Real-world Safety and Efficacy of Risankizumab in Psoriatic Patients: A Multicenter, Retrospective, and Not-interventional Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Risankizumab - a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets the p19 subunit of IL-23 - has been recently approved to treat moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Real-world data based on a representative pool of patients are currently lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the mid- and long-term safety and efficacy profile of risankizumab in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis in the routine clinical practice. METHODS: This was a retrospective and multicenter study of consecutive psoriatic patients on risankizumab from April 2020 through November 2022. The primary endpoint was the number of patients who achieved a 100% improvement in their Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) (PASI100) on week 52. RESULTS: A total of 510 patients, 198 (38.8%) women and 312 (61.2%) men were included in the study. The mean age was 51.7±14.4 years. A total of 227 (44.5%) study participants were obese (body mass index [BMI] >30kg/m2). The mean baseline PASI score was 11.4±7.2, and the rate of patients who achieved PASI100 on week 52, 67.0%. Throughout the study follow-up, 21%, 50.0%, 59.0%, and 66% of the patients achieved PASI100 on weeks 4, 16, 24, and 40, respectively. The number of patients who achieved a PASI ≤2 was greater in the group with a BMI ≤30kg/m2 on weeks 4 (P=.04), 16 (P=.001), and 52 (P=.002). A statistically significantly greater number of patients achieved PASI100 in the treatment-naïve group on weeks 16 and 52 (P=.001 each, respectively). On week 16 a significantly lower number of participants achieved PASI100 in the group with psoriatic arthropathy (P=.04). Among the overall study sample, 22 (4.3%) patients reported some type of adverse event and 20 (3.9%) discontinued treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Risankizumab proved to be a safe and effective therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis in the routine clinical practice.

Measurement Assessment of Minimal Disease Activity In Psoriasis in Spain: A National Cross-Sectional Study. / Valoración de la medida de Actividad Mínima de Enfermedad en Psoriasis en España: estudio transversal nacional.

INTRODUCTION: In 2017, the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Psoriasis Working Group (PWG) designed the Minimal Disease Activity (MDA) criteria to determine the level of disease activity. We hereby present the results of an observational, cross-sectional, multicenter study of the nationwide application of these criteria. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a non-randomized sampling, stratified to achieve autonomic and provincial representation of consecutive patients with psoriasis (Ps) vulgaris without active arthritis. A total of 830 patients were included: 493 men (59.5%), with a mean age of 51.4 years (SD, 14.2), from all autonomous regions of Spain (except for Ceuta and Melilla) and 44 (88%) out of the 50 provinces. A questionnaire was obtained with demographic data, DLQI, subjective assessment-on a scale from 0 to 10-of itching, erythema, desquamation, visibility, and the patients' PASI and BSA. RESULTS: More than 50% failed to meet the MDA criteria (491; 59.2%), with significant differences being reported by region, sex, and age. Additionally, significant differences were reported based on the therapy used (P<.001). The use of biological therapies was associated with higher MDA compliance compared to other therapies (59.4% vs 23.3%). No differences were reported among various biological therapies. CONCLUSIONS: The overall rate of MDA compliance is low, with differences being based on geographic location, sex, age, and drug used, yet none of these factors separately justify them.

Changing Trends in Drug Prescription and Causes of Treatment Discontinuation of First Biologic Over Ten Years in Psoriasis in the Spanish Biobadaderm Registry. / Cambios en las tendencias de la prescripción y causas de la interrupción en los tratamientos biológicos indicados en la psoriasis durante los primeros 10 años. Datos obtenidos del registro español Biobadaderm.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Current psoriasis guidelines do not usually include recommendations about first line classical or biologic treatment. The objectives of this study were: to describe shifts in the prescription of the first biological treatment, and to compare treatment withdrawal and rates of adverse events over ten years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Biobadaderm registry was analyzed to describe: first biological prescription in bio-naïve patients, adverse events rate and reasons for drug withdrawal comparing three periods of time (2008-2010, 2011-2014, 2015-2018). RESULTS: Anti-TNF drugs were the most prescribed biological drug from 2008 to 2010. Ustekinumab has become the most prescribed first biologic since 2014. The main reasons for drug discontinuation were adverse events, lack of efficacy and remission. In each period any treatment was less likely to be discontinued due to any of these three reasons comparing to the previous period. CONCLUSIONS: The present study identifies trends in prescription of the first biological antipsoriatic drug in clinical practice from 2008 to 2018. It suggests that we have become more comfortable with the safety profile and more exigent with the efficacy of the drugs.

Description of Patients Treated with Biologic Drugs as First-Line Systemic Therapy in the BIOBADADERM Registry Between 2008 and 2016. / Descripción de los pacientes que reciben biológicos como primer tratamiento sistémico en el registro BIOBADADERM durante el periodo 2008-2016.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Biologic drugs are usually prescribed as second-line treatment for psoriasis, that is, after the patient has first been treated with a conventional psoriasis drug. There are, however, cases where, depending on the characteristics of the patient or the judgement of the physician, biologics may be chosen as first-line therapy. No studies to date have analyzed the demographics or clinical characteristics of patients in this setting or the safety profile of the agents used. The main aim of this study was to characterize these aspects of first-line biologic therapy and compare them to those observed for patients receiving biologics as second-line therapy. MATERIAL AND METHOD: We conducted an observational study of 181 patients treated in various centers with a systemic biologic drug as first-line treatment for moderate to severe psoriasis between January 2008 and November 2016. All the patients were registered in the Spanish Registry of Adverse Events Associated with Biologic Drugs in Dermatology. RESULTS: The characteristics of the first- and second-line groups were very similar, although the patients receiving a biologic as first-line treatment for their psoriasis were older. No differences were observed for disease severity (assessed using the PASI) or time to diagnosis. Hypertension, diabetes, and liver disease were all more common in the first-line group. There were no differences between the groups in terms of reasons for drug withdrawal or occurrence of adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: No major differences were found between patients with psoriasis receiving biologic drugs as first- or second-line therapy, a finding that provides further evidence of the safety of biologic therapy in patients with psoriasis.

Cambios en las tendencias de la prescripción y causas de la interrupción en los tratamientos biológicos indicados en la psoriasis durante los primeros 10 años. Datos obtenidos del registro español Biobadaderm / Changing Trends in Drug Prescription and Causes of Treatment Discontinuation of First Biologic Over Ten Years in Psoriasis in the Spanish Biobadaderm Registry

ANTECEDENTES Y OBJETIVOS: Las guías sobre el tratamiento de la psoriasis habitualmente no incluyen las recomendaciones acerca de cuál debe ser la primera línea de tratamiento sistémico o biológico. Los objetivos de este estudio fueron describir las tendencias en la prescripción del primer fármaco biológico y comparar la retirada de los fármacos y las tasas de efectos adversos a lo largo de los 10 años de seguimiento. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Se utilizó el registro Biobadaderm para determinar cuál fue el primer fármaco biológico indicado en pacientes con psoriasis naïve para biológicos, así como cuál es la tasa de efectos adversos y los motivos de suspensión de los fármacos. Los resultados obtenidos se compararon en tres periodos distintos de tiempo (2008-2010, 2011-2014, 2015-2018). RESULTADOS: Los fármacos anti-TNF fueron los biológicos prescritos con mayor frecuencia entre los años 2008 y 2010. Ustekinumab se convirtió en el tratamiento biológico más indicado a partir de 2014. El motivo principal de suspensión de los tratamientos fueron los efectos adversos, la falta de eficacia y la remisión de la enfermedad. La probabilidad de suspender los fármacos por uno de estos motivos fue cada vez menor si se compara con el periodo de tiempo previo. CONCLUSIONES: El presente estudio identifica cuáles fueron las tendencias en la prescripción del primer fármaco biológico en la práctica clínica habitual entre los años 2008 y 2018. Sugiere que los dermatólogos estamos cada vez más seguros en cuanto al perfil de seguridad y somos cada vez más exigentes en cuanto a la eficacia de los fármacos

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Current psoriasis guidelines do not usually include recommendations about first line classical or biologic treatment. The objectives of this study were: to describe shifts in the prescription of the first biological treatment, and to compare treatment withdrawal and rates of adverse events over ten years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Biobadaderm registry was analyzed to describe: first biological prescription in bio-naïve patients, adverse events rate and reasons for drug withdrawal comparing three periods of time (2008-2010, 2011-2014, 2015-2018). RESULTS: Anti-TNF drugs were the most prescribed biological drug from 2008 to 2010. Ustekinumab has become the most prescribed first biologic since 2014. The main reasons for drug discontinuation were adverse events, lack of efficacy and remission. In each period any treatment was less likely to be discontinued due to any of these three reasons comparing to the previous period. CONCLUSIONS: The present study identifies trends in prescription of the first biological antipsoriatic drug in clinical practice from 2008 to 2018. It suggests that we have become more comfortable with the safety profile and more exigent with the efficacy of the drugs

Descripción de los pacientes que reciben biológicos como primer tratamiento sistémico en el registro BIOBADADERM durante el periodo 2008-2016 / Description of Patients Treated with Biologic Drugs as First-Line Systemic Therapy in the BIOBADADERM Registry Between 2008 and 2016

INTRODUCCIÓN Y OBJETIVOS: La utilización clínica habitual de los fármacos biológicos en el tratamiento de la psoriasis es en segunda línea, es decir, tras el uso previo de un fármaco clásico. Sin embargo, en casos particulares -particularidades del paciente o criterio médico- se realiza la indicación en primera línea. No existen estudios sobre las características demográficas, clínicas y de seguridad de los pacientes que reciben fármaco biológico en primera línea. Como objetivo primario se pretende determinar dichas características de acuerdo con la iniciación de la terapia biológica en primera o segunda línea. MATERIAL Y MÉTODO: Se realizó un estudio descriptivo, multicéntrico, de 181 pacientes que iniciaron tratamiento biológico como primer fármaco sistémico para control de su psoriasis moderada-grave, y que forman parte del Registro Español de Acontecimientos Adversos Asociados con Medicamentos Biológicos en Dermatología, entre enero de 2008 y noviembre de 2016. RESULTADOS: Los pacientes de ambos grupos son muy similares, si bien se evidencia que el grupo que recibe el biológico en primera línea presenta una edad más avanzada, sin que se justifique por gravedad de la enfermedad (PASI) ni por el tiempo de evolución de esta desde el diagnóstico. En este grupo de pacientes es más frecuente la presencia de hipertensión, diabetes y hepatopatía. No hemos encontrado diferencias en motivos de suspensión ni seguridad entre ambos grupos. CONCLUSIONES: No se han encontrado diferencias relevantes entre los 2 grupos, lo cual refuerza la seguridad de los fármacos biológicos en este contexto

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Biologic drugs are usually prescribed as second-line treatment for psoriasis, that is, after the patient has first been treated with a conventional psoriasis drug. There are, however, cases where, depending on the characteristics of the patient or the judgement of the physician, biologics may be chosen as first-line therapy. No studies to date have analyzed the demographics or clinical characteristics of patients in this setting or the safety profile of the agents used. The main aim of this study was to characterize these aspects of first-line biologic therapy and compare them to those observed for patients receiving biologics as second-line therapy. MATERIAL AND METHOD: We conducted an observational study of 181 patients treated in various centers with a systemic biologic drug as first-line treatment for moderate to severe psoriasis between January 2008 and November 2016. All the patients were registered in the Spanish Registry of Adverse Events Associated with Biologic Drugs in Dermatology. RESULTS: The characteristics of the first- and second-line groups were very similar, although the patients receiving a biologic as first-line treatment for their psoriasis were older. No differences were observed for disease severity (assessed using the PASI) or time to diagnosis. Hypertension, diabetes, and liver disease were all more common in the first-line group. There were no differences between the groups in terms of reasons for drug withdrawal or occurrence of adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: No major differences were found between patients with psoriasis receiving biologic drugs as first- or second-line therapy, a finding that provides further evidence of the safety of biologic therapy in patients with psoriasis