Bimekizumab efficacy and safety in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: two-year interim results from the open-label extension of the randomized BE RADIANT phase 3b trial.

BACKGROUND: Bimekizumab is a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that inhibits interleukin (IL)-17A/F. Bimekizumab is more efficacious than secukinumab over one year in the treatment of psoriasis. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate safety and efficacy of bimekizumab through two years in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. METHODS: The BE RADIANT phase 3b randomized controlled trial consisted of a 48-week double-blinded period, where patients received bimekizumab (320mg every 4 or 8 weeks) or secukinumab (300mg weekly to Week 4, then every 4 weeks), and an open-label extension (OLE). From Week 48, all patients received bimekizumab in the OLE. RESULTS: At Week 48, more patients achieved complete skin clearance (PASI100; modified non-responder imputation) with bimekizumab than secukinumab (74.8% vs 52.8%). PASI100 responses were maintained to Week 96 in continuous bimekizumab patients (70.8%); patients who switched from secukinumab to bimekizumab had increased rates at Week 96 (76.6%). The most common adverse events were: nasopharyngitis, oral candidiasis, urinary tract infection. Safety data were consistent with the known safety profile of bimekizumab. LIMITATIONS: Limited racial diversity; overlap with COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: High PASI100 responses achieved with bimekizumab over 48 weeks were sustained through Week 96; secukinumab patients who switched to bimekizumab achieved similar response by Week 96.

Outcomes of COVID-19 and Vaccination in Patients With Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis Treated With Tralokinumab.

This case series describes the outcomes of COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with atopic dermatitis who have been treated with tralokinumab.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs among patients with psoriasis treated with ixekizumab or adalimumab over 2 years of follow-up in real-world settings.

AIMS: To compare long-term healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs among patients who initiated ixekizumab (IXE) or adalimumab (ADA) for treatment of psoriasis in the United States. METHODS: Adult patients with psoriasis who had ≥1 claim for IXE or ADA were identified from IBM MarketScan claims databases prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (1 March 2016-31 October 2019). The index date was the date of first claim for the index drug of interest. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was employed to balance treatment cohorts. All-cause and psoriasis-related HCRU and costs were examined for 24 months of follow-up. Costs were reported as per patient per month. Costs of psoriasis-related biologics were adjusted using published Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) discount factors. Index drug costs were adjusted for adherence and ICER discount rates. RESULTS: The analyses included 407 IXE and 2,702 ADA users. IXE users had significantly higher inpatient admission rate (all-cause HCRU: 14.9% vs. 11.0%; p =0.012) and greater mean length of stay per admission (days, 6.6 vs. 4.1; p =0.004) than ADA users. ICER-adjusted costs were significantly higher in IXE than ADA users (all-cause costs: $4,132 vs. $3,610; p <0.001; psoriasis-related costs $3,077 vs. $2,700; p <0.001). After adjusting for ICER and adherence, IXE and ADA drug costs were comparable ($3,636 vs. $3,677; p =0.714). LIMITATIONS: Study relied on administrative claims data, subjected to data coding limitations and data entry errors. Rebates, patient assistance programs, and commission to wholesalers are not always captured in claims. Adjustment made by ICER discount factors may lead to double-discounting if the discounts have been applied in claim payments. CONCLUSIONS: All-cause HCRU was higher in IXE than ADA users. Healthcare costs were also higher in IXE than ADA users after ICER adjustment, over 24 months. Cost differences were largely driven by higher treatment adherence associated with IXE. Index drug costs were comparable after ICER and adherence adjustments.

National Psoriasis Foundation COVID-19 Task Force guidance for management of psoriatic disease during the pandemic: Version 2-Advances in psoriatic disease management, COVID-19 vaccines, and COVID-19 treatments.

OBJECTIVE: To update guidance regarding the management of psoriatic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: The task force (TF) includes 18 physician voting members with expertise in dermatology, rheumatology, epidemiology, infectious diseases, and critical care. The TF was supplemented by nonvoting members, which included fellows and National Psoriasis Foundation staff. Clinical questions relevant to the psoriatic disease community were informed by inquiries received by the National Psoriasis Foundation. A Delphi process was conducted. RESULTS: The TF updated evidence for the original 22 statements and added 5 new recommendations. The average of the votes was within the category of agreement for all statements, 13 with high consensus and 14 with moderate consensus. LIMITATIONS: The evidence behind many guidance statements is variable in quality and/or quantity. CONCLUSIONS: These statements provide guidance for the treatment of patients with psoriatic disease on topics including how the disease and its treatments affect COVID-19 risk, how medical care can be optimized during the pandemic, what patients should do to lower their risk of getting infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (including novel vaccination), and what they should do if they develop COVID-19. The guidance is a living document that is continuously updated by the TF as data emerge.

National Psoriasis Foundation COVID-19 Task Force Guidance for Management of Psoriatic Disease During the Pandemic: Version 1.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance about management of psoriatic disease during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: A task force (TF) of 18 physician voting members with expertise in dermatology, rheumatology, epidemiology, infectious diseases, and critical care was convened. The TF was supplemented by nonvoting members, which included fellows and National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) staff. Clinical questions relevant to the psoriatic disease community were informed by questions received by the NPF. A Delphi process was conducted. RESULTS: The TF approved 22 guidance statements. The average of the votes was within the category of agreement for all statements. All guidance statements proposed were recommended, 9 with high consensus and 13 with moderate consensus. LIMITATIONS: The evidence behind many guidance statements is limited in quality. CONCLUSION: These statements provide guidance for the management of patients with psoriatic disease on topics ranging from how the disease and its treatments impact COVID-19 risk and outcome, how medical care can be optimized during the pandemic, what patients should do to lower their risk of getting infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and what they should do if they develop COVID-19. The guidance is intended to be a living document that will be updated by the TF as data emerge.