Baseline Characteristics and mNAPSI Change from Baseline Scores Through Month 12 for Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis and Concomitant Nail Psoriasis Treated with Biologics from PSoHO.

INTRODUCTION: Nail psoriasis is highly prevalent among patients with psoriasis yet remains one of the most challenging areas to treat. To better understand the treatment landscape for psoriatic nail disease, more studies are needed that compare the effectiveness of different biologics for patients with nail psoriasis. This study contributes to this objective by directly comparing the effectiveness of approved biologics in improving nail psoriasis for patients up to month 12 in a real-world setting. METHODS: Psoriasis Study of Health Outcomes (PSoHO) is an ongoing 3-year, prospective, non-interventional cohort study of adults with chronic moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis initiating or switching to a new biologic. This study assessed the change in modified Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (mNAPSI) score from baseline to months 3, 6 and 12 for 763 patients and compared the effectiveness of anti-interleukin (IL)-17A biologics versus other approved biologics, as well as ixekizumab versus secukinumab, guselkumab, risankizumab and adalimumab. Comparative adjusted analyses used frequentist model averaging (FMA). Least square mean difference (LSMD) in mNAPSI scores are presented as observed. RESULTS: Irrespective of the severity of nail psoriasis at baseline, the anti-IL-17A cohort had greater mean mNAPSI reductions from baseline compared to the other biologics cohort through month 12, reaching significance at months 3 and 6 in the adjusted analysis. For patients with moderate-to-severe nail psoriasis, ixekizumab showed numerically higher mean reductions in mNAPSI scores compared to all other studied biologics, reaching significance versus guselkumab at all timepoints and risankizumab at month 6. CONCLUSION: This real-world study showed that patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis and any severity of concomitant nail involvement had significantly faster and more substantial improvements in nail psoriasis up to month 6 in the anti-IL-17A cohort compared to the other biologics cohort. Of the individual biologics studied, ixekizumab showed the highest numerical improvements in nail psoriasis at month 12. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EUPAS24207.

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.

The anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody bamlanivimab minimally affects the endogenous immune response to COVID-19 vaccination.

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic evolves and vaccine rollout progresses, the availability and demand for monoclonal antibodies for the prevention and treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are also accelerating. This longitudinal serological study evaluated the magnitude and potency of the endogenous antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination in participants who first received a COVID-19 monoclonal antibody in a prevention study. Over the course of 6 months, serum samples were collected from a population of nursing home residents and staff enrolled in a clinical trial who were randomized to either bamlanivimab treatment or placebo. In an unplanned component of this trial, a subset of these participants was subsequently fully vaccinated with two doses of either SpikeVax (Moderna) or Comirnaty (BioNTech/Pfizer) COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. This post hoc analysis assessed the immune response to vaccination for 135 participants without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antibody titers and potency were assessed using three assays against SARS-CoV-2 proteins that bamlanivimab does not efficiently bind to, thereby reflecting the endogenous antibody response. All bamlanivimab and placebo recipients mounted a robust immune response to full COVID-19 vaccination, irrespective of age, risk category, and vaccine type with any observed differences of uncertain clinical importance. These findings are pertinent for informing public health policy with results that suggest that the benefit of receiving COVID-19 vaccination at the earliest opportunity outweighs the minimal effect on the endogenous immune response due to prior prophylactic COVID-19 monoclonal antibody infusion.

A Narrative Review of the Clinical Practicalities of Bamlanivimab and Etesevimab Antibody Therapies for SARS-CoV-2.

The severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ranges from mild to death, with high morbidity and mortality rates reported amongst a vulnerable subset of patients termed high risk. While vaccines remain the primary option for COVID-19 prevention, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), such as bamlanivimab and etesevimab, have been shown to benefit certain subpopulations after exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Unlike vaccine-derived immunity that develops over time, administration of neutralizing mAbs is an immediate and passive immunotherapy, with the potential to reduce disease progression, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and death. Bamlanivimab alone and together with etesevimab hold emergency use authorizations in several countries globally, with countries increasingly transitioning to the use of bamlanivimab and etesevimab together and other authorized mAbs on the basis of their evolving variant landscape, regulatory authorizations, and access to drugs. The current guidelines for the administration of bamlanivimab alone or together with etesevimab are informed by an iterative process of testing and development. Herein the rationale for these guidelines is provided by sharing the learnings that have been gathered throughout the development process of these mAbs. In addition, this review addresses the most common clinical questions received from health care professionals (HCPs) and patients regarding indicated population, dose, use with other medications and vaccines, duration of protection, and variants in clinical practice. As prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 variants can differ by country and state, prescribing HCPs should consider the prevalence of bamlanivimab and etesevimab resistant variants in their area, where data are available, regarding potential efficacy impact when considering treatment options.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04427501; NCT04411628; NCT04497987; NCT04634409.

Brain SPECT as an Imaging Biomarker for Evaluating Effects of Novel Treatments in Psychiatry-A Case Series.

The difficulties of evaluating patients with complex neuropsychiatric conditions and prescribing appropriate treatments are well known. Imaging complements clinical assessments and allows a clinician to narrow the differential diagnosis by facilitating accurate and efficient evaluation. This is particularly relevant to neuropsychiatric conditions that are often diagnosed using a trial-and error process of exclusion. Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) is a functional brain imaging procedure that allows practitioners to measure the functional changes of gray matter structures based on regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF). The accurate diagnosis and treatment selection in psychiatry is challenging due to complex cases and frequent comorbidities. However, such complex neuropsychiatric conditions are increasingly benefitting from new treatment approaches, in addition to established medications. Among these are combination transcranial magnetic stimulation with ketamine infusions (CTK), hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) and perispinal administration of etanercept (PSE). This article provides readers with six case study examples that demonstrate how brain SPECT imaging can be used, both as a diagnostic tool, and as a potential biomarker for monitoring and evaluating novel treatments for patients with complex neuropsychiatric conditions. Six patients were assessed in our clinic and baseline brain SPECT imagesTourettes and a long history of alcohol were visually compared with SPECT images collected after periods of treatment with CTK or HBOT followed by PSE. This retrospective review demonstrates the clinical utility of these novel treatments and describes how SPECT imaging can complement standard diagnostic assessments. A novel display technique for SPECT images is described and we argue that SPECT imaging can be used for monitoring biomarker for clinical change.

Combination therapy with transcranial magnetic stimulation and ketamine for treatment-resistant depression: A long-term retrospective review of clinical use.

BACKGROUND: Both transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and infused ketamine are recognized treatments for patients suffering from major depressive disorder (MDD). A novel therapy named combination TMS with ketamine (CTK) is introduced. This retrospective review examined the safety and clinical benefits of CTK in patients suffering from treatment-resistant depression (TRD) during the routine practice of psychiatry in a private clinic. METHODS: TRD patients (N = 28) received a coincident application of high-output TMS (30 minutes) with biomarker-determined ketamine infusions (20 minutes). Frequency of treatment was dependent on patient responsiveness (10-30 sessions). Clinical global impression (CGI) data was collected pre- and post-treatment and then two years later. RESULTS: The mean reduction in CGI severity for the patient group following CTK was 4.46 ± 0.54 at a 99% confidence interval and was deemed statistically significant using a paired t-test (α = 0.01, t = 22.81 p < 0.0001). This reduction was sustained for two years following treatment completion and this remission was deemed statistically significant by a second paired t-test (α = 0.01, t = 27.36, p < 0.0001). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective review of a limited number of patients undergoing CTK in a clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: This clinical review indicated that CTK is an effective, long-term therapy (after two years) and can be used for TRD patients. The coincident administration of ketamine allowed for higher TMS intensities than otherwise would be tolerated by patients. Further studies for optimization of CTK are warranted.