Safety of biologic therapy in combination with methotrexate in moderate to severe psoriasis: a cohort study from the BIOBADADERM registry.

BACKGROUND: Safety is an important consideration in decisions on treatment for patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis and the study of drug safety is the main purpose of the BIOBADADERM registry. The combination of a biologic agent and a conventional systemic drug [generally methotrexate (MTX)] is a common treatment in clinical practice. However, there is a paucity of evidence from real-world practice on the safety of such combination regimens in the treatment of psoriasis. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to ascertain whether the use of regimens combining biologic drugs with MTX in the management of moderate-to-severe psoriasis increases the risk of adverse events (AEs) or serious AEs (SAEs). We compared monotherapy using tumour necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin (IL)-17 and IL-23 inhibitors with the use of the same drugs in combination with MTX. METHODS: Using data from the BIOBADADERM registry, we compared biologic monotherapies with therapies that were combined with MTX. We estimated adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) using a random effects Poisson regression with 95% confidence intervals for all AEs, SAEs, infections and serious infections and other AEs by system organ class. RESULTS: We analysed data from 2829 patients and 5441 treatment cycles, a total of 12 853 patient-years. The combination of a biologic with MTX was not associated with statistically significant increases in overall risk of AEs or SAEs in any treatment group. No increase in the total number of infections or serious infections in patients receiving combined therapy was observed for any group. However, treatment with a TNF inhibitor combined with MTX was associated with an increase in the incidence of gastrointestinal AEs (aIRR 2.50, 95% CI 1.57-3.98; P < 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of AEs and SAEs was not significantly increased in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis receiving different classes of biologic drugs combined with MTX compared with those on biologic monotherapy.

Development of clinical prediction models for good or bad response to classic systemic drugs, anti-TNFs, and ustekinumab in psoriasis, based on the BIOBADADERM cohort.

BACKGROUND: Identifying patients likely to have very good or bad results from systemic psoriasis therapy could improve efficiency of therapy. OBJECTIVE: To develop prognostic models for good or bad response to classic systemic drugs, anti-TNFs, and ustekinumab in psoriasis. METHODS: Multivariable logistic regression of a prospective multicenter cohort of psoriatic patients in clinical practice (6449 person-years of follow-up). We used as possible predictors demographic characteristics, comorbidities, characteristics of the psoriasis (type, PASI, arthritis), history of past therapy at entry in the cohort, and history of response to previous cycles while in the cohort. We defined good response to a treatment cycle as either cycle end due to disease remission or a cycle longer than 2 years that does not end later due to inefficacy in the follow-up period. Bad response to a treatment cycle was defined as a cycle that is finished due to inefficacy, based on the physician judgment, after more than 3 months of treatment. RESULTS: Patients with fewer previous therapies, lower body mass index, older at start of therapy, and with previous history of good responses to therapy are more likely to have positive results of therapy. However, the predictive characteristics of models are poor. CONCLUSION: Predictive models of clinical response to systemic drugs in psoriasis with the studied variables do not seem to outperform drug selection by a dermatologist.

Use of off-label doses is frequent in biologic therapy for moderate to severe psoriasis: A cross-sectional study in clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION: Biologic medications increase dramatically the burden of a chronic and high prevalent disease like psoriasis. The objective of the study was to quantify the use of dose reduction or dose escalation strategies, not reflected in the drug summary of product characteristics, in clinical practice. METHODS: An observational, cross-sectional study of a subset of patients from the Spanish Registry for Systemic Treatments in Psoriasis (BIOBADADERM) treated for over six consecutive months with the same biologic agent. RESULTS: The study included 637 patients. At the cut-off date, the initial dose had been reduced in 223 patients (35%; 95% CI: 31.3-38.9%) and escalated in 46 (7.2%; 95% CI: 5.3-9.5%). When compared with the patients treated with standard doses, the patients on reduced doses had a lower PASI score at the cut-off date (a mean 2.6 versus 1; -1.6 points) and exhibited greater improvement in PASI since the start of biologic therapy (mean reduction over baseline 75% versus 87%). By contrast, the patients receiving an escalated dose had higher PASI scores (2.6 versus 8.0) and showed less improvement in PASI (75% versus 46.8%). CONCLUSION: Off-label doses of biologic agents for psoriasis are frequent in clinical practice. This information is especially relevant for pharmacoeconomic models.

Risk of serious adverse events associated with biologic and nonbiologic psoriasis systemic therapy: patients ineligible vs eligible for randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the use of systemic therapy for psoriasis (biologic and nonbiologic [classic] drugs) in patients not adequately represented in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) in these patients. DESIGN: A registry inception cohort was used. SETTING: Thirteen dermatology departments in Spain participated. PATIENTS: A consecutive sample of patients treated with biologics and a systematic sample of patients treated with classic systemic therapy were evaluated. A total of 1042 patients (2179 person-years) were included. EXPOSURE: Inadequate representation in trials was defined as the presence of any of the following factors: elderly age (>70 years); type of psoriasis other than chronic plaque psoriasis; history of infection caused by hepatitis B, hepatitis C, or human immunodeficiency virus; history of cancer (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer); and chronic renal or hepatic disease. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Serious adverse events as defined by the International Conference on Harmonization were evaluated. RESULTS: In all, 29.8% of patients receiving systemic therapy for psoriasis would not have been eligible for RCTs. These individuals had an increased risk of SAEs (incidence rate ratio, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.5-4.7). Patients exposed to biologics had an adjusted increased risk of SAEs (incidence rate ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1-4.8) that was similar in patients eligible and ineligible for RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients ineligible for RCTs are an important proportion (30%) of those receiving systemic therapy for psoriasis. These patients have a higher risk of SAEs and should be closely monitored. Patients exposed to biologics (whether these patients are eligible for RCTs or ineligible) are susceptible to the same increase in risk of SAEs, but biologics add to a higher baseline risk in patients who are ineligible for RCTs. The risk-benefit ratio in ineligible patients receiving biologics might be different from the ratio in eligible patients.