Efficacy of long-term risankizumab treatment for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: Subgroup analyses by baseline characteristics and psoriatic disease manifestations through 256 weeks (LIMMitless trial).

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is an inflammatory skin disease that impacts a heterogeneous group of patients and can have multiple clinical manifestations. Risankizumab is approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term efficacy of risankizumab according to baseline patient characteristics, and for the treatment of high-impact disease manifestations (nail, scalp and palmoplantar psoriasis), through 256 weeks of continuous treatment in the phase 3 LIMMitless study. METHODS: This subgroup analysis evaluated pooled data from patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis who were randomized to risankizumab 150 mg during two double-blind, phase 3, 52-week base studies (UltIMMa-1/2; NCT02684370/NCT02684357) and were enrolled in the phase 3 LIMMitless open-label extension study (NCT03047395). Subgroup assessments included the proportion of patients who achieved ≥90%/100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 90/100). Among patients with nail, scalp and/or palmoplantar psoriasis in addition to skin psoriasis, assessments included changes from baseline in and resolution of these three psoriatic manifestations. RESULTS: Overall, a numerically similar proportion of patients (N = 525) achieved PASI 90/100 through Week 256, regardless of their baseline age, sex, body mass index, weight, PASI or psoriatic arthritis status. Patients with nail, scalp and/or palmoplantar psoriasis experienced substantial improvements in manifestation-specific indices (mean improvement from baseline to Week 256 of >81%, >94% and >97%, respectively); in patients with all three manifestations (N = 121), 44.6% achieved complete clearance of these manifestations at Week 256. CONCLUSIONS: Risankizumab demonstrated generally consistent efficacy through 256 weeks across patient subgroups and showed durable long-term efficacy for psoriatic disease manifestations.

Insurance coverage and financing landscape for HIV treatment and prevention in the USA.

In 2010, the US health insurance system underwent one of its most substantial transformations with the passage of the Affordable Care Act, which increased coverage for millions of people in the USA, including those with and at risk of HIV. Even so, the system of HIV care and prevention services in the USA is a complex patchwork of payers, providers, and financing mechanisms. People with HIV are primarily covered by Medicaid, Medicare, private insurance, or a combination of these; many get care through other programmes, particularly the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, which serves as the nation's safety net for people with HIV who remain uninsured or underinsured but offers modest to no support for prevention services. While uninsurance has drastically declined over the past decade, the USA trails other high-income countries in key HIV-specific metrics, including rates of viral suppression. In this paper in the Series, we provide an overview of the coverage and financing landscape for HIV treatment and prevention in the USA, discuss how the Affordable Care Act has changed the domestic health-care system, examine the major programmes that provide coverage and services, and identify remaining challenges.

Emerging Lessons and Policy Options for Sexually Transmitted Infection Telehealth Payment: A Narrative Review.

ABSTRACT: Long before the SARS-CoV-2 (hereafter COVID-19) pandemic, sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention and control was underresourced in the United States, leading to large and sustained increases in reportable STIs and harmful sequelae of these infections. The abrupt disruption associated with the national shutdown of many public services in early 2020 forced STI clinics and programs to rapidly adopt new models of care, including the greatly increased use of telehealth services. Federal policy makers took actions to relax many requirements in Medicare and other programs that previously impeded the use of telehealth. Numerous states also adopted emergency policies to facilitate the delivery of telehealth services through Medicaid, many of which are related to payment for services. It is unresolved whether and which policies will or should be extended after the public health emergency. How these services are financed and reimbursed underpins the ability to effectively prevent and treat STIs and improve public health. Ultimately, payment systems need to support the solvency and stability of sexual health clinics and other health care services organizations in ways that support providers and that also improve patient satisfaction and retention in care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and state/local health departments have important roles to play in supporting the dialogue needed to create new payment models and facilitate communication and technical assistance across public health and insurance systems. Sexual health providers must be engaged in iterative processes that continue to evolve and can be evaluated over time.

Risankizumab compared with adalimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (IMMvent): a randomised, double-blind, active-comparator-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is an autoimmune disease that affects approximately 100 million people worldwide, and is a disease that can be ameliorated by anti-cytokine treatment. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of risankizumab with adalimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. METHODS: IMMvent was a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, active-comparator-controlled trial completed at 66 clinics in 11 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 using interactive response technology to receive 150 mg risankizumab subcutaneously at weeks 0 and 4 or 80 mg adalimumab subcutaneously at randomisation, then 40 mg at weeks 1, 3, 5, and every other week thereafter during a 16-week double-blind treatment period (part A). For weeks 16-44 (part B), adalimumab intermediate responders were re-randomised 1:1 to continue 40 mg adalimumab or switch to 150 mg risankizumab. In part A, participants and investigators were masked to study treatment. Randomisation was stratified by weight and previous tumour necrosis factor inhibitor exposure. Co-primary endpoints in part A were a 90% improvement from baseline (PASI 90) and a static Physician's Global Assessment (sPGA) score of 0 or 1 at week 16, and for part B was PASI 90 at week 44 (non-responder imputation). Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in the safety population (all patients who received at least one dose of study drug or placebo). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02694523. FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2016, and Aug 24, 2017, 605 patients were randomly assigned to receive either risankizumab (n=301, 50%) or adalimumab (n=304, 50%). 294 (98%) of patients in the risankizumab group and 291 (96%) in the adalimumab group completed part A, and 51 (96%) of 53 patients re-randomised to risankizumab and 51 (91%) of 56 patients re-randomised to continue adalimumab completed part B. At week 16, PASI 90 was achieved in 218 (72%) of 301 patients given risankizumab and 144 (47%) of 304 patients given adalimumab (adjusted absolute difference 24·9% [95% CI 17·5-32·4]; p<0·0001), and sPGA scores of 0 or 1 were achieved in 252 (84%) patients given risankizumab and 252 (60%) patients given adalimumab (adjusted absolute difference 23·3% [16·6-30·1]; p<0·0001). In part B, among adalimumab intermediate responders, PASI 90 was achieved by 35 (66%) of 53 patients switched to risankizumab and 12 (21%) of 56 patients continuing adalimumab (adjusted absolute difference 45·0% [28·9-61·1]; p<0·0001) at week 44. Adverse events were reported in 168 (56%) of 301 patients given risankizumab and 179 (57%) of 304 patients given adalimumab in part A, and among adalimumab intermediate responders, adverse events were reported in 40 (75%) of 53 patients who switched to risankizumab and 37 (66%) of 56 patients who continued adalimumab in part B. INTERPRETATION: Risankizumab showed significantly greater efficacy than adalimumab in providing skin clearance in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. No additional safety concerns were identified for patients who switched from adalimumab to risankizumab. Treatment with risankizumab provides flexibility in the long-term treatment of psoriasis. FUNDING: AbbVie and Boehringer Ingelheim.

Two Phase 3 Trials of Adalimumab for Hidradenitis Suppurativa.

BACKGROUND: Hidradenitis suppurativa is a painful, chronic inflammatory skin disease with few options for effective treatment. In a phase 2 trial, adalimumab, an antibody against tumor necrosis factor α, showed efficacy against hidradenitis suppurativa. METHODS: PIONEER I and II were similarly designed, phase 3 multicenter trials of adalimumab for hidradenitis suppurativa, with two double-blind, placebo-controlled periods. In period 1, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to 40 mg of adalimumab weekly or matching placebo for 12 weeks. In period 2, patients were reassigned to adalimumab at a weekly or every-other-week dose or to placebo for 24 weeks. The primary end point was a clinical response, defined as at least a 50% reduction from baseline in the abscess and inflammatory-nodule count, with no increase in abscess or draining-fistula counts, at week 12. RESULTS: We enrolled 307 patients in PIONEER I and 326 in PIONEER II. Clinical response rates at week 12 were significantly higher for the groups receiving adalimumab weekly than for the placebo groups: 41.8% versus 26.0% in PIONEER I (P=0.003) and 58.9% versus 27.6% in PIONEER II (P<0.001). Patients receiving adalimumab had significantly greater improvement than the placebo groups in rank-ordered secondary outcomes (lesions, pain, and the modified Sartorius score for disease severity) at week 12 in PIONEER II only. Serious adverse events in period 1 (excluding worsening of underlying disease) occurred in 1.3% of patients receiving adalimumab and 1.3% of those receiving placebo in PIONEER I and in 1.8% and 3.7% of patients, respectively, in PIONEER II. In period 2, the rates of serious adverse events were 4.6% or less in all the groups in both studies, with no significant between-group differences. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with adalimumab (40 mg weekly), as compared with placebo, resulted in significantly higher clinical response rates in both trials at 12 weeks; rates of serious adverse events were similar in the study groups. (Funded by AbbVie; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01468207 and NCT01468233 for PIONEER I and PIONEER II, respectively.).

Phase 3 Studies Comparing Brodalumab with Ustekinumab in Psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Early clinical studies suggested that the anti-interleukin-17 receptor A monoclonal antibody brodalumab has efficacy in the treatment of psoriasis. METHODS: In two phase 3 studies (AMAGINE-2 and AMAGINE-3), patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis were randomly assigned to receive brodalumab (210 mg or 140 mg every 2 weeks), ustekinumab (45 mg for patients with a body weight ≤100 kg and 90 mg for patients >100 kg), or placebo. At week 12, patients receiving brodalumab were randomly assigned again to receive a brodalumab maintenance dose of 210 mg every 2 weeks or 140 mg every 2 weeks, every 4 weeks, or every 8 weeks; patients receiving ustekinumab continued to receive ustekinumab every 12 weeks, and patients receiving placebo received 210 mg of brodalumab every 2 weeks. The primary aims were to evaluate the superiority of brodalumab over placebo at week 12 with respect to at least a 75% reduction in the psoriasis area-and-severity index score (PASI 75) and a static physician's global assessment (sPGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear skin), as well as the superiority of brodalumab over ustekinumab at week 12 with respect to a 100% reduction in PASI score (PASI 100). RESULTS: At week 12, the PASI 75 response rates were higher with brodalumab at the 210-mg and 140-mg doses than with placebo (86% and 67%, respectively, vs. 8% [AMAGINE-2] and 85% and 69%, respectively, vs. 6% [AMAGINE-3]; P<0.001); the rates of sPGA scores of 0 or 1 were also higher with brodalumab (P<0.001). The week 12 PASI 100 response rates were significantly higher with 210 mg of brodalumab than with ustekinumab (44% vs. 22% [AMAGINE-2] and 37% vs. 19% [AMAGINE-3], P<0.001). The PASI 100 response rates with 140 mg of brodalumab were 26% in AMAGINE-2 (P=0.08 for the comparison with ustekinumab) and 27% in AMAGINE-3 (P=0.007). Rates of neutropenia were higher with brodalumab and with ustekinumab than with placebo. Mild or moderate candida infections were more frequent with brodalumab than with ustekinumab or placebo. Through week 52, the rates of serious infectious episodes were 1.0 (AMAGINE-2) and 1.3 (AMAGINE-3) per 100 patient-years of exposure to brodalumab. CONCLUSIONS: Brodalumab treatment resulted in significant clinical improvements in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis. (Funded by Amgen; AMAGINE-2 and AMAGINE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01708603 and NCT01708629.).

Adalimumab for nail psoriasis: Efficacy and safety from the first 26 weeks of a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous clinical trials have not evaluated improvement in nail psoriasis as a primary end point. OBJECTIVE: This phase 3 trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of adalimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe fingernail psoriasis and moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to 40 mg adalimumab every other week or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was at least 75% improvement in total-fingernail modified Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI75) response rate at week 26. Ranked secondary end point scores evaluated at week 26 were total-fingernail NAPSI and modified NAPSI, nail pain, Nail Psoriasis Physical Functioning Severity, Brigham Scalp Nail Inverse Palmo-Plantar Psoriasis Index, and Physician's Global Assessment (fingernail psoriasis). RESULTS: Of the 217 randomized patients (108 received placebo and 109 received adalimumab), 188 (86.6%) completed 26 weeks of treatment (period A) or escaped early to the open-label period. The study met the primary end point (response rate of 3.4% with placebo vs 46.6% with adalimumab [P < .001]) and all ranked secondary end points. The serious adverse event rates (placebo vs adalimumab) in period A were 4.6% versus 7.3%; the serious infections rates were 1.9% versus 3.7%. LIMITATIONS: Patients with less than 5% BSA involvement were not eligible for enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: After 26 weeks of adalimumab treatment, significant improvements were seen in the primary and all ranked secondary end points and in signs and symptoms of moderate-to-severe nail psoriasis versus with placebo and no new safety risks were identified.

Preventing HIV and Hepatitis Infections Among People Who Inject Drugs: Leveraging an Indiana Outbreak Response to Break the Impasse.

Providing clean needles through syringe services programs (SSPs) prevents the spread of disease among people who inject drugs (PWID). The recent HIV outbreak in Scott County, Indiana was a wakeup call with particular significance because modeling suggests that Scott County is but one of many counties in the United States highly vulnerable to an HIV outbreak among PWID. It is a painful recognition that some policy makers ignored the evidence in support of SSPs when it was primarily blacks in inner cities that were affected, yet swung into action in the wake of Scott County where 99% of the cases were white. Too many Americans have been taught to shame and shun drug users (irrespective or race or ethnicity). Therefore, we need lessons that afford benefits to all communities. We need to understand what made opinion leaders change their views and then change more hearts and minds before, not after the next outbreak.

Long-term safety and tolerability of apremilast in patients with psoriasis: Pooled safety analysis for ≥156 weeks from 2 phase 3, randomized, controlled trials (ESTEEM 1 and 2).

BACKGROUND: Randomized, controlled trials demonstrated efficacy and safety of apremilast for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. OBJECTIVE: Assess long-term safety of oral apremilast in psoriasis patients. METHODS: Safety findings are reported for 0 to ≥156 weeks from the Efficacy and Safety Trial Evaluating the Effects of Apremilast in Psoriasis (ESTEEM) 1 and 2. RESULTS: The 0 to ≥156-week apremilast-exposure period included 1184 patients treated twice daily with apremilast 30 mg (1902.2 patient-years). During 0 to ≤52 weeks, the adverse events (AEs) that occurred in ≥5% of patients included diarrhea, nausea, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, tension headache, and headache. From 0 to ≥156 weeks, no new AEs (affecting ≥5% of the population) were reported. AEs, serious AEs, and study drug discontinuations caused by AEs did not increase with long-term exposure. During the 0 to ≥156-week period, the rates of major cardiac events (exposure-adjusted incidence rate [EAIR] 0.5/100 patient-years), malignancies (EAIR 1.2/100 patient-years), depression (EAIR 1.8/100 patient-years), or suicide attempts (EAIR 0.1/100 patient-years) did not increase in comparison with the rates found during the 0 to ≤52-week period. No serious opportunistic infections, reactivation of tuberculosis, or clinically meaningful effects on laboratory measurements were reported. LIMITATIONS: This study had a high dropout rate (21% of patients ongoing >156 weeks); most were unrelated to safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Apremilast demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and was generally well tolerated for ≥156 weeks.

Apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, in patients with psoriatic arthritis and current skin involvement: a phase III, randomised, controlled trial (PALACE 3).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate apremilast treatment in patients with active psoriatic arthritis, including current skin involvement, despite prior therapy with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and/or biologic agents. METHODS: Patients (N=505) were randomised (1:1:1) to placebo, apremilast 20 mg twice daily, or apremilast 30 mg twice daily. Rescue therapy with apremilast was designated at week 16 for placebo patients not achieving 20% improvement in swollen and tender joint counts. At week 24, the remaining placebo patients were then randomised to apremilast 20 mg twice daily or 30 mg twice daily. The efficacy and safety of apremilast were assessed over 52 weeks. RESULTS: At week 16, significantly more patients receiving apremilast 20 mg twice daily (28%) and 30 mg twice daily (41%) achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria versus placebo (18%; p=0.0295 and p<0.0001, respectively), and mean decrease in the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index score was significantly greater with apremilast 30 mg twice daily (-0.20) versus placebo (-0.07; p=0.0073). In patients with baseline psoriasis body surface area involvement ≥3%, significantly more apremilast 30 mg twice daily patients achieved 50% reduction from baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (41%) versus placebo (24%; p=0.0098) at week 16. At week 52, observed improvements in these measures demonstrated sustained response with continued apremilast treatment. Most adverse events were mild to moderate in severity; the most common were diarrhoea, nausea, headache and upper respiratory tract infection. CONCLUSIONS: Apremilast demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis at week 16; sustained improvements were seen with continued treatment through 52 weeks. Apremilast was generally well tolerated and demonstrated an acceptable safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01212770.

Apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, in patients with difficult-to-treat nail and scalp psoriasis: Results of 2 phase III randomized, controlled trials (ESTEEM 1 and ESTEEM 2).

BACKGROUND: In the phase III double-blind Efficacy and Safety Trial Evaluating the Effects of Apremilast in Psoriasis (ESTEEM) 1 and 2, apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy in moderate to severe psoriasis. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate efficacy of apremilast in nail/scalp psoriasis in ESTEEM 1 and 2. METHODS: A total of 1255 patients were randomized (2:1) to apremilast 30 mg twice daily or placebo. At week 16, placebo patients switched to apremilast through week 32, followed by a randomized withdrawal phase to week 52. A priori efficacy analyses included patients with nail (target nail Nail Psoriasis Severity Index score ≥1) and moderate to very severe scalp (Scalp Physician Global Assessment score ≥3) psoriasis at baseline. RESULTS: At baseline, 66.1% and 64.7% of patients had nail psoriasis; 66.7% and 65.5% had moderate to very severe scalp psoriasis in ESTEEM 1 and 2. At week 16, apremilast produced greater improvements in Nail Psoriasis Severity Index score versus placebo; mean percent change: -22.5% versus +6.5% (ESTEEM 1; P < .0001) and -29.0% versus -7.1% (ESTEEM 2; P = .0052). At week 16, apremilast produced greater NAPSI-50 response (50% reduction from baseline in target nail Nail Psoriasis Severity Index score) versus placebo (both studies P < .0001) and ScPGA response (Scalp Physician Global Assessment score 0 or 1) versus placebo (both studies P < .0001). Improvements were generally maintained over 52 weeks in patients with Psoriasis Area and Severity Index response at week 32. LIMITATIONS: Baseline randomization was not stratified for nail/scalp psoriasis. CONCLUSION: Apremilast reduces the severity of nail/scalp psoriasis.

Speed and Cumulative Responses According to Body Regions in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis Treated with Ixekizumab (Interleukin-17A Antagonist) versus Guselkumab (Interleukin-23p19 Inhibitor).

INTRODUCTION: When assessing the effect of a therapy for psoriasis (PsO), it is important to consider speed of response and cumulative response. However, responses among biologics may differ by body regions. This post hoc analysis compares speed of response and cumulative response for ixekizumab (IXE), an interleukin-17A antagonist, and guselkumab (GUS), an interleukin-23p19 inhibitor, in different body regions of patients with moderate-to-severe plaque PsO participating in the IXORA-R study, up to week 24. METHODS: The IXORA-R design has been previously described. Patients received the respective on-label dosing of IXE or GUS. The median time to first Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 50, 75, 90, and 100 response (50%, 75%, 90%, and 100% improvement from baseline, respectively) and the cumulative days with clear skin for PASI 50, 75, 90, and 100 responses were assessed in four body regions: head, trunk, upper extremities, and lower extremities. RESULTS: A total of 1027 patients were enrolled and received IXE (N = 520) or GUS (N = 507). Median time to first PASI 50, 75, 90, and 100 response was shortest in the head region, followed by the remaining body regions in both IXE and GUS cohorts. In each body region, IXE was significantly faster than GUS (p < 0.001) in achieving PASI 50, 75, 90, and 100. Through 24 weeks, the number of days with clear skin for PASI 90 and 100 was greater in the head region, followed by trunk, upper extremities, and lastly lower extremities in both IXE and GUS cohorts. In each body region, through 24 weeks, patients on IXE experienced a significantly higher number of days with clear skin for PASI 50, 75, 90, and 100 than patients on GUS (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: As compared to GUS, IXE provided a faster skin clearance and more days with clear skin in all body regions of patients with moderate-to-severe plaque PsO through 24 weeks. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ : NCT03573323 (IXORA-R).

Psoriasis, a long-term, inflammatory skin disease, impacts patient's lives, and response to treatment varies depending on the body region affected. Here, we assessed the speed of response and cumulative response through 24 weeks in different body regions (head, trunk, upper extremities, and lower extremities) of patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis treated with currently approved therapies: ixekizumab (IXE), an interleukin-17A antagonist, or guselkumab (GUS), an interleukin-23p19 inhibitor. We calculated the speed of response as the number of weeks to achieve first skin clearance, based on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) tool, and the cumulative response as the number of days with clear skin throughout the 24-week period. We found that the head region achieved skin clearance fastest and had a higher number of days with clear skin compared to the trunk, upper extremities, and lower extremities, in both groups of patients treated with IXE or GUS. Compared to GUS, IXE provided faster skin clearance and a higher number of days with clear skin in all body regions. For example, the head region of patients treated with IXE, as compared to GUS, achieved complete skin clearance twofold faster and experienced 18.7% more days of complete skin clearance. In conclusion, treatment with IXE through 24 weeks provided a faster response and a higher cumulative response than treatment with GUS in all four body regions of patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

Switching to risankizumab from ustekinumab or adalimumab in plaque psoriasis patients improves PASI and DLQI outcomes for sub-optimal responders.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is often treated with biologic therapies. While many patients see improvement in their symptoms with treatment, some achieve only partial success. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: In this post-hoc analysis we assess Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) results from patients who switched to RZB due to suboptimal results that originally received ADA (N = 53, IMMvent NCT02694523) or UST (N = 172, UltIMMa-1 [NCT02684370], UltIMMa-2 [NCT02684357]). RESULTS: For patients originally treated with ADA, after three doses of RZB, 83.3% of PASI 50 to <75 patients improved to PASI ≥75 and for PASI 75 to <90 patients, 77.1% improved to PASI ≥90. For patients originally treated with UST, after 7 doses of RZB, 86.8% of PASI <75 patients improved to PASI ≥75 and 75.5% of PASI 75 to ≤90 patients improved to PASI ≥90. No patients demonstrated worsening from their initial PASI group after switching. There were no significant safety events associated with switching patients to RZB without a washout period. CONCLUSION: For patients with an inadequate or incomplete response to UST or ADA, switching to RZB improved PASI scores and DLQI for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with no significant safety risks.

Efficacy of Risankizumab versus Secukinumab in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: Subgroup Analysis from the IMMerge Study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis who experience poor clinical outcomes, including patients with obesity or prior treatment, need improved treatment options. Risankizumab specifically inhibits interleukin 23 and has demonstrated superior efficacy in active-comparator studies in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. We compared the efficacy of risankizumab with that of secukinumab across patient subgroups. METHODS: Subgroup analyses using data from the phase 3 IMMerge study (NCT03478787) were performed. Efficacy in adults with moderate-to-severe psoriasis treated with risankizumab 150 mg and secukinumab 300 mg was assessed as the proportion of patients who achieved ≥ 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI 90) at week 52 across demographics and disease characteristics. Post hoc analyses evaluated the proportion of patients who achieved PASI 90 and the least-squares mean percent PASI improvement from baseline at week 52 by body weight and body mass index (BMI), PASI 90 by prior treatment, and clinical response [PASI 90, PASI 100, and/or static Physician's Global Assessment (sPGA) score of clear (0) or almost clear (1)] at week 16 and maintained particular response at week 52. Logistic regression analyses examined the effect of covariates (age, sex, BMI, baseline PASI, treatment) and potential interactions on PASI 90 at week 52. RESULTS: More patients who received risankizumab (n = 164) compared with secukinumab (n = 163) achieved PASI 90 at week 52, regardless of demographics and disease characteristics (BMI, prior treatment, disease duration, and maintenance of clinical response at week 52). Improvements in PASI were greater in patients taking risankizumab than those taking secukinumab, regardless of weight or BMI. Results from logistic regression analysis showed treatment type had a significant impact on PASI 90 (risankizumab versus secukinumab, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Risankizumab showed consistently greater efficacy compared with secukinumab across different patient subgroups, and this was maintained through 52 weeks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier; NCT03478787.

Patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis are often unable to achieve treatment success with currently available biologic therapies when they have other conditions, such as obesity, or have previous biologic therapy exposure and/or failure. We studied patients in the IMMerge phase 3 clinical trial (NCT03478787) to assess the efficacy of risankizumab compared with secukinumab for the treatment of plaque psoriasis and to determine risankizumab's ability to remain effective after 52 weeks of administration. In our analysis, we looked across patient subgroups including patient body weight, body mass index, previous use of biologic therapies, length of time patients had been living with their disease, and the durability of risankizumab efficacy at 52 weeks. Results from our analysis showed that patients had greater success with risankizumab compared with secukinumab in treating their plaque psoriasis, despite their age, sex, race, and disease characteristics, and that risankizumab remained effective in treating plaque psoriasis at week 52. Previously reported safety results from the IMMerge clinical trial showed that there were no new concerns regarding side effects for either risankizumab or secukinumab. Overall, these results support the use of risankizumab to treat patients, including those who have other conditions or may not have had success with other therapies in treating their plaque psoriasis.

A brief guide to pustular psoriasis for primary care providers.

Pustular psoriasis refers to a heterogeneous group of chronic inflammatory skin disorders that are clinically, histologically, and genetically distinct from plaque psoriasis. Pustular psoriasis may present as a recurrent systemic illness (generalized pustular psoriasis [GPP]), or as localized disease affecting the palms and/or soles (palmoplantar pustulosis [PPP], also known as palmoplantar pustular psoriasis), or the digits/nail beds (acrodermatitis continua of Hallopeau [ACH]). These conditions are rare, but their possible severity and consequences should not be underestimated. GPP, especially an acute episode (flare), may be a medical emergency, with potentially life-threatening complications. PPP and ACH are often debilitating conditions. PPP is associated with impaired health-related quality of life and psychiatric morbidity, while ACH threatens irreversible nail and/or bone damage. These conditions can be difficult to diagnose; thus, primary care providers should not hesitate to contact a dermatologist for advice and/or patient referral. The role of corticosteroids in triggering and leading to flares of GPP should also be noted, and physicians should avoid the use of systemic corticosteroids in the management of any form of psoriasis.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARYA brief guide to pustular psoriasis for primary care providersPustular psoriasis consists of a group of rare conditions that cause the skin to become red and painful. In these conditions, small blisters filled with pus (called pustules) appear suddenly. The pustules are not infectious. Pustular psoriasis is different from plaque psoriasis, in which people develop scaly patches of skin. People can have pustular psoriasis and plaque psoriasis at the same time. Pustular psoriasis can be widespread, affecting large areas of the body, arms, and legs. This is called generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP). GPP can cause life-threatening complications that may require emergency medical treatment. Pustular psoriasis can be more localized, occurring on the palms of the hands and soles of the feet. This is called palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP). It can also occur on the fingers, toes, and nail beds, called acrodermatitis continua of Hallopeau (ACH). PPP and ACH can make walking and other everyday activities difficult. Because GPP, PPP, and ACH are rare, primary care providers are unlikely to meet many people with pustular psoriasis, so they may not recognize these conditions immediately. This article aims to help primary care providers assess and diagnose people who may have GPP, PPP, or ACH, and advise when they should get help from a skin specialist (dermatologist). See Figure 1 for a full infographic version of this summary.