An Oral Interleukin-23-Receptor Antagonist Peptide for Plaque Psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: The use of monoclonal antibodies has changed the treatment of several immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, including psoriasis. However, these large proteins must be administered by injection. JNJ-77242113 is a novel, orally administered interleukin-23-receptor antagonist peptide that selectively blocks interleukin-23 signaling and downstream cytokine production. METHODS: In this phase 2 dose-finding trial, we randomly assigned patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis to receive JNJ-77242113 at a dose of 25 mg once daily, 25 mg twice daily, 50 mg once daily, 100 mg once daily, or 100 mg twice daily or placebo for 16 weeks. The primary end point was a reduction from baseline of at least 75% in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score (PASI 75 response; PASI scores range from 0 to 72, with higher scores indicating greater extent or severity of psoriasis) at week 16. RESULTS: A total of 255 patients underwent randomization. The mean PASI score at baseline was 19.1. The mean duration of psoriasis was 18.2 years, and 78% of the patients across all the trial groups had previously received systemic treatments. At week 16, the percentages of patients with a PASI 75 response were higher among those in the JNJ-77242113 groups (37%, 51%, 58%, 65%, and 79% in the 25-mg once-daily, 25-mg twice-daily, 50-mg once-daily, 100-mg once-daily, and 100-mg twice-daily groups, respectively) than among those in the placebo group (9%), a finding that showed a significant dose-response relationship (P<0.001). The most common adverse events included coronavirus disease 2019 (in 12% of the patients in the placebo group and in 11% of those across the JNJ-77242113 dose groups) and nasopharyngitis (in 5% and 7%, respectively). The percentages of patients who had at least one adverse event were similar in the combined JNJ-77242113 dose group (52%) and the placebo group (51%). There was no evidence of a dose-related increase in adverse events across the JNJ-77242113 dose groups. CONCLUSIONS: After 16 weeks of once- or twice-daily oral administration, treatment with the interleukin-23-receptor antagonist peptide JNJ-77242113 showed greater efficacy than placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; FRONTIER 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05223868.).

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.

Emerging Oral Therapies for the Treatment of Psoriasis: A Review of Pipeline Agents.

The introduction of biologic agents for the treatment of psoriasis has revolutionized the current treatment landscape, targeting cytokines in the interleukin (IL)-23/IL-17 pathway and demonstrating strong efficacy and safety profiles in clinical trials. These agents however are costly, are associated with a risk of immunogenicity, and require administration by intravenous or subcutaneous injection, limiting their use among patients. Oral therapies, specifically small molecule and microbiome therapeutics, have the potential to be more convenient and cost-effective agents for patients and have been a focus of development in recent years, with few targeted oral medications available for the disease. In this manuscript, we review pipeline oral therapies for psoriasis identified through a search of ClinicalTrials.gov (30 June 2022-1 October 2023). Available preclinical and clinical trial data on each therapeutic agent are discussed. Small molecules under development include tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitors, IL-17 inhibitors, phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, A3 adenosine receptor agonists, and sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 1 agonists, several of which are entering phase III trials. Oral microbials have also demonstrated success in early phase studies. As new oral therapies emerge for the treatment of psoriasis, real-world data and comparative trials are needed to better inform their use among patients.

Spesolimab, A Novel Interleukin-36 Inhibitor for Generalized Pustular Psoriasis Flares in Adult Patients.

Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a rare, immune-mediated inflammatory disease with characteristic cutaneous and systemic manifestations. Mutations in the interleukin-36 receptor antagonist (IL36RN) gene have been implicated in its pathogenesis. Spesolimab is a novel systemic biologic therapy that selectively inhibits interleukin-36. It was recently approved by Health Canada and the US FDA for the treatment of GPP flares in adults. Results from phase 1 and 2 studies have been promising. Herein, we review the efficacy and safety of spesolimab for the treatment of GPP flares, as demonstrated in clinical trials.

Adalimumab-induced systemic lupus erythematosus: A case report and review of the literature.

Adalimumab is a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor that has been widely used since the early 2000s for the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. All tumor necrosis factor inhibitors have been identified as causative agents in drug induced lupus, particularly etanercept and infliximab. There have been few reported cases of systemic lupus erythematosus induced by adalimumab, many more are attributable to treatment with etanercept or infliximab. We present the case of a patient with long-standing psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis who was successfully treated with adalimumab, but developed anti-tumor necrosis factor-induced lupus.

Comparison of risankizumab and apremilast for the treatment of adults with moderate plaque psoriasis eligible for systemic therapy: results from a randomized, open-label, assessor-blinded phase IV study (IMMpulse).

BACKGROUND: Treatment of psoriasis with risankizumab has demonstrated superior efficacy to other treatments, such as adalimumab, ustekinumab and secukinumab. OBJECTIVES: This study compared the efficacy and safety of risankizumab and apremilast in adults with moderate plaque psoriasis eligible for systemic therapy. It also evaluated the efficacy and safety of switching to risankizumab vs. continuing apremilast in patients who did not achieve ≥ 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75 nonresponders) after 16 weeks of treatment with apremilast. METHODS: This 52-week, phase IV, multicentre, randomized, open-label, efficacy assessor-blinded study (NCT04908475) enrolled patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with a diagnosis of moderate chronic plaque psoriasis (≥ 6 months) and who were candidates for systemic therapy. The enrolled patients (randomized 1 : 2) received subcutaneous risankizumab (150 mg at weeks 0 and 4) or oral apremilast (30 mg twice daily). At week 16, all patients treated with apremilast were re-randomized (1 : 1) to risankizumab or apremilast, stratified by week-16 PASI 75 response. The co-primary outcomes in period A at week 16 were the achievement of ≥ 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 90) and static Physician's Global Assessment (sPGA) 0/1 with a two-grade or better improvement from baseline. At week 52, the primary endpoint in period B was the achievement of PASI 90 in PASI 75 nonresponders with apremilast at week 16. Safety was monitored throughout the study. All patients who received one dose of treatment were included in the efficacy and safety analysis. RESULTS: At baseline, 118 and 234 patients were assigned to receive risankizumab and apremilast, respectively. At week 16, PASI 90 was achieved by 55.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 47.0-64.9] and 5.1% (95% CI 2.3-8.0), and sPGA 0/1 by 75.4% (95% CI 67.7-83.2) and 18.4% (95% CI 13.4-23.3), respectively. In period B, among PASI 75 nonresponders with apremilast at week 16, 83 switched to risankizumab and 78 continued apremilast. At week 52, 72.3% (95% CI 62.7-81.9) who switched to risankizumab achieved PASI 90 vs. 2.6% (95% CI 0.0-6.1) who continued apremilast. The most frequent adverse events (reported in ≥ 5%) in risankizumab-treated patients were COVID-19 infection and nasopharyngitis. Diarrhoea, nausea and headache were most frequent among apremilast-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with moderate psoriasis, treatment with risankizumab demonstrated superior efficacy to those treated with apremilast, including those who did not benefit from prior treatment with apremilast. The safety profile of risankizumab was similar to prior studies, and no new safety signals were identified. These results show that, compared with apremilast, risankizumab treatment can significantly improve clinical outcomes in systemic-eligible patients with moderate psoriasis.

Comparative effectiveness of biologics for patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis and special area involvement: week 12 results from the observational Psoriasis Study of Health Outcomes (PSoHO).

Introduction: Psoriasis localized at the scalp, face, nails, genitalia, palms, and soles can exacerbate the disease burden. Real-world studies comparing the effectiveness of treatments for these special areas are limited. Methods: Psoriasis Study of Health Outcomes (PSoHO) is an international, prospective, non-interventional, study comparing the effectiveness of anti-interleukin (IL)-17A biologics (ixekizumab and secukinumab) compared to other approved biologics and the pairwise comparative effectiveness of ixekizumab relative to five other individual biologics for patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis. To determine special area involvement, physicians answered binary questions at baseline and week 12. The proportion of patients who achieved special area clearance at week 12 was assessed. Missing outcome data were imputed as non-response. Comparative treatment analyses were conducted using frequentist model averaging. Results: Of the 1,978 patients included, 83.4% had at least one special area involved at baseline with the scalp (66.7%) as the most frequently affected part, followed by nails (37.9%), face/neck (36.9%), genitalia (25.6%), and palms and/or soles (22.2%). Patients with scalp, nail, or genital, but not palmoplantar or face/neck psoriasis, had significantly higher odds of achieving clearance at week 12 in the anti-IL-17A cohort compared to the other biologics cohort. Patients with scalp psoriasis had a 10-20% higher response rate and significantly greater odds (1.8-2.3) of achieving clearance at week 12 with ixekizumab compared to included biologics. Conclusion: Biologics demonstrate a high level of clearance of special areas at week 12 in a real-world setting. Patients with scalp, nail, or genital involvement have significantly higher odds of clearance at week 12 with anti-IL-17A biologics compared to other biologics.

Viewpoint about biologic agents for psoriasis: are they immunosuppressants or immunomodulators?

Over the past two decades, promising advancements have emerged in the field of psoriasis management. Most notably, highly effective targeted biologic therapies that offered significant breakthroughs in the management of psoriasis have been developed. One of the most challenging components of marketing and prescribing these biologic therapies has been in classifying them as immunomodulators or immunosuppressants. The purpose of this narrative review was to discuss the features that distinguish immunomodulators from immunosuppressants to successfully categorize the biologic therapies used for psoriasis management and subsequently enhance patient and physician understanding of the risks associated with the use of these drugs.