Observational Study to Compare Biological Drug Concentration Quantification Techniques and Immunogenicity in Patients with Immune-Mediated Diseases.

Measuring biological drugs' trough concentrations and the concentrations of anti-drug antibodies is a valuable practice for treatment optimization. ELISA techniques are the gold standard for biological drug concentration quantification, but new techniques such as chemiluminescence immunoassays present some advantages. The aim of this unicentric prospective observational study is to compare the infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab and ustekinumab trough levels and anti-adalimumab and anti-infliximab antibodies concentrations obtained when using a chemiluminescent instrument (i-TRACK®, Theradiag, Croissy-Beaubourg, France) and an ELISA instrument (TRITURUS®, Griffols, Barcelona, Spain). Linear regression, Pearson or Spearman tests, Bland-Altman plots and the Cohen kappa test were applied for every sample. The correlation was excellent for both assays in the measurement of all drug concentrations. In general, values were lower when measured using i-TRACK than when using TRITURUS, especially when the values were high. Both techniques proved valuable in clinical practice for monitoring adalimumab and infliximab drug concentration. However, the results were modest for ustekinumab and vedolizumab, so caution is recommended and further research is needed. The limited number of anti-drug antibody-positive samples precluded a comparison between the techniques.

Real-world use of ustekinumab therapeutic drug monitoring in moderate to severe psoriasis.

Introduction: There is growing evidence that therapeutic drug monitoring of biologic therapy is beneficial in psoriatic patients. With respect to ustekinumab, the available evidence has not shown any relationship yet. The objective of this study is to identify correlations among ustekinumab trough concentrations, anti-ustekinumab antibodies and clinical response in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis patients, in a real-world setting. Methods: Observational prospective follow-up study in psoriatic patients treated with ustekinumab. Patients were classified in optimal (PASI ≤ 3) and suboptimal responders (PASI > 3). Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient were used. Receiver-operator characteristic curve analysis was performed to identify ustekinumab concentration cut-off to achieve optimal response. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: A total of 59 patients were included. Forty-eight patients (81.4%) corresponded to optimal responders and 11 (18.6%) to suboptimal responders. There was significant difference to ustekinumab concentrations: 0.7 µg/mL (range <0.1-1.8) vs. 0.4 µg/mL (range <0.1-0.8) respectively (p = 0.007). Positive correlation between ustekinumab concentration and psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) value was detected (p = 0.009). A cut-off value of 0.6 µg/mL ustekinumab concentration was found to achieve clinical response. Anti-ustekinumab antibodies were detected in 2 (3.4%) samples, both suboptimal responders. Conclusion: A positive correlation exits between ustekinumab concentration and clinical response (optimal response PASI values ≤ 3) in blood draws performed before drug administration. The measurement of anti-ustekinumab antibodies could be considered in treatment failure.

Biologic Therapy for Moderate to Severe Psoriasis. Real-World Follow-up of Patients Who Initiated Biologic Therapy at Least 10 Years Ago.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate response and drug survival of biologic therapy in patients with moderate to severe plaque-type psoriasis who initiated biologic therapy at least 10 years ago, in a real-world setting. METHODS: This was an observational retrospective follow-up study that included patients with moderate to severe plaque-type psoriasis who initiated biologic therapy between October 2006 and December 2009. Efficacy was expressed as the percentage of patients achieving a 50, 75 and 90% reduction from baseline in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90, respectively) every 3 months during the first year of therapy and then every 12 months up to the end of follow-up or withdrawal from the study. RESULTS: A total of 56 patients were included in the study, representing 140 treatment lines (median 2, range 1-8); of these patients, 53 were still receiving biologic therapy at the end of the study. The mean duration of biologic therapy was 140.4 (range 47.6-175.4) months. Etanercept was used in 98.2% of patients, followed by efalizumab (42.9%), adalimumab (41.1%), ustekinumab (33.9%) and infliximab (16.1%). Treatment lines were switched in 62.1% of treatments: 24.3% due to secondary failure, 20.7% due to primary failure and 3.6% due to side effects. No patient treated with anti-interleukins had to discontinue treatment due to side effects. Ustekinumab had the highest drug survival. CONCLUSIONS: This study in the real-world-setting shows maintenance of long-term efficacy and safety of biologic therapy in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in daily practice who initiated biologic therapy 10 years ago.

Positive correlation between etanercept concentration and the decrease in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scale value.

Background In the case of psoriatic patients, only a limited number of studies have related serum biological therapies and antidrug antibodies levels to clinical response. With respect to etanercept, the available evidence has not shown any relationship yet. Objective The aim of this study was to determine if there is any correlation among etanercept serum levels, the presence of anti-etanercept antibodies and clinical response to this treatment in psoriatic patients. Setting A 1500-bed hospital (A Coruña University Hospital Complex). Method A retrospective observational study in psoriatic patients treated with etanercept (50 mg once weekly) was carried out. Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scale and adverse reactions were recorded at the time of the extraction sample. The pharmacokinetic monitoring was evaluated at the previous time points by extracting peripheral blood samples before the dose administration. Etanercept and anti-etanercept antibodies concentrations were quantified by two sandwich-type ELISA immunoassays. The patients were classified into three groups (good, partial and nonresponders) in accordance with the treatment efficacy at the blood assessment moments. The Kruskall-Wallis test and Spearman correlation assay were used to assess the efficacy and incidence of adverse effects according to the etanercept concentration and anti-etanercept antibodies, considering p values of <0.05 as statistically significant. This statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS software (version19.0). Main outcome measures Etanercept and anti-etanercept antibodies trough serum levels and clinical response. Results 38 patients were included. 26 patients (68.4 %) were good, 5 (13.2 %) were partial and 7 (18.4 %) were non-responders. There was no significant difference with respect to etanercept levels: 2.7 µg/mL (range 0.7-5.6) versus 2.2 µg/mL (range 1.0-3.5) versus 1.73 µg/mL (range 0.1-2.3), respectively (p = 0.085). Nevertheless, a positive correlation between percentage decrease in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scale value with respect to the baseline value and etanercept concentration was found (p = 0.011). No anti-etanercept antibodies were detected; nor was there a significant difference in the incidence of adverse effects (p = 0.8523). Conclusions Our results showed a positive correlated between etanercept concentration and the percentage decrease in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scale value. The incidence of anti-etanercept antibodies in psoriatic patients was low.

Efficacy and safety of adalimumab in psoriatic patients previously treated with etanercept in a real-world setting.

INTRODUCTION: Knowledge on the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in psoriasis patients switching from etanercept is scarce, especially on the influence that causes of etanercept discontinuation may have on adalimumab response. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the response, adverse effects and factors that may influence the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in psoriasis patients who failed on etanercept therapy in a real-world setting. METHODS: Data from all moderate to severe plaque psoriasis patients who switched from etanercept to adalimumab were extracted from a registry of biological therapies of our department. Primary endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving PASI 50 at weeks 12, 24, and 52. Secondary endpoints were the percentages of patients achieving PASI 75 and PASI 90, patients who maintained PASI values <5 and <3, and the safety of adalimumab. RESULTS: Of 35 patients who fulfilled the study criteria, 82.9% achieved PASI 50 at week 12, 74.3% at week 24, and 74.3% at week 52 on adalimumab treatment. Eleven of 16 primary and 11 of 17 secondary nonresponders to etanercept responded to adalimumab. There were no treatment discontinuations due to side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Previous etanercept failure seems not influence the success and safety of adalimumab treatment in moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.