Clinical characteristics of psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis in dermatologists' offices.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the skin and joint disease of patients with psoriatic arthritis being treated in dermatology clinics. METHODS: A total of 1122 patients who had active psoriatic arthritis were enrolled in a Phase 4, non-randomized, open-label, single-arm, 24-week study. They were treated at 108 community and 17 academic dermatology centers. These patients experienced clinically stable, plaque psoriasis involving > or =10% body surface area and joint disease (either > or = two swollen and > or = two tender/painful joints for > or =3 months, or > or = one joint with sacroiliitis or spondylitis). RESULTS: In general, patient demographics and disease characteristics did not appear to differ between academic and community dermatology sites. Based on patient-reported assessments, patients rated the severity of their baseline joint symptoms lower than the severity of their skin disease. Baseline skin and joint disease measures were not correlated. Psoriatic arthritis was newly diagnosed in 23% of the patients. Most had received prior therapy for psoriasis, but only half had received systemic therapy for psoriatic arthritis. CONCLUSION: Assessment for joint disease in psoriasis patients being treated at dermatology clinics may facilitate earlier psoriatic arthritis diagnosis and treatment initiation, which may prevent disability and other negative impacts.

Efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab in patients with uncontrolled asthma (LAVOLTA I and LAVOLTA II): replicate, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: In phase 2 trials, lebrikizumab, an anti-interleukin-13 monoclonal antibody, reduced exacerbation rates and improved FEV1 in patients with uncontrolled asthma, particularly in those with high concentrations of type 2 biomarkers (eg, periostin or blood eosinophils). We undertook replicate phase 3 studies to assess the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab in patients with uncontrolled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroids and at least one second controller medication. METHODS: Adult patients with uncontrolled asthma, pre-bronchodilator FEV1 40-80% predicted, and stable background therapy were randomly assigned (1:1:1) with an interactive voice-web-based response system to receive lebrikizumab 37·5 mg or 125 mg, or placebo subcutaneously, once every 4 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by screening serum periostin concentration, history of asthma exacerbations within the last 12 months, baseline asthma medications, and country. The primary efficacy endpoint was the rate of asthma exacerbations over 52 weeks in biomarker-high patients (periostin ≥50 ng/mL or blood eosinophils ≥300 cells per µL), analysed with a Poisson regression model corrected for overdispersion with Pearson χ2 that included terms for treatment group, number of asthma exacerbations within the 12 months before study entry, baseline asthma medications, geographic region, screening periostin concentration, and blood eosinophil counts as covariates. Both trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, LAVOLTA I, number NCT01867125, and LAVOLTA II, number NCT01868061. FINDINGS: 1081 patients were treated in LAVOLTA I and 1067 patients in LAVOLTA II. Over 52 weeks, lebrikizumab reduced exacerbation rates in biomarker-high patients in the 37·5 mg dose group (rate ratio [RR] 0·49 [95% CI 0·34-0·69], p<0·0001) and in the 125 mg dose group (RR 0·70 [0·51-0·95], p=0·0232) versus placebo in LAVOLTA I. Exacerbation rates were also reduced in biomarker-high patients in both dose groups versus placebo in LAVOLTA II (37·5 mg: RR 0·74 [95% CI 0·54-1·01], p=0·0609; 125 mg: RR 0·74 [0·54-1·02], p=0·0626). Pooling both studies, the proportion of patients who experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (79% [1125 of 1432 patients] for both lebrikizumab doses vs 80% [576 of 716 patients] for placebo), serious adverse events (8% [115 patients] for both lebrikizumab doses vs 9% [65 patients] for placebo), and adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation (3% [49 patients] for both lebrikizumab doses vs 4% [31 patients] for placebo) were similar between lebrikizumab and placebo. The following serious adverse events were reported in the placebo-controlled period: one event of aplastic anaemia and five serious adverse events related to raised concentrations of eosinophils in patients treated with lebrikizumab and one event of eosinophilic pneumonia in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Lebrikizumab did not consistently show significant reduction in asthma exacerbations in biomarker-high patients. However, it blocked interleukin-13 as evidenced by the effect on interleukin-13-related pharmacodynamic biomarkers, and clinically relevant changes could not be ruled out. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Clinical outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis after switching from infliximab to etanercept.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and monitor serious adverse events in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) switching treatment from infliximab to etanercept. METHODS: Adult patients with active RA who were discontinuing treatment with infliximab were eligible to enroll in this prospective, 12-week, open label, single-arm, observational study. Four to 10 weeks after their last infusion of infliximab, patients began treatment with etanercept (twice weekly subcutaneous injections of 25 mg). Clinical assessments using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria for improvement were performed at baseline and at Weeks 6 and 12, and serious adverse events were monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were enrolled, 18 of whom had discontinued infliximab because of lack of efficacy, and 22 completed 12 weeks of etanercept treatment. After 12 weeks, 14 of 22 patients (64%) achieved at least a 20% improvement in ACR criteria (ACR20), 13 (59%) experienced improvements in physical function that were considered clinically important (> or = 0.22 point decrease in overall Health Assessment Questionnaire score), and mean values of all individual components of the ACR criteria had improved. No serious adverse events were reported during the study and no patient discontinued because of lack of efficacy. CONCLUSION: Etanercept, a soluble tumor necrosis factor (TNF) receptor, provided a well tolerated and effective treatment option for some patients even when infliximab, a monoclonal antibody to TNF, had been ineffective.