Spesolimab: A Review of the First IL-36 Blocker Approved for Generalized Pustular Psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE: This article reviews clinical trial data that assesses the safety, efficacy, and clinical application of spesolimab, an interleukin-36 (IL-36) blocker, for the treatment of generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP). DATA SOURCES: A review of the literature was conducted using the search terms: "spesolimab," "BI 655130," and "spevigo" in MEDLINE (PubMed) and Clinicaltrials.gov from January 1, 1950 to October 31, 2023. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Relevant articles in English relating to the pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of spesolimab were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: In one phase 2 clinical trial evaluating single dose IV spesolimab for GPP flares at day 8, 54% of patients receiving spesolimab had a GPP physician global assessment (GPPGA) pustulation subscore of 0, and 43% had a GPPGA total score of 0 compared with 6% and 11% for the placebo group, respectively. Another phase 2 clinical trial assessing subcutaneous spesolimab found 23% of patients in low-dose, 29% in medium-dose, and 10% of high-dose spesolimab had flares by week 48 compared with 52% of the placebo group. Hazard ratios for time to GPP flare compared with placebo were 0.16 (P = 0.0005), 0.35 (P = 0.0057), and 0.47 (P = 0.027) for the spesolimab groups, respectively. Infection rates were similar across treatment and placebo groups, and severe adverse events such as drug reactions with eosinophilia and systemic symptom (DRESS), cholelithiasis, and breast cancer occurred with spesolimab. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE IN COMPARISON TO EXISTING DRUGS: Spesolimab is a first-in-class IL-36 monoclonal antibody receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of acute GPP flares. It is a safe and effective therapeutic agent in preventing future GPP flares, with no current comparator trials with other GPP agents. CONCLUSION: Spesolimab is a safe and effective treatment for acute GPP flares in adults. Future clinical trials can establish safety and efficacy compared with other agents.

Qualitative investigation of disease course, characteristics and lived experience of generalized pustular psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a relapsing-remitting chronic disease characterized by painful pustules with systemic symptoms that negatively impacts quality of life. The psychosocial and economic burden of this rare condition is not well characterized. OBJECTIVES: To qualitatively characterize the cumulative burden of generalized pustular psoriasis on patients' quality of life and psychosocial wellbeing. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients with generalized pustular psoriasis was performed to collect demographic information, followed by prospective semi-structured clinical interviews. Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three major themes were revealed: (1) Burden of having a chronic disease with an unpredictable course, (2) an inability to fulfill societal roles results in a loss of identity, and (3) a physician-patient relationship grounded in trust and transparency can be invaluable in helping patients endure chronic disease. CONCLUSION: GPP has a negative impact on patients' quality of life and psychosocial wellbeing. Impairments in daily function and mental health primarily affects patients during flares and influences behavior during periods of quiescence. A strong patient-physician relationship may help mitigate the impact of GPP.

Comparative analysis of persistence and remission with guselkumab versus secukinumab and ixekizumab in the United States.

Purpose: Real-world data comparing long-term performance of interleukin (IL)-23 and IL-17 inhibitors in psoriasis are limited. This study compared treatment persistence and remission among patients initiating guselkumab versus IL-17 inhibitors.Methods: Adults with psoriasis initiating guselkumab, secukinumab, or ixekizumab treatment (index date) were identified from Merative™ MarketScan® Research Databases (01/01/2016-10/31/2021). Persistence was defined as no index biologic supply gaps of twice the labeled maintenance dosing interval. Remission was defined using an exploratory approach as index biologic discontinuation for ≥6 months without psoriasis-related inpatient admissions and treatments.Results: There were 3516 and 6066 patients in the guselkumab versus secukinumab comparison, and 3805 and 4674 patients in guselkumab versus ixekizumab comparison. At 18 months, the guselkumab cohort demonstrated about twice the persistence rate as secukinumab (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.15; p < 0.001) and ixekizumab cohorts (HR = 1.77; p < 0.001). At 6 months after index biologic discontinuation, the guselkumab cohort was 31% and 40% more likely to achieve remission than secukinumab (rate ratio [RR] = 1.31; p < 0.001) and ixekizumab cohorts (RR = 1.40; p < 0.001).Conclusions: Guselkumab was associated with greater persistence and likelihood of remission than IL-17 inhibitors, indicating greater disease control and modification potential.

Patient preferences for treatment attributes in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: a discrete choice experiment.

Purpose: Evidence on treatment preferences of patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in the United States (US) is limited and an assessment of treatment preferences in this group is warranted.Materials and methods: An online discrete choice experiment survey was conducted (June 2023) among US adults with self-reported moderate-to-severe AD or experience with systemic therapy who had inadequate response to topical treatments. Preference weights estimated from conditional logistic regression models were used to calculate willingness to trade off and attributes' relative importance (RI).Results: Participants (N = 300; mean age: 45 years; 70% females; 52% systemic therapy experienced) preferred treatments with higher efficacy, lower risk of adverse events (AEs), and less frequent blood tests (p < .05). Treatment attributes, from high to low RI, were itch control (38%), risk of cancer (23%), risk of respiratory infections (18%), risk of heart problems (11%), sustained improvement in skin appearance (5%), blood test frequency (3%), and frequency and mode of administration (2%); together, AE attributes accounted for more than half of the RI.Conclusions: Participants preferred AD treatments that maximize itch control while minimizing AE risks, whereas mode of administration had little impact on preferences. Understanding patients' preferences may help improve shared decision-making, potentially leading to enhanced patient satisfaction with treatment, increased engagement, and better clinical outcomes.

Rosacea Core Domain Set for Clinical Trials and Practice: A Consensus Statement.

Importance: Inconsistent reporting of outcomes in clinical trials of rosacea is impeding and likely preventing accurate data pooling and meta-analyses. There is a need for standardization of outcomes assessed during intervention trials of rosacea. Objective: To develop a rosacea core outcome set (COS) based on key domains that are globally relevant and applicable to all demographic groups to be used as a minimum list of outcomes for reporting by rosacea clinical trials, and when appropriate, in clinical practice. Evidence Review: A systematic literature review of rosacea clinical trials was conducted. Discrete outcomes were extracted and augmented through discussions and focus groups with key stakeholders. The initial list of 192 outcomes was refined to identify 50 unique outcomes that were rated through the Delphi process Round 1 by 88 panelists (63 physicians from 17 countries and 25 patients with rosacea in the US) on 9-point Likert scale. Based on feedback, an additional 11 outcomes were added in Round 2. Outcomes deemed to be critical for inclusion (rated 7-9 by ≥70% of both groups) were discussed in consensus meetings. The outcomes deemed to be most important for inclusion by at least 85% of the participants were incorporated into the final core domain set. Findings: The Delphi process and consensus-building meetings identified a final core set of 8 domains for rosacea clinical trials: ocular signs and symptoms; skin signs of disease; skin symptoms; overall severity; patient satisfaction; quality of life; degree of improvement; and presence and severity of treatment-related adverse events. Recommendations were also made for application in the clinical setting. Conclusions and Relevance: This core domain set for rosacea research is now available; its adoption by researchers may improve the usefulness of future trials of rosacea therapies by enabling meta-analyses and other comparisons across studies. This core domain set may also be useful in clinical practice.

A Randomized, Double-blind, Phase III Study Assessing Clinical Similarity of SB17 (Proposed Ustekinumab Biosimilar) to Reference Ustekinumab in Subjects with Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Ustekinumab is a safe and effective treatment for moderate-to-severe psoriasis. OBJECTIVES: To compare efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity of the proposed ustekinumab biosimilar SB17 with reference ustekinumab (UST) in subjects with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. METHODS: In this randomized double-blind study, subjects were randomized to receive 45 mg of SB17 or UST subcutaneously at Week 0, 4, and every 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the percent change from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) at Week 12 with an equivalence margin of [-15%, 15%]. Other secondary efficacy, safety, PK, and immunogenicity endpoints were measured through Week 28. RESULTS: 249 subjects were randomized to SB17, 254 to UST. Adjusted difference of PASI change from baseline at Week 12 of -0.6% (95% confidence interval [CI; -3.780, 2.579]) was within the equivalence margin. Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) were also comparable. Overall treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were comparable (SB17: 48.2%, UST: 48.8%). The overall incidence of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) up to Week 28 was 13.3% with SB17 and 39.4% with UST. LIMITATIONS: Data were only through Week 28. CONCLUSION: SB17 was clinically biosimilar to UST up to Week 28.

Dermatologists' Perspectives on Biosimilars.

BACKGROUND: Biosimilars are biologic agents the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has deemed to have no clinical difference from their reference biologics. In dermatology,  biosimilars are approved for the treatment of psoriasis and hidradenitis suppurativa. Although dermatologists are high prescribers of biologics, they are more reluctant to prescribe biosimilars than other specialists. This survey-based study sought to characterize dermatologists’ current perspectives on biosimilars.  Methods: A 27-question survey was distributed via email to dermatologists between September and October of 2022.  Results: Twenty percent of respondents would not prescribe a biosimilar for an FDA-approved indication. When asked about the greatest barriers to biosimilar adoption, 61% had concerns about biosimilar safety and efficacy, 24% reported uncertainty about state laws for interchangeability and substitutions, and 20% had concerns about biosimilar safety without concerns about efficacy. Thirty-five percent of respondents felt moderately or extremely knowledgeable about biosimilar interchangeability.  Conclusion: Biosimilars are safe and effective for treating approved dermatological conditions and may lower patient costs compared to their reference products. Patients are not always offered biosimilar therapy as an option, which may be due to unfamiliarity among dermatologists.  This survey suggests a need for more research and educational initiatives, such as modules and workshops that focus on biosimilar safety, efficacy, and interchangeability guidelines. J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(4):doi:10.36849/JDD.7755.

Overview of Dermatological Manifestations Associated with the COVID-19 Infection.

COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 that is characterized by respiratory symptoms, fever, and chills.[1] While these systemic symptoms are widely known and well understood, there have also been reports of dermatological manifestations in patients with COVID-19. These manifestations include chilblain-like lesions, maculopapular lesions, urticarial lesions, necrosis, and other varicella-like exanthems.[2] The pathogenesis of these lesions are not well understood, but the procoagulant and pro-inflammatory state induced by COVID-19 infections may be contributing to varied cutaneous manifestations.[3] Drug interactions and concurrent hypersensitivity reactions have also been postulated.[4] This review aims to compile and analyze various retrospective studies and case reports to summarize the clinical presentation of dermatological lesions associated with COVID-19 infections and suggest further areas of research.

Biologics for Treatment of Pityriasis Rubra Pilaris: A Literature Review.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the published efficacy and adverse event rates associated with existing biologics for the treatment of pityriasis rubra pilaris (PRP). DATA SOURCES: A literature review using the PubMed database (January 1990-July 2023) was conducted. Multiple search combinations were conducted using "pityriasis rubra pilaris" and various biologics as keywords to identify relevant articles. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Inclusion criteria included all study types that were published within the past 30 years in English and mentioned at least one biologic and PRP. A preliminary search yielded a total of 499 results. After screening using inclusion and exclusion criteria, 77 relevant articles (69 case reports, 5 case series, 2 clinical trials, and 1 retrospective analysis) were analyzed. DATA SYNTHESIS: TNF-α inhibitors have been evaluated and are effective in treating PRP. However, recent treatment with anti-interleukin (IL)-17 and anti-IL-23 therapies such as ustekinumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab are emerging as new treatment options with a mean improvement in PRP Area and Severity Index scores, change in severity of erythema, scaling, and thickness of PRP lesions. From initial clinical trials, secukinumab and ixekizumab are promising treatment options for achieving remission. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: This review compares the efficacy for numerous biologics and a discussion to guide clinicians on benefits and risks in choosing a biologic for PRP patients. CONCLUSIONS: Biologics may be a favourable treatment option leading to greater patient adherence due to reduced dosing frequencies, improvement in quality of life, and reduction in frequency and severity of flares.

Microbiome modulators for atopic eczema: a systematic review of experimental and investigational therapeutics.

INTRODUCTION: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common inflammatory cutaneous disease that arises due to dysregulation of the Th2 immune response, impaired skin barrier integrity, and dysbiosis of the skin and gut microbiota. An abundance of Staphylococcus aureus biofilms in AD lesions increases the Th2 immune response, and gut bacteria release breakdown products such as Short Chain Fatty Acids that regulate the systemic immune response. AREAS COVERED: We aim to evaluate therapies that modulate the microbiome in humans and discuss the clinical implications of these treatments. We performed a review of the literature in which 2,673 records were screened, and describe the findings of 108 studies that were included after full-text review. All included studies discussed the effects of therapies on the human microbiome and AD severity. Oral probiotics, topical probiotics, biologics, and investigational therapies were included in our analysis. EXPERT OPINION: Oral probiotics demonstrate mixed efficacy at relieving AD symptoms. Topical probiotics reduce S. aureus abundance in AD lesional skin, yet for moderate-severe disease, these therapies may not reduce AD severity scores to the standard of biologics. Dupilumab and tralokinumab target key inflammatory pathways in AD and modulate the skin microbiome, further improving disease severity.