Abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis.

Background: Atopic dermatitis is a chronic relapsing inflammatory skin condition. One of the most common skin disorders in children, atopic dermatitis typically manifests before the age of 5 years, but it can develop at any age. Atopic dermatitis is characterised by dry, inflamed skin accompanied by intense itchiness (pruritus). Objectives: To appraise the clinical and cost effectiveness of abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib within their marketing authorisations as alternative therapies for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis compared to systemic immunosuppressants (first-line ciclosporin A or second-line dupilumab and baricitinib). Data sources: Studies were identified from an existing systematic review (search date 2019) and update searches of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) to November 2021, from bibliographies of retrieved studies, clinical trial registers and evidence provided by the sponsoring companies of the treatments under review. Methods: A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness literature was carried out and a network meta-analysis undertaken for adults and adolescents at different steps of the treatment pathway. The primary outcome of interest was a combined response of Eczema Area and Severity Index 50 + Dermatology Life Quality Index ≥ 4; where this was consistently unavailable for a step in the pathway, an analysis of Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 was conducted. A de novo economic model was developed to assess cost effectiveness from the perspective of the National Health Service in England. The model structure was informed through systematic review of the economic literature and by consulting clinical experts. Effectiveness data were obtained from the network meta-analysis. Costs and utilities were obtained from the evidence provided by sponsoring companies and standard UK sources. Results: Network meta-analyses indicate that abrocitinib 200 mg and upadacitinib 30 mg may be more effective, and tralokinumab may be less effective than dupilumab and baricitinib as second-line systemic therapies. Abrocitinib 100 mg and upadacitinib 15 mg have a more similar effectiveness to dupilumab. Upadacitinib 30 and 15 mg are likely to be more effective than ciclosporin A as a first-line therapy. Upadacitinib 15 mg, abrocitinib 200 and 100 mg may be more effective than dupilumab in adolescents. The cost effectiveness of abrocitinib and upadacitinib for both doses is dependent on the subgroup of interest. Tralokinumab can be considered cost-effective as a second-line systemic therapy owing to greater cost savings per quality-adjusted life-year lost. Conclusions: The primary strength of the analysis of the three new drugs compared with current practice for each of the subpopulations is the consistent approach to the assessment of clinical and cost effectiveness. However, the conclusions are limited by the high uncertainty around the clinical effectiveness and lack of data for the primary outcome for comparisons with baricitinib and for the adolescent and adult first-line populations. Future work and limitations: The most significant limitation that Eczema Area and Severity Index 50 + Dermatology Life Quality Index ≥ 4 could not be obtained for the adolescent and adult first-line systemic treatment populations is due to a paucity of data for dupilumab and ciclosporin A. A comparison of the new drugs against one another in addition to current practice would be beneficial to provide a robust view on which treatments are the most cost-effective. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021266219. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: 135138) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 4. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Atopic dermatitis is one of the most common skin conditions in children but can also develop in adulthood. People with atopic dermatitis have dry, red (inflamed) skin that is also extremely itchy (pruritus). There is no cure for atopic dermatitis. Therapy starts with topical treatments that are applied to the skin, such as emollients. Severe forms of atopic dermatitis are often treated with systemic treatments, which are drugs that are provided as tablets or an injection. Ciclosporin A is often the first systemic therapy given. If atopic dermatitis does not get better with ciclosporin A, options available in the National Health Service are dupilumab and baricitinib. New therapies that have been evaluated in clinical trials for atopic dermatitis but have not been assessed for use in the National Health Service are abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib. The aim of this project is to review the medical benefits, risks and value for money for the National Health Service of abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in a multiple technology appraisal. Our review found that: For children aged between 12 and 18 years, abrocitinib and a low dose of upadacitinib (15 mg) are good value for money for the National Health Service. For adults who need a first systemic treatment, upadacitinib is unlikely to be good value for money for the National Health Service. For adults who are still suffering from their atopic dermatitis after having a systemic treatment and need a different drug, upadacitinib 15 mg and tralokinumab could be good value for money for the National Health Service if they are used on their own. For adults who are still suffering from their atopic dermatitis after having a systemic treatment and need a different drug, but need to take it with steroid cream, abrocitinib 100 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg and tralokinumab could all be good value for money for the National Health Service.

Risk of serious infection and infection mortality in patients with psoriasis: A nationwide cohort study using the Taiwan National Health Insurance claims database.

BACKGROUND: The risks of serious infections that lead to hospitalization and mortality in patients with psoriasis in Asia have not been comprehensively studied. OBJECTIVES: We examined the incidence of serious infection and infection mortality in patients with psoriasis. METHODS: This population-based retrospective cohort study used the Taiwan National Health Insurance claims database from 2000 to 2017. Adult patients with psoriasis were identified by a relevant International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code and matched to six comparators without psoriasis on age and sex. Psoriasis patients were categorized as having moderate-to-severe disease once exposed to systemic therapies, phototherapy or biologic therapies. The incidence of serious infection and infection mortality were identified by ICD codes from inpatient hospitalization and death registration. Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare the risk, and the results were adjusted for covariates and presented as adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). RESULTS: Overall, 185,434 psoriasis patients and 1,112,581 comparators were included. A higher rate of serious infection (aHR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.19-1.22) was found in patients with psoriasis compared to matched comparators without psoriasis, and the risk was enhanced when patients had moderate-to-severe psoriasis (aHR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.27-1.34). Specifically, there was an increased risk of serious infection due to respiratory infections (aHR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.09-1.13), skin/soft-tissue infections (aHR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.52-1.62), sepsis (aHR: 1.23, 95% CI: 1.19-1.27), urinary tract infections (aHR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.08-1.14), hepatitis B (aHR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.06-1.30) and hepatitis C (aHR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.32-1.69). Furthermore, psoriasis patients were associated with a higher risk of infection-related mortality (aHR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.11-1.18) compared to matched comparators. CONCLUSION: Patients with psoriasis had a higher risk of serious infection and infection mortality, which was enhanced by moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Practitioners should be aware of the increased risk in patients with psoriasis, but it should not be a barrier to offering effective treatment.

Risk of Serious Infection in Patients with Psoriasis Receiving Biologic Therapies: A Prospective Cohort Study from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic Interventions Register (BADBIR).

Serious infection is a concern for patients with psoriasis receiving biologic therapies. We assessed the risk of serious infections for biologics used to treat psoriasis by comparison with a cohort receiving non-biologic systemic therapies in a propensity score-weighted Cox proportional hazards model using data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic Interventions Register. Overall, 1,352; 3,271; and 994 participants were included in the etanercept, adalimumab, ustekinumab cohorts, respectively, and 3,421 participants were in the non-biologic cohort. A total of 283 patients had a serious infection; the incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) per 1,000 person-years were as follows: non-biologic, 14.2 (11.5-17.4); etanercept, 15.3 (11.6-20.1); adalimumab, 13.9 (11.4-16.6); and ustekinumab, 15.1 (10.8-21.1). No significant increases in the risk of serious infection were observed for etanercept (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.75-1.60), adalimumab (HR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.69-1.26), or ustekinumab (HR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.60-1.41) compared with non-biologic systemic therapies or methotrexate-only (etanercept: HR = 1.47, 95% CI = 0.95-2.28; adalimumab: HR = 1.26, 95% CI = 0.86-1.84; ustekinumab: HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.75-1.99). The risk of serious infection should not be a key discriminator for patients and clinicians when choosing between non-biologic systemic therapies, etanercept, adalimumab, and ustekinumab for the treatment of psoriasis.

Quantitative Evaluation of Biologic Therapy Options for Psoriasis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Multiple biologic treatments are licensed for psoriasis. The lack of head-to-head randomized controlled trials makes choosing between them difficult for patients, clinicians, and guideline developers. To establish their relative efficacy and tolerability, we searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for randomized controlled trials of licensed biologic treatments for skin psoriasis. We performed a network meta-analysis to identify direct and indirect evidence comparing biologics with one another, methotrexate, or placebo. We combined this with hierarchical cluster analysis to consider multiple outcomes related to efficacy and tolerability in combination for each treatment. Study quality, heterogeneity, and inconsistency were evaluated. Direct comparisons from 41 randomized controlled trials (20,561 participants) were included. All included biologics were efficacious compared with placebo or methotrexate at 3-4 months. Overall, cluster analysis showed adalimumab, secukinumab, and ustekinumab were comparable in terms of high efficacy and tolerability. Ixekizumab and infliximab were differentiated by very high efficacy but poorer tolerability. The lack of longer term controlled data limited our analysis to short-term outcomes. Trial performance may not equate to real-world performance, and so results need to be considered alongside real-world, long-term safety and effectiveness data. These data suggest that it is possible to discriminate between biologics to inform clinical practice and decision making (PROSPERO 2015:CRD42015017538).

Risk of Serious Infections in Patients with Psoriasis on Biologic Therapies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

A comprehensive evaluation of the risk of serious infections in biologic therapies for psoriasis is lacking. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies reporting serious infections in people taking any licensed biologic therapy for psoriasis compared with those taking placebo, nonbiologic therapy, or other biologic therapies. The quality of the studies was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. No significant heterogeneity was detected in data from 32 RCTs (n = 13,359 participants) and one cohort study (n = 4,993 participants). In adults, low- to very-low-quality RCT data showed no significant difference between any biologic therapy and placebo at weeks 12-16 (overall pooled Peto odds ratio = 0.71, 95% confidence interval = 0.36-1.41) and weeks 20-30 (odds ratio = 2.27, 95% confidence interval = 0.45-11.49). No significant differences were found in any of the other comparisons in underpowered RCT data. Prospective cohort study data of low quality suggests that only adalimumab (adjusted hazard ratio [adjHR] = 2.52, 95% confidence interval = 1.47-4.32) was associated with a significantly higher risk of serious infection compared with retinoid and/or phototherapy in adults. No association between biologic therapies and serious infections in patients with psoriasis who were eligible for RCTs was detected. Further observational studies are needed to inform the uncertainty around this risk in the real world.

Novel Oral Therapies for Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Several classes of new oral therapy are in use or in development for the treatment of psoriasis. Despite the high efficacy of biologics, new oral therapies remain important as patients generally prefer this mode of administration and they offer an alternative risk-benefit profile. In this review, we discuss the novel modes of action of these drugs, including modulation of cellular pathways involving diverse targets such as Janus kinase, phosphodiesterase 4, sphingosine 1-phosphate, A3 adenosine receptor and rho-associated kinase 2. We review the available evidence around licensed drugs (apremilast) and drugs that are advanced (tofacitinib) or early (ponesimod, baricitinib, peficitinib, INCB039110, CF101, KD025) in the development pipeline. The key limitations of these oral therapies are their modest efficacy profile (apremilast, ponesimod) and the limitations of their safety profile (tofacitinib, ponesimod), while the evidence for the early pipeline drugs are at phase II level only. Potential niches of current unmet needs include apremilast for patients with concomitant psoriatic arthritis, as combination treatments with biologic therapies, and/or for patients in whom multiple biologic therapies have failed due to immunogenicity and secondary inefficacy. The present knowledge gap regarding these novel drugs includes the need for longer clinical trials or observational studies to evaluate safety, and randomised phase III trials for the early pipeline drugs. We conclude that further research and data are necessary to conclusively establish the role of these agents in the current psoriasis treatment paradigm.

Differential Drug Survival of Biologic Therapies for the Treatment of Psoriasis: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic Interventions Register (BADBIR).

Drug survival reflects a drug's effectiveness, safety, and tolerability. We assessed the drug survival of biologics used to treat psoriasis in a prospective national pharmacovigilance cohort (British Association of Dermatologists Biologic Interventions Register (BADBIR)). The survival rates of the first course of biologics for 3,523 biologic-naive patients with chronic plaque psoriasis were compared using survival analysis techniques and predictors of discontinuation analyzed using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. Data for patients on adalimumab (n=1,879), etanercept (n=1,098), infliximab (n=96), and ustekinumab (n=450) were available. The overall survival rate in the first year was 77%, falling to 53% in the third year. Multivariate analysis showed that female gender (hazard ratio (HR) 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09-1.37), being a current smoker (HR 1.19; 95% CI: 1.03-1.38), and a higher baseline dermatology life quality index (HR 1.01; 95% CI: 1.00-1.02) were predictors of discontinuation. Presence of psoriatic arthritis (HR 0.82; 95% CI: 0.71-0.96) was a predictor for drug survival. As compared with adalimumab, patients on etanercept (HR 1.63; 95% CI: 1.45-1.84) or infliximab (HR 1.56; 95% CI: 1.16-2.09) were more likely to discontinue therapy, whereas patients on ustekinumab were more likely to persist (HR 0.48; 95% CI: 0.37-0.62). After accounting for relevant covariates, ustekinumab had the highest first-course drug survival. The results of this study will aid clinical decision making when choosing biologic therapy for psoriasis patients.