Users of biologics in clinical practice: would they be eligible for phase III clinical studies? Cohort Study in the French Psoriasis Registry PSOBIOTEQ.

BACKGROUND: Numerous inclusion and exclusion criteria are involved in phase III moderate to severe psoriasis trials investigating the safety and efficacy of biologics. This questions the generalization of results. METHODS: In this cohort study, we applied inclusion/exclusion criteria for phase III trials from original protocols (adalimumab - REVEAL, ustekinumab - PHOENIX, brodalumab - AMAGINE, secukinumab FIXTURE) to all patients enrolled in the PsoBioTeq prospective registry who received a biological agent for the first time between July 2012 and November 2017. We then compared the efficacy, drug survival and occurrence of adverse events between patients who satisfied/did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for these phase III trials. RESULTS: A total of 1267 patients were enrolled, of whom 993 (78.4%) were not eligible for at least one RCT (randomized controlled trial) and 251 (19.1%) did not meet the PASI/PGA severity requirements. Apart from disease severity, the most frequent criteria resulting in exclusion were as follows: non-plaque psoriasis (12.6%), significant cardiac disease (8.4%), significant liver disease (7.3%), elevated liver enzymes (4.9-9.6%) and personal history of diabetes (9.2%). There was no difference in drug survival between the two groups. The incidence ratio of adverse events was significantly lower in eligible versus non-eligible patients [0.78 (95% CI 0.62-0.97) (P = 0.03)]. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients treated with biologics in the PsoBioTeq real-life registry would not have been eligible for phase III moderate to severe psoriasis trials. Patients not eligible for psoriasis phase III clinical trials have a higher incidence of adverse events.

2016 updated EULAR evidence-based recommendations for the management of gout.

BACKGROUND: New drugs and new evidence concerning the use of established treatments have become available since the publication of the first European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of gout, in 2006. This situation has prompted a systematic review and update of the 2006 recommendations. METHODS: The EULAR task force consisted of 15 rheumatologists, 1 radiologist, 2 general practitioners, 1 research fellow, 2 patients and 3 experts in epidemiology/methodology from 12 European countries. A systematic review of the literature concerning all aspects of gout treatments was performed. Subsequently, recommendations were formulated by use of a Delphi consensus approach. RESULTS: Three overarching principles and 11 key recommendations were generated. For the treatment of flare, colchicine, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), oral or intra-articular steroids or a combination are recommended. In patients with frequent flare and contraindications to colchicine, NSAIDs and corticosteroids, an interleukin-1 blocker should be considered. In addition to education and a non-pharmacological management approach, urate-lowering therapy (ULT) should be considered from the first presentation of the disease, and serum uric acid (SUA) levels should be maintained at<6 mg/dL (360 µmol/L) and <5 mg/dL (300 µmol/L) in those with severe gout. Allopurinol is recommended as first-line ULT and its dosage should be adjusted according to renal function. If the SUA target cannot be achieved with allopurinol, then febuxostat, a uricosuric or combining a xanthine oxidase inhibitor with a uricosuric should be considered. For patients with refractory gout, pegloticase is recommended. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations aim to inform physicians and patients about the non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments for gout and to provide the best strategies to achieve the predefined urate target to cure the disease.