Search

Introduction: The development of several effective biological drugs for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis has dramatically changed the lives of patients. Despite the wide use of interleukin (IL) inhibitors, limited data are available to date regarding long-term treatment persistence. Method: This multicenter retrospective real-world study evaluated 5932 treatment courses across 5300 patients, all treated with interleukin inhibitors. Drug survival was expressed by using the Kaplan-Meier estimator for each biological drug at 6, 12, 24, 36 and 48 months. We also stratified by discontinuation associated with primary or secondary ineffectiveness. Results: In our study, the most prescribed drugs were secukinumab (1412), ixekizumab (1183), and risankizumab (977). After four years of follow-up, risankizumab emerged as the treatment with the highest drug survival overall, as 91.6% of patients were still on treatment. The overall probability of drug survival at four years was comparable for tildrakizumab (83.5%), ixekizumab (82.6%), guselkumab (82.4%) and brodalumab (81.8%). When evaluating only patients who discontinued the treatment because of ineffectiveness, once again risankizumab was the molecule with the highest drug survival at 4 years (93.4%), this time followed by ixekizumab (87%). Our study, in which all IL inhibitors were adequately represented, confirmed a slightly better treatment persistence for IL-23 inhibitors, consistent with other real-world studies. Conclusion: Our experience showed that IL-23 inhibitors, and risankizumab in particular, had a higher probability of drug survival overall during a 4-year followup. Risankizumab and ixekizumab were less likely to be discontinued because of ineffectiveness after four years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

IntroductionThe development of several effective biological drugs for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis has dramatically changed the lives of patients. Despite the wide use of interleukin (IL) inhibitors, limited data are available to date regarding long-term treatment persistence.MethodThis multicenter retrospective real-world study evaluated 5932 treatment courses across 5300 patients, all treated with interleukin inhibitors. Drug survival was expressed by using the Kaplan-Meier estimator for each biological drug at 6, 12, 24, 36 and 48 months. We also stratified by discontinuation associated with primary or secondary ineffectiveness.ResultsIn our study, the most prescribed drugs were secukinumab (1412), ixekizumab (1183), and risankizumab (977). After four years of follow-up, risankizumab emerged as the treatment with the highest drug survival overall, as 91.6% of patients were still on treatment. The overall probability of drug survival at four years was comparable for tildrakizumab (83.5%), ixekizumab (82.6%), guselkumab (82.4%) and brodalumab (81.8%). When evaluating only patients who discontinued the treatment because of ineffectiveness, once again risankizumab was the molecule with the highest drug survival at 4 years (93.4%), this time followed by ixekizumab (87%). Our study, in which all IL inhibitors were adequately represented, confirmed a slightly better treatment persistence for IL-23 inhibitors, consistent with other real-world studies.ConclusionOur experience showed that IL-23 inhibitors, and risankizumab in particular, had a higher probability of drug survival overall during a 4-year follow-up. Risankizumab and ixekizumab were less likely to be discontinued because of ineffectiveness after four years.

Cytokine patterns and immune activation in patients with Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) seem to resemble the case of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Biological drugs, such as anti-tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) and interleukin (IL) inhibitors, appear to be protective against adverse outcomes of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, these treatments are associated with an increased risk of secondary infections. The aim of the study was to examine the association between the use of immunomodulatory drugs and the risk of SARS-CoV-2-associated positivity, hospitalization and death compared to other commonly prescribed treatment regimens among patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Methods: All patients with RA, Psoriasis and IBD were included in this observational analysis and treated with anti-TNFα, IL-inhibitors, Methotrexate (MTX) and Sulfasalazine drugs during the year 2020–2021. The population consisted of 932 patients and demographic, clinical and pharmacological data were analyzed. Results: Although no significant differences were observed between patients treated with biological and synthetic drugs in terms of hospitalization and death, the multivariate logistic model showed that the type of drug influences the possibility of COVID-19 positivity. Conclusions: The results of this analysis support the use of biological drugs and justify further research investigating the association of these biological therapies with COVID-19 outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The published experience with biologics in childbearing age with autoimmune and inflammatory diseases mainly deals with the use of TNFα inhibitors (TNFα-i). Limited data are available for biologics targeting other cytokines or immunocompetent cells, especially for the inflammasome targeted therapy including IL-1 inhibitors and colchicine. We conducted a nested case-control study by using the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System database aimed at quantifying the association between the use of IL-1 inhibitors/colchicine in pregnant women and the occurrence of maternal/fetal adverse effects. The reporting odds ratio was used as a measure of disproportional reporting. From the total cohort (40,033 pregnant women), we retrieved 7,620 reports related to neonatal AEs, 2,889 to fetal disorders, 8,364 to abortion, 8,787 to congenital disorders, and 7,937 to labor/delivery complications. Inflammasome-targeted drugs did not present any disproportionate reporting for all these clusters of AEs. TNFα-i confirmed their safety during pregnancy with aROR < 1 for all clusters of AEs except for labor complications. Finally, we performed a systematic review of the current literature. Data from the eligible studies (12 observational studies and 6 case reports; yielding a total of 2,075 patients) were reassuring. We found no major safety issues on malformations risk of inflammasome targeted therapies in pregnancy. However, due to limited data, the routine use of these agents should be considered in pregnancy only if risk benefit assessment justifies the potential risk to the fetus.

The published experience with biologics in childbearing age with autoimmune and inflammatory diseases mainly deals with the use of TNFα inhibitors (TNFα-i). Limited data are available for biologics targeting other cytokines or immunocompetent cells, especially for the inflammasome targeted therapy including IL-1 inhibitors and colchicine. We conducted a nested case-control study by using the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System database aimed at quantifying the association between the use of IL-1 inhibitors/colchicine in pregnant women and the occurrence of maternal/fetal adverse effects. The reporting odds ratio was used as a measure of disproportional reporting. From the total cohort (40,033 pregnant women), we retrieved 7,620 reports related to neonatal AEs, 2,889 to fetal disorders, 8,364 to abortion, 8,787 to congenital disorders, and 7,937 to labor/delivery complications. Inflammasome-targeted drugs did not present any disproportionate reporting for all these clusters of AEs. TNFα-i confirmed their safety during pregnancy with aROR < 1 for all clusters of AEs except for labor complications. Finally, we performed a systematic review of the current literature. Data from the eligible studies (12 observational studies and 6 case reports; yielding a total of 2,075 patients) were reassuring. We found no major safety issues on malformations risk of inflammasome targeted therapies in pregnancy. However, due to limited data, the routine use of these agents should be considered in pregnancy only if risk benefit assessment justifies the potential risk to the fetus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]