotti et al. (43) Pub. Date: Jul. 27, 2017 (54) BTK INHIBITOR COMBINATIONS FOR Publication Classification TREATING MULTIPLE MYELOMA (51) Int. Cl. (71) Applicant: Pharmacyclics LLC, Sunnyvale, CA A 6LX 3/573 (2006.01) A69/20 (2006.01) (US) A6IR 9/00 (2006.01) (72) Inventors: Elizabeth Bilotti, Sunnyvale, CA (US); A69/48 (2006.01) Thorsten Graef, Los Altos Hills, CA A 6LX 3/59 (2006.01) (US) A63L/454 (2006.01) (52) U.S. Cl. CPC .......... A61 K3I/573 (2013.01); A61K 3 1/519 (21) Appl. No.: 15/252,385 (2013.01); A61 K3I/454 (2013.01); A61 K 9/0053 (2013.01); A61K 9/48 (2013.01); A61 K (22) Filed: Aug. 31, 2016 9/20 (2013.01) (57) ABSTRACT Disclosed herein are pharmaceutical combinations, dosing Related U.S. Application Data regimen, and methods of administering a combination of a (60) Provisional application No. 62/212.518, filed on Aug. BTK inhibitor (e.g., ibrutinib), an immunomodulatory agent, 31, 2015. and a steroid for the treatment of a hematologic malignancy. US 2017/0209462 A1 Jul. 27, 2017 BTK INHIBITOR COMBINATIONS FOR Subject in need thereof comprising administering pomalido TREATING MULTIPLE MYELOMA mide, ibrutinib, and dexamethasone, wherein pomalido mide, ibrutinib, and dexamethasone are administered con CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED currently, simulataneously, and/or co-administered. APPLICATION 0008. In some aspects, provided herein is a method of treating a hematologic malignancy in a subject in need 0001. This application claims the benefit of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenges and Approaches for the Development of Safer Immunomodulatory Biologics
    REVIEWS Challenges and approaches for the development of safer immunomodulatory biologics Jean G. Sathish1*, Swaminathan Sethu1*, Marie-Christine Bielsky2, Lolke de Haan3, Neil S. French1, Karthik Govindappa1, James Green4, Christopher E. M. Griffiths5, Stephen Holgate6, David Jones2, Ian Kimber7, Jonathan Moggs8, Dean J. Naisbitt1, Munir Pirmohamed1, Gabriele Reichmann9, Jennifer Sims10, Meena Subramanyam11, Marque D. Todd12, Jan Willem Van Der Laan13, Richard J. Weaver14 and B. Kevin Park1 Abstract | Immunomodulatory biologics, which render their therapeutic effects by modulating or harnessing immune responses, have proven their therapeutic utility in several complex conditions including cancer and autoimmune diseases. However, unwanted adverse reactions — including serious infections, malignancy, cytokine release syndrome, anaphylaxis and hypersensitivity as well as immunogenicity — pose a challenge to the development of new (and safer) immunomodulatory biologics. In this article, we assess the safety issues associated with immunomodulatory biologics and discuss the current approaches for predicting and mitigating adverse reactions associated with their use. We also outline how these approaches can inform the development of safer immunomodulatory biologics. Immunomodulatory Biologics currently represent more than 30% of licensed The high specificity of the interactions of immu- biologics pharmaceutical products and have expanded the thera- nomodulatory biologics with their relevant immune Biotechnology-derived peutic options available
    [Show full text]
  • Cytokine and CAM Antagonists and Related Agents Review 01/22/2010
    Cytokine and CAM Antagonists and Related Agents Review 01/22/2010 Copyright © 2005 - 2010 by Provider Synergies, L.L.C. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, digital scanning, or via any information storage and retrieval system without the express written consent of Provider Synergies, L.L.C. All requests for permission should be mailed to: Attention: Copyright Administrator Intellectual Property Department Provider Synergies, L.L.C. 10101 Alliance Rd, Ste 201 Cincinnati, Ohio 45242 The materials contained herein represent the opinions of the collective authors and editors and should not be construed to be the official representation of any professional organization or group, any state Pharmacy and Therapeutics committee, any state Medicaid Agency, or any other clinical committee. This material is not intended to be relied upon as medical advice for specific medical cases and nothing contained herein should be relied upon by any patient, medical professional or layperson seeking information about a specific course of treatment for a specific medical condition. All readers of this material are responsible for independently obtaining medical advice and guidance from their own physician and/or other medical professional in regard to the best course of treatment for their specific medical condition. This publication, inclusive of all forms contained herein, is intended to be educational in nature and is intended to be used for informational purposes only. Email comments and suggestions to [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Topics on the Mechanisms of Immunosuppressive Therapy-Related Neurotoxicities
    Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 29 May 2019 doi:10.20944/preprints201905.0358.v1 Peer-reviewed version available at Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 3210; doi:10.3390/ijms20133210 1 of 39 1 Review 2 Recent topics on the mechanisms of 3 immunosuppressive therapy-related neurotoxicities 4 Wei Zhang 1, Nobuaki Egashira 1,2,* and Satohiro Masuda 1,2 5 1 Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Biopharmaceutics, Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 6 Kyushu University, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan 7 2 Department of Pharmacy, Kyushu University Hospital, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan 8 * Correspondence: [email protected], Tel.: 81-92-642-5920 9 Abstract: Although transplantation procedures have been developed for patients with end-stagec 10 hepatic insufficiency or other diseases, allograft rejection still threatens patient health and lifespan. 11 Over the last few decades, the emergence of immunosuppressive agents, such as calcineurin 12 inhibitors (CNIs) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, have strikingly 13 increased graft survival. Unfortunately, immunosuppressive agent-related neurotoxicity is 14 commonly occurred in clinical situations, with the majority of neurotoxicity cases caused by CNIs. 15 The possible mechanisms whereby CNIs cause neurotoxicity include: increasing the permeability 16 or injury of the blood-brain barrier, alterations of mitochondrial function, and alterations in 17 electrophysiological state. Other immunosuppressants can also induce neuropsychiatric 18 complications. For example, mTOR inhibitors induce seizures; mycophenolate mofetil induces 19 depression and headache; methotrexate affects the central nervous system; mouse monoclonal 20 immunoglobulin G2 antibody against cluster of differentiation 3 also induces headache; and 21 patients using corticosteroids usually experience cognitive alteration.
    [Show full text]
  • Alefacept for Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis a B Gottlieb
    iv58 Ann Rheum Dis: first published as 10.1136/ard.2005.042655 on 20 October 2005. Downloaded from REPORT Alefacept for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis A B Gottlieb ............................................................................................................................... Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:iv58–iv60. doi: 10.1136/ard.2005.042655 there was no evidence of tachyphylaxis during multiple Alefacept is a bioengineered fusion protein of soluble courses of treatment12 lymphocyte function antigen (LFA-3) with Fc fragments of IgG1. It is marketed in many countries for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. This paper reviews the data Monitoring drug safety supporting the use of alefacept in psoriasis and psoriatic The safety profile of alefacept is encouraging, with some arthritis. patients having received up to nine courses of alefacept in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials and their extensions. There was no increase in adverse events in patients treated with alefacept compared with placebo.5 Consistent with memory effector T cell depletion as a mechanism of action was the lefacept is a bioengineered fusion protein of soluble requirement for weekly monitoring of circulating CD4+ T cell Lymphocyte Function Antigen (LFA-3)1 with Fc frag- counts during the 12 dosing weeks in phase 3 clinical trials. ments of IgG1. It is marketed in the USA, Australia, A Patients did not start taking alefacept if their CD4+ T cell Canada, Argentina, Switzerland, Kuwait, and Israel as count was ,400; dosing was withheld when the CD4+ T cell monotherapy for the treatment of moderate to severe count fell below 250. However, patients whose CD4+ T cell psoriasis vulgaris. It binds to CD2 on memory effector T cells counts fell below 250 in clinical trials did not experience an and blocks the interaction between LFA-3 on antigen increased incidence of infection.11 There was no increased presenting cells (APCs) and CD2 on the activated T cells.
    [Show full text]
  • Alefacept), for Injection, for Intramuscular Use  Serious Infections: AMEVIVE® May Increase the Risk of Infection and Initial U.S
    HIGHLIGHTS OF PRESCRIBING INFORMATION ----------------------WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS------------------------- These highlights do not include all the information needed to use Lymphopenia: Induces dose-dependent reductions in circulating CD4+ AMEVIVE® safely and effectively. See full prescribing information for and CD8+ T lymphocyte counts (5.1) AMEVIVE®. Malignancies: May increase the risk of malignancies. Do not administer to patients with a history of systemic malignancy (5.2) AMEVIVE® (alefacept), for injection, for intramuscular use Serious Infections: AMEVIVE® may increase the risk of infection and Initial U.S. Approval: 2003 reactivate latent, chronic infections. Do not administer to patients with a clinically important infection. Monitor new infections closely (5.3) ---------------------------INDICATIONS AND USAGE---------------------------- Potential for excessive immunosuppression when used with other AMEVIVE® is a CD2-directed LFA-3/Fc fusion protein indicated for the immunosuppressive agents or phototherapy (5.4) treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis Hypersensitivity Reactions: Urticaria and angioedema have been ® who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy (1). associated with the administration of AMEVIVE (5.6) Hepatic Injury: Post-marketing reports of liver injury. Discontinue use in -----------------------DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION----------------------- patients who develop clinical signs of liver injury (5.7) 15 mg given once weekly as an intramuscular injection for 12 weeks (2). AMEVIVE should not be initiated if CD4+ lymphocytes are below -------------------------------ADVERSE REACTIONS------------------------------ normal. Monitor CD4+ T lymphocyte counts every two weeks during the Most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥ 2%) are: pharyngitis, dizziness, dosing period. If CD4+ T lymphocyte counts are below 250 cells/µL, increased cough, nausea, pruritus, myalgia, chills, injection site pain, injection withhold dosing and institute weekly monitoring.
    [Show full text]
  • Course and Treatment Effects of Systemic Agents for Psoriasis: a Model-Based Meta-Analysis
    ARTICLES Quantitative Evaluations of Time-Course and Treatment Effects of Systemic Agents for Psoriasis: A Model-Based Meta-Analysis T Checchio1, S Ahadieh1, P Gupta1, J Mandema2, L Puig3, R Wolk1, H Valdez4, H Tan1, S Krishnaswami1, A Tallman4, M Kaur5 and K Ito1 Aggregate data model-based meta-analysis is a regression approach to compare the dose–response and/or time-course across different treatments using summary level data from the literature. Literature search and systematic review following the Cochrane approach yielded 912 sources for investigational and approved treatments for psoriasis. In addition, data for tofacitinib were obtained from an internal database. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor. Two mathematical models were developed for Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response in moderate to severe psoriasis patients to quantify the time to maximum effect for PASI75 and to evaluate the dose–response relationship for PASI responders (PASI50, PASI75, PASI90, PASI100) at Week 12. Body weight exhibited an inverse effect on the placebo component of both models, suggesting that body weight affects the overall PASI response regardless of drug. This analysis provides a quantitative framework for efficacy comparisons across psoriasis treatments. Study Highlights WHAT IS THE CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ON THE WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS TO OUR KNOWLEDGE TOPIC? þ This analysis furthered the understanding of psoriatic treat- þ Treatment options for patients with moderate to severe pso- ments by providing a framework for efficacy comparisons across riasis include oral and injectable/infusible systemic medication. systemic drugs. It also suggests that decisions to increase the However, quantitative comparison for the treatment effect dose may be particularly beneficial to heavier patients if they across drugs remains unknown.
    [Show full text]
  • Drug Class Review on Targeted Immune Modulators
    Drug Class Review on Targeted Immune Modulators Final Report December 2005 The purpose of this report is to make available information regarding the comparative effectiveness and safety profiles of different drugs within pharmaceutical classes. Reports are not usage guidelines, nor should they be read as an endorsement of, or recommendation for, any particular drug, use or approach. Oregon Health & Science University does not recommend or endorse any guideline or recommendation developed by users of these reports. Gerald Gartlehner, MD, MPH Richard A. Hansen, PhD Patricia Thieda, MA Beth Jonas, MD Kathleen N. Lohr, PhD Tim Carey, MD, MPH Produced by RTI-UNC Evidence-based Practice Center Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 725 Airport Road, CB# 7590 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7590 Tim Carey, MD, MPH, Director Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center Mark Helfand, MD, MPH, Director Copyright © 2005 by Oregon Health & Science University Portland, Oregon 97201. All rights reserved Final Report Drug Effectiveness Review Project TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 6 Scope and Key Questions ............................................................................................................. 12 Methods
    [Show full text]
  • Treatments for Severe Psoriasis
    Treatments for severe psoriasis John R Sullivan, Dermatologist and Clinical Pharmacologist, Southderm Kogarah, Skin and Cancer Foundation Australia, St Vincent’s Hospital, and University of New South Wales, and Veronica A Preda, Dermatology Research Officer, Skin and Cancer Foundation Australia, St Vincent’s Hospital and University of New South Wales, Sydney Summary comorbidities and its treatments. The consequences of severe psoriasis are more than just skin deep. It may be associated with Methotrexate, cyclosporin, acitretin and narrow- conditions such as arthritis, liver disease, cardiovascular disease band ultraviolet B phototherapy help most and the metabolic syndrome. Severe psoriasis involves large patients with severe psoriasis. However, toxicity areas of the skin's surface. Due to the chronic and very visual tends to limit the dose and duration of therapy, nature of this disease, there can be profound psychosocial 2 so other treatments are being developed. consequences. Biological therapies of proven benefit in severe The autoimmune lesions of psoriasis are hyperproliferative, hyperaemic, abnormally thick and shed increased amounts psoriasis include etanercept, adalimumab and of highly visible scales. Psoriasis plaques are packed with infliximab, which target tumour necrosis factor. enormous numbers of activated T cells which drive the Lymphocytes are the target of other therapies inflammatory process, cause dysmaturation of epidermal including efalizumab and alefacept. Biological cells and impair skin function. This results, for example, in therapies have a range of safety concerns which the increased loss of water through the epidermis and makes differ from, but overlap with, those of other psoriatic skin more susceptible to physical and chemical irritation, contributing to itching and irritation.
    [Show full text]
  • Tailored Treatment Options for Patients with Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis – Literature Review of Established and New Biologic Therapies
    Tailored treatment options for patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis – literature review of established and new biologic therapies Sarah Elyoussfi & Benjamin J Thomas, Year 5 MBBS BSc UCL Dr Coziana Ciurtin - Supervisor University College London, Gower Street, London Treatment Peripheral Arthritis Sacroiliitis & Spinal Disease Enthesitis Dactylitis Nail Involvement Skin Psoriasis Abstract ADALIMUMAB YES (*1a) YES (*1a) YES (*1a) Background The diverse clinical picture of Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) suggests the need to identify suitable therapies ETANERCEPT YES (*1a) YES (*1a) YES (*1a) YES (*1a) YES (*1a) YES (*1a) to address the different clinical manifestations. Review ABATACEPT YES (*1b) NO (*1b)- study in AS YES (*1b) We set out to review the current literature regarding the use of biological therapies for the treatment of psoriasis and PsA. Literature searches were performed for different classes of biological agents: Anti- APREMILAST YES (*1a) YES (*1b) YES (*1b) YES (*1b) YES (*1a) TNF (Adalimumab, Etanercept, Infliximab, Golimumab, Certolizumab), Anti-IL12/IL23 (Ustekinumab), Anti-co-stimulatory Molecule (Abatacept), Phosphodiesterase-4-Inhibitor (Apremilast), Anti-IL17 ALEFACEPT YES (*1a) (Secukinumab, Brodalumab, Ixekizumab), T-Cell Modulators (Alefacept, Efalizumab), Anti-IL6 (Tocilizumab), Janus-Kinase-Inhibitor (Tofacitinib), Anti-CD20 (Rituximab). Papers with the highest EFALIZUMAB NO (*1b) YES (*1a) (withdrawn) level of clinical evidence were analysed to look at responses to psoriasis (as measured by the PASI75 response), PsA (ACR20 response), and extra-articular manifestations such as enthesitis and dactylitis BRODALUMAB YES (*1b) YES (*1b) NO (*1b) NO (*1b) scoring, and nail disease improvement. The effect on radiographic progression and patient quality of life was also analysed. INFLIXIMAB YES (*1a) YES (*1a) YES (*1a) YES (*1a) YES (*1a) YES (*1a) Discussion The majority of the biologics showed efficacy for skin psoriasis and peripheral arthritis.
    [Show full text]