Search

Background: Few studies have used real-world data to investigate the association between biologic therapy survival and age at psoriasis onset or HLA-C*06:02 status in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis. The robustness of these studies is limited by small sample size, short follow-up and diverse safety and effectiveness measures., Objectives: To describe biologic survival and explore whether the response to biologics is modified by age at psoriasis onset or HLA-C*06:02 status in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis., Methods: Data from patients in the UK and the Republic of Ireland registered in the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) from 2007 to 2022 on a first course of adalimumab, etanercept, secukinumab or ustekinumab with at least 6 months' follow-up and a subset of BADBIR patients with available HLA-C*06:02 information registered to Biomarkers and Stratification To Optimise outcomes in Psoriasis (BSTOP) were analysed. Patients aged ≥ 50 years at treatment initiation were classified into early-onset psoriasis (EOP) (presenting in patients ≤ 40 years of age) and late-onset psoriasis (LOP) (presenting in patients > 40 years of age). BADBIR patients with available information in BSTOP were categorized as HLA-C*06:02- or HLA-C*06:02 + . Biologic survival was defined as treatment discontinuation associated with ineffectiveness or occurrence of adverse events (AEs). Adjusted survival function and hazard ratio (aHR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a flexible parametric model to compare discontinuing therapy between age at psoriasis onset and HLA-C*06:02 groups. Each model included exposure (biologics), effect modifier (age at onset or HLA-C*06:02 status), interaction terms and several baseline demographic, clinical and disease severity covariates., Results: Final analytical cohorts included 4250 patients in the age at psoriasis onset group [2929 EOP (69%) vs. 1321 LOP (31%)] and 3094 patients in the HLA-C*06:02 status group [1603 HLA-C*06:02+ (52%) vs. 1491 HLA-C*06:02- (48%)]. There was no significant difference between EOP and LOP in drug survival associated with ineffectiveness or AEs for any biologics. However, compared with patients who were HLA-C*06:02-, patients who were HLA-C*06:02 + were less likely to discontinue ustekinumab for reasons associated with ineffectiveness (aHR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42-0.75)., Conclusions: HLA-C*06:02, but not age at psoriasis onset, is a predictive biomarker for biologic survival in patients with psoriasis. Findings from this large cohort provide further, important information to aid clinicians using biologic therapies to manage patients with psoriasis., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest J.N.B. has received honoraria, travel support and/or research grants (King’s College London) from AbbVie, Amgen, Almirall, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Lilly, UCB, Sun Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline. R.B.W. has acted as a consultant and/or speaker for and/or received research grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Janssen Cilag, Medac, UCB Pharma and Xenoport. C.H.S. reports grants from a Medical Research Council-funded stratified medicine consortium with multiple industry partners, grants from an Innovative Medicines Initiative (Horizon 2020)-funded European consortium with multiple industry partners, and others from AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim and SOBI, outside the submitted work; she is also chair of UK guidelines on biologic therapy in psoriasis. C.E.M.G. has received honoraria and/or research grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Anaptysbio, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Evelo Bioscience, Galderma, GSK, Inmagene, Kyowa Kerin, LEO Pharma, Janssen, ONO Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz and UCB Pharma., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest N.J.R. has received travel support, research grants (Newcastle University) and income to Newcastle University for advisory boards/lectures from AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Cilag, Novartis and UCB Pharma. R.B.W. has acted as a consultant and/or speaker for and/or received research grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Janssen Cilag, Medac, UCB Pharma and Xenoport. C.H.S. reports grants from a Medical Research Council-funded stratified medicine consortium with multiple industry partners, grants from an Innovative Medicines Initiative (Horizon 2020)-funded European consortium with multiple industry partners, and others from AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim and SOBI, outside the submitted work. She is also chair of the UK guidelines on biologic therapy in psoriasis group. C.E.M.G. has received honoraria and/or research grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Anaptysbio, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galderma, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, GSK-Stiefel, Janssen Cilag, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz and UCB Pharma.

Background: Most information on the comparative effectiveness and survival of methotrexate (MTX) and adalimumab (ADA) in the treatment of psoriasis is from randomized control trials and may not translate to the everyday clinical setting., Objectives: To determine the real-world effectiveness and survival of MTX and ADA in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis registered in the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR)., Methods: Eligible patients were registered in BADBIR, ≥ 16 years of age and receiving a first course of MTX or ADA between September 2007 and December 2021, with ≥ 6 months of follow-up. Effectiveness was defined as achieving an absolute Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) ≤ 2 reported ≥ 13 weeks after the treatment start date until the stop date. The average treatment effect (ATE) was estimated using inverse probability of treatment weighting with propensity score, including baseline covariates. ATE results were presented as risk ratios (RR). A flexible parametric model was used to estimate adjusted standardized average survival, defined as treatment discontinuation associated with ineffectiveness or the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) at 6, 12 and 24 months. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) at 2 years of treatment exposure was calculated., Results: In total, 6575 patients (median age 44 years; 44% female) were analysed; 2659 (40.4%) were prescribed MTX and 3916 (59.5%) ADA. The proportion of patients achieving PASI ≤ 2 was higher in the ADA cohort (77.4%) than in the MTX cohort (37.4%). ADA was more effective than MTX [RR 2.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.98-2.45]. Overall survival associated with ineffectiveness or AEs was lower in the MTX cohort than in the ADA cohort at 6 months [survival estimate 69.7 (95% CI 67.9-71.5) vs. 90.6 (95% CI 89.8-91.4)], 1 year [survival estimate 52.5 (95% CI 50.4-54.8) vs. 80.6 (95% CI 79.5-81.8)] and 2 years [survival estimate 34.8 (95% CI 32.5-37.2) vs. 68.6 (95% CI 67.2-70.0)]. The difference in RMST (years) overall, or when stratified by ineffectiveness and AEs, was 0.53 (95% CI 0.49-0.58), 0.37 (95% CI 0.33-0.42) and 0.29 (95% CI 0.25-0.33), respectively., Conclusions: Patients on ADA were twice as likely to be clear or nearly clear of psoriasis and were less likely to discontinue their medication than patients on MTX. Findings from this real-world cohort provide important information to aid clinicians managing patients with psoriasis., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest R.B.W. has acted as a consultant and/or speaker for and/or received research grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Janssen Cilag, Medac, UCB Pharma and Xenoport. C.H.S. reports grants from a Medical Research Council-funded stratified medicine consortium with multiple industry partners, grants from an Innovative Medicines Initiative (Horizon 2020)-funded European consortium with multiple industry partners, and others from AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim and SOBI, outside the submitted work; she is also chair of UK guidelines on biological therapy in psoriasis. C.E.M.G. has received honoraria and/or research grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Anaptysbio, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galderma, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, GSK–Stiefel, Janssen Cilag, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz and UCB Pharma. O.A.A., K.J.M., Z.Z.N.Y. and M.L. declare no conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: Real-world data evaluating effectiveness and persistence of systemic therapies for patients with psoriasis are limited. Objectives To determine the effectiveness and persistence of acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters (FAEs) and methotrexate in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis., Methods: Data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR), a prospective, multicentre pharmacovigilance register of patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis receiving biologic and/or conventional systemic therapies, were analysed. Eligible patients were ≥ 16 years of age receiving a first course of acitretin, ciclosporin, FAEs or methotrexate between 2007 and 2021 with ≥ 6 months' follow-up. Effectiveness was defined as achieving absolute Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (aPASI) ≤ 2 reported ≥ 4 weeks after treatment start date until date of cessation. To identify baseline clinical variables associated with treatment effectiveness, we used multivariable logistic regression models estimating the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of achieving aPASI ≤ 2. To describe drug persistence associated with ineffectiveness, occurrence of adverse events or other reasons for discontinuation, survival estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained using a flexible parametric model. Results were obtained using multiple imputed data., Results: In total, 5430 patients were included in the analysis. Overall, 1023 (19%) patients were receiving acitretin, 1401 (26%) patients were on ciclosporin, 347 (6%) patients were on FAEs, and 2659 (49%) patients were receiving methotrexate at registration. The proportion of patients who achieved aPASI ≤ 2 was lower for those treated with acitretin [n = 118 (21%)] compared with those receiving ciclosporin [n = 233 (34%)], FAEs [n = 43 (29%)] and methotrexate [n = 372 (32%)]. Factors associated with ineffectiveness included prior experience to previous nonbiologic systemic therapies (acitretin) (aOR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42-0.96), male sex (methotrexate) (aOR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46-0.74), comorbidities (aOR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51-0.97) and alcohol consumption (≤ 14 units per week) (ciclosporin) (aOR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50-0.98). Persistence associated with all reasons for discontinuation showed better survival for methotrexate compared with acitretin, ciclosporin and FAEs cohorts at 12 months [survival estimate 46.1 (95% CI 44.0-48.3), 31.9 (95% CI 29.4-34.7), 30.0 (95% CI 27.5-32.4) and 35.0 (95% CI 29.9-40.9), respectively]., Conclusions: The real-world effectiveness and persistence of acitretin, ciclosporin, FAEs and methotrexate were generally low. Previous nonbiologic systemic therapies, male sex, comorbidities and alcohol consumption were risk factors associated with treatment ineffectiveness., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest P.J.H. has received educational grants, consultancy fees and research funding from Janssen, AbbVie, Eli Lilly and LEO Pharma. P.M.L. has received honoraria and/or grants as an investigator, speaker, and/or acted as an advisory board member for AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen Cilag, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, LEO, UCB Pharma and Novartis. N.J.R. has received travel support, research grants (Newcastle University) and income to Newcastle University for advisory boards/lectures from AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Cilag, Novartis and UCB Pharma. A.B. has received travel bursaries and performed ad hoc consultancy and lecturing roles with AbbVie, Almirall, Galderma, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Pfizer, BMS, MSD and Sanofi. R.B.W. has acted as a consultant and/or speaker for and/or received research grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Janssen Cilag, Medac, UCB Pharma and Xenoport. C.H.S. reports grants from a Medical Research Council-funded stratified medicine consortium with multiple industry partners, grants from an Innovative Medicines Initiative (Horizon 2020)-funded European consortium with multiple industry partners, and other grants from AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim and Sobi, outside the submitted work; she is also chair of UK guidelines on biologic therapy in psoriasis. C.E.M.G. has received honoraria and/or research grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, AnaptysBo, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galderma, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, GSK-Stiefel, Janssen Cilag, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz and UCB Pharma., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: Nonadherence to immune-modifying therapy is a complex behaviour which, before the COVID-19 pandemic, was shown to be associated with mental health disorders in people with immune-mediated diseases. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a rise in the global prevalence of anxiety and depression, and limited data exist on the association between mental health and nonadherence to immune-modifying therapy during the pandemic., Objectives: To assess the extent of and reasons underlying nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic in individuals with psoriasis, and the association between mental health and nonadherence., Methods: Online self-report surveys (PsoProtectMe), including validated screens for anxiety and depression, were completed globally during the first year of the pandemic. We assessed the association between anxiety or depression and nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy using binomial logistic regression, adjusting for potential cofounders (age, sex, ethnicity, comorbidity) and country of residence., Results: Of 3980 participants from 77 countries, 1611 (40.5%) were prescribed a systemic immune-modifying therapy. Of these, 408 (25.3%) reported nonadherence during the pandemic, most commonly due to concerns about their immunity. In the unadjusted model, a positive anxiety screen was associated with nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy [odds ratio (OR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.76]. Specifically, anxiety was associated with nonadherence to targeted therapy (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01-1.96) but not standard systemic therapy (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81-1.67). In the adjusted model, although the directions of the effects remained, anxiety was not significantly associated with nonadherence to overall systemic (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92-1.56) or targeted (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.94-1.89) immune-modifying therapy. A positive depression screen was not strongly associated with nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy in the unadjusted (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.94-1.57) or adjusted models (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.87-1.49)., Conclusions: These data indicate substantial nonadherence to immune-modifying therapy in people with psoriasis during the pandemic, with attenuation of the association with mental health after adjusting for confounders. Future research in larger populations should further explore pandemic-specific drivers of treatment nonadherence. Clear communication of the reassuring findings from population-based research regarding immune-modifying therapy-associated adverse COVID-19 risks to people with psoriasis is essential, to optimize adherence and disease outcomes., Competing Interests: Conflict of interests J.W. has presented talks for Abbott, AbbVie, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Merck and Roche. K.J.M. reports personal fees from LEO Pharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. H.M. reports grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Dermal Laboratories, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, T & R Derma and UCB, outside the submitted work. D.U. reports grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Dermal Laboratories, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, T & R Derma and UCB, outside the submitted work. L.M. reports personal fees from AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis and UCB, outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures from L.M. include Almirall, BMS and Lilly. H.B. reports personal fees from AbbVie, Almirall, Biocad, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, outside the submitted work. F.C. reports consultancy fees from AnaptysBio, grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. C.D.l.C. reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and UCB Pharma; grants from Janssen, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi; grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Novartis, outside the submitted work. P.D.M. reports grants and personal fees from UCB; personal fees from Janssen and Novartis, outside the submitted work. P.G. reports personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sandoz and UCB, outside the submitted work. D.J. reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, LEO Pharma, MEDAC and Novartis; and personal fees from Amgen, outside the submitted work. L.P. reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis and UCB; and personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Fresenius-Kabi, Mylan, Pfizer, Samsung-Bioepis, Sandoz, Sanofi, outside the submitted work. P.S. has done consultancies in the past for Sanofi 111017 and AbbVie 041217 (unpaid); has received departmental independent research grants for TREAT NL registry from pharma companies since December 2019; is involved in performing clinical trials with many pharmaceutical industries that manufacture drugs used for the treatment of diseases such as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, for which financial compensation is paid to the department/hospital; and is chief investigator of the systemic and phototherapy atopic eczema registry (TREAT NL) for adults and children, as well as one of the main investigators of the SECURE-AD registry. T.T. reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Biocad, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung-Bioepis and Sandoz, during the conduct of the study. R.B.W. reports grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, LEO, Lilly, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. R.B.W. also reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arena, Astellas, Avillion, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, DiCE, GSK, Janssen, LEO, Lilly, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, UCB and UNION. H.W. is on the Board of the International Federation of Psoriasis Associations who have received grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma and UCB, outside the submitted work. J.B.G. reports personal fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB, outside the submitted work. C.E.M.G. reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly and Novartis and UCB Pharma; and grants from Almirall, Amgen, BMS, LEO and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. J.N.B. reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, J&J, Lilly and Novartis during the conduct of the study. J.N.B. has attended advisory boards, and/or received consultancy fees, and/or spoken at sponsored symposia, and/or received grant funding from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung, Sun Pharma and UCB. C.H.S. reports grants from AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi; and through consortia with multiple academic partners (psort.org.uk, BIOMAP-IMI.eu), outside the submitted work. S.K.M. reports departmental income from AbbVie, Almirall, Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Sanofi and UCB, outside the submitted work., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Importance: Treatments for psoriasis may be less effective in everyday practice than in clinical trials. Emulating a target trial using data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) can provide treatment effect estimates that are robust and can inform both clinicians and regulatory bodies., Objectives: To assess the comparative effectiveness of ustekinumab and secukinumab in patients with psoriasis, and to test whether the relative effectiveness estimate of the CLEAR trial, a randomized clinical trial that compared secukinumab with ustekinumab for psoriasis, can be replicated., Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness research study used a target trial emulation approach and was performed between November 2007 and August 2019. Data were obtained from BADBIR, a multicenter longitudinal pharmacovigilance register of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Participants had chronic plaque psoriasis, were 18 years or older, and had at least 1 record of a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) of 12 or higher before their initiation to secukinumab or ustekinumab. Propensity score (PS) 1:1 matched analysis and inverse probability treatment weighted analysis were performed., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the risk ratio (RR) and the risk difference (RD) for achieving PASI of 2 or lower after 12 months of therapy for secukinumab compared with ustekinumab. Methods to account for missing outcome data were complete case analysis, nonresponder imputation, last observation carried forward, inverse probability of censoring weighting, and multiple imputation. Regulatory and estimate agreement metrics were used to benchmark the effect estimates in this study against those in the CLEAR trial., Results: A total of 1231 patients were included in the analysis, with 917 receiving ustekinumab and 314 receiving secukinumab. Secukinumab was superior to ustekinumab in all analyses, except under the nonresponder imputation method, in the proportion of participants achieving a PASI of 2 or lower (PS-weighted complete case analysis: RR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.06-1.55]; RD, 11.9% [1.6-22.1]). All analyses, except for nonresponder imputation, reached regulatory agreement in both PS-matching and PS-weighted analyses., Conclusions and Relevance: This comparative effectiveness study found that secukinumab resulted in more patients achieving a PASI of 2 or lower after 12 months of therapy compared with ustekinumab in patients with psoriasis. Target trial emulation in this study resulted in regulatory and estimate agreement with the CLEAR randomized clinical trial; further such studies may help fill the evidence gap when comparing other systemic therapies for psoriasis.

Background: The multimorbid burden and use of systemic immunosuppressants in people with psoriasis may confer greater risk of adverse outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the data are limited., Objective: Our aim was to characterize the course of COVID-19 in patients with psoriasis and identify factors associated with hospitalization., Methods: Clinicians reported patients with psoriasis with confirmed/suspected COVID-19 via an international registry, Psoriasis Patient Registry for Outcomes, Therapy and Epidemiology of COVID-19 Infection. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the association between clinical and/or demographic characteristics and hospitalization. A separate patient-facing registry characterized risk-mitigating behaviors., Results: Of 374 clinician-reported patients from 25 countries, 71% were receiving a biologic, 18% were receiving a nonbiologic, and 10% were not receiving any systemic treatment for psoriasis. In all, 348 patients (93%) were fully recovered from COVID-19, 77 (21%) were hospitalized, and 9 (2%) died. Increased hospitalization risk was associated with older age (multivariable-adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.59 per 10 years; 95% CI = 1.19-2.13), male sex (OR = 2.51; 95% CI = 1.23-5.12), nonwhite ethnicity (OR = 3.15; 95% CI = 1.24-8.03), and comorbid chronic lung disease (OR = 3.87; 95% CI = 1.52-9.83). Hospitalization was more frequent in patients using nonbiologic systemic therapy than in those using biologics (OR = 2.84; 95% CI = 1.31-6.18). No significant differences were found between classes of biologics. Independent patient-reported data (n = 1626 across 48 countries) suggested lower levels of social isolation in individuals receiving nonbiologic systemic therapy than in those receiving biologics (OR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.50-0.94)., Conclusion: In this international case series of patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, biologic use was associated with lower risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization than with use of nonbiologic systemic therapies; however, further investigation is warranted on account of potential selection bias and unmeasured confounding. Established risk factors (being older, being male, being of nonwhite ethnicity, and having comorbidities) were associated with higher hospitalization rates., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Real-world biologic drug survival is an important proxy measure for effectiveness. Predictors of drug survival may help patients with psoriasis choose between biologic therapies., Objectives: (i) To assess the relative drug survival of adalimumab, ustekinumab and secukinumab in patients with psoriasis. (ii) To investigate predictors of biologic drug survival., Methods: A prospective cohort study was performed in the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) between November 2007 and August 2019. We performed survival analysis and fitted a flexible parametric survival model for biologic discontinuation due to ineffectiveness., Results: In total 9652 patients were included: 5543 starting on adalimumab (57·4%), 991 on secukinumab (10·3%) and 3118 on ustekinumab (32·3%). The overall drug survivals of adalimumab, secukinumab and ustekinumab in year 1 were 0·78 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0·77-0·79], 0·88 (95% CI 0·86-0·91) and 0·88 (95% CI 0·87-0·89), respectively. The adjusted hazard ratios (adjHRs) for discontinuation of adalimumab and secukinumab compared with ustekinumab were 2·11 (95% CI 1·76-2·54) and 0·67 (95% CI 0·40-1·11), respectively. The presence of psoriatic arthritis predicted for survival in the adalimumab and secukinumab cohorts (adjHR 0·67, 95% CI 0·51-0·88 and 0·70, 95% CI 0·40-1·24, respectively), but for discontinuation in the ustekinumab cohort (adjHR 1·42, 95% CI 1·12-1·81). Previous exposure to biologic therapies predicted for discontinuation in the ustekinumab and secukinumab cohorts (adjHR 1·54, 95% CI 1·26-1·89 and 1·49, 95% CI 0·91-2·45, respectively) and for survival in the adalimumab cohort (adjHR 0·71, 95% CI 0·55-0·92)., Conclusions: Secukinumab and ustekinumab have similar sustained drug survival, while adalimumab has a lower drug survival in patients with psoriasis. Psoriatic arthritis and previous biologic experience were predictors with differential effects between the biologic therapies. What is already known about this topic? There is conflicting evidence over the real-world drug survival of secukinumab in patients with psoriasis. Data from registries to date suggest that secukinumab has a lower drug survival than that reported from clinical trials. What does this study add? This study found that secukinumab and ustekinumab had similar sustained drug survival in the real world, while the drug survival of adalimumab was lower, suggesting that the real-world drug survival of secukinumab is higher than previously reported. We found that psoriatic arthritis and previous biologic experience had differential effects on drug discontinuation in the three biologic cohorts. These predictors may help patients and clinicians choose the most appropriate biologic therapy., (© 2020 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: The cardiovascular safety profile of biologic therapies used for psoriasis is unclear., Objectives: To compare the risk of major cardiovascular events (CVEs; acute coronary syndrome, unstable angina, myocardial infarction and stroke) in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis treated with adalimumab, etanercept or ustekinumab in a large prospective cohort., Methods: Prospective cohort study examining the comparative risk of major CVEs was conducted using the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register. The main analysis compared adults with chronic plaque psoriasis receiving ustekinumab with tumour necrosis-α inhibitors (TNFi: etanercept and adalimumab), whilst the secondary analyses compared ustekinumab, etanercept or methotrexate against adalimumab. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using overlap weights by propensity score to balance baseline covariates among comparison groups., Results: We included 5468 biologic-naïve patients subsequently exposed (951 ustekinumab; 1313 etanercept; and 3204 adalimumab) in the main analysis. The secondary analyses also included 2189 patients receiving methotrexate. The median (p25-p75) follow-up times for patients using ustekinumab, TNFi, adalimumab, etanercept and methotrexate were as follows: 2.01 (1.16-3.21), 1.93 (1.05-3.34), 1.94 (1.09-3.32), 1.92 (0.93-3.45) and 1.43 (0.84-2.53) years, respectively. Ustekinumab, TNFi, adalimumab, etanercept and methotrexate groups had 7, 29, 23, 6 and 9 patients experiencing major CVEs, respectively. No differences in the risk of major CVEs were observed between biologic therapies [adjusted HR for ustekinumab vs. TNFi: 0.96 (95% CI 0.41-2.22); ustekinumab vs. adalimumab: 0.81 (0.30-2.17); etanercept vs. adalimumab: 0.81 (0.28-2.30)] and methotrexate against adalimumab [1.05 (0.34-3.28)]., Conclusions: In this large prospective cohort study, we found no significant differences in the risk of major CVEs between three different biologic therapies and methotrexate. Additional studies, with longer term follow-up, are needed to investigate the potential effects of biologic therapies on incidence of major CVEs., (© 2019 The Authors. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Background: Patients recruited in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for biologic therapies in psoriasis are not fully representative of the real-world psoriasis population., Objectives: Firstly, to investigate whether patient characteristics are associated with being included in a psoriasis RCT. Secondly, to estimate the differences in the incidence of severe adverse events (SAEs) and the response rate between RCT and real-world populations of patients on biologic therapies for psoriasis using a standardization method., Methods: Data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) were appended to individual participant-level data from two RCTs assessing ustekinumab in patients with psoriasis. Baseline variables were assessed for association of being in an RCT using a multivariable logistic regression model. Propensity score weights were derived to reweigh the registry population so that variables had the distribution of the trial population. We measured the C-statistic of the model with trial status as the dependent variable, and the risk differences in the incidence rate of SAEs in the first year and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) after 6 months in the BADBIR cohort before and after weighting., Results: In total 6790 registry and 2021 RCT participants were included. The multivariable logistic regression model had a C-statistic of 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-0.83]. The risk differences for the incidence rate of SAEs and the proportion of patients with PASI < 1.5 were 9.27 (95% CI -3.91-22.5) per 1000 person-years and 0.95 (95% CI -1.98-4.15), respectively., Conclusions: Our results suggest that RCTs of biologic therapies in patients with psoriasis are not fully representative of the real-world population, but this lack of external validity does not account for the efficacy-effectiveness gap. What's already known about this topic? Patients with psoriasis who would not be eligible for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating biologic therapies have a greater risk of serious adverse events and lower treatment effectiveness than patients who would have been eligible. What does this study add? Baseline patient characteristics were shown to be predictive of whether a patient would have been eligible for enrolment in an RCT for psoriasis biologic therapy. We did not find any efficacy-effectiveness gap between the sample representative of the real-world population of patients with psoriasis and the sample representative of the RCT population. Factors outside of baseline patient characteristics, such as observer effect and higher adherence in RCTs, may be more influential in any efficacy-effectiveness gap between trial and real-world populations of patients with psoriasis., (© 2019 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: The persistence and effectiveness of systemic therapies for moderate-to-severe psoriasis in current clinical practice are poorly characterized., Objectives: To systematically review observational studies investigating the persistence and effectiveness of acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters (FAE) and methotrexate, involving at least 100 adult patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, exposed to therapy for ≥ 3 months., Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and PubMed were searched from 1 January 2007 to 1 November 2017 for observational studies reporting on persistence (therapy duration or the proportion of patients discontinuing therapy during follow-up) or effectiveness [improvements in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) or Physician's Global Assessment (PGA)]. This review was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018099771., Results: Of 411 identified studies, eight involving 4624 patients with psoriasis were included. Variations in the definitions and analyses of persistence and effectiveness outcomes prevented a meta-analysis from being conducted. One prospective multicentre study reported drug survival probabilities of 23% (ciclosporin), 42% (acitretin) and 50% (methotrexate) at 1 year. Effectiveness outcomes were not reported for either acitretin or ciclosporin. The persistence and effectiveness of FAE and methotrexate were better characterized, but mean discontinuation times ranged from 28 to 50 months for FAE and 7·7 to 22·3 months for methotrexate. At 12 months of follow-up, three studies reported that 76% (FAE), 53% (methotrexate) and 59% (methotrexate) of patients achieved ≥ 75% reduction in PASI, and one reported that 76% of FAE-exposed patients achieved a markedly improved or clear PGA., Conclusions: The comparative persistence and effectiveness of acitretin, ciclosporin, FAE and methotrexate in real-world clinical practice in the past decade cannot be well described due to the inconsistency of the methods used., (© 2019 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: Biologic therapies can be highly effective for the treatment of severe psoriasis, but response for individual patients can vary according to drug. Predictive biomarkers to guide treatment selection could improve patient outcomes and treatment cost-effectiveness., Objective: We sought to test whether HLA-C*06:02, the primary genetic susceptibility allele for psoriasis, predisposes patients to respond differently to the 2 most commonly prescribed biologics for psoriasis: adalimumab (anti-TNF-α) and ustekinumab (anti-IL-12/23)., Methods: This study uses a national psoriasis registry that includes longitudinal treatment and response observations and detailed clinical data. HLA alleles were imputed from genome-wide genotype data for 1326 patients for whom 90% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI90) response status was observed after 3, 6, or 12 months of treatment. We developed regression models of PASI90 response, examining the interaction between HLA-C*06:02 and drug type (adalimumab or ustekinumab) while accounting for potentially confounding clinical variables., Results: HLA-C*06:02-negative patients were significantly more likely to respond to adalimumab than ustekinumab at all time points (most strongly at 6 months: odds ratio [OR], 2.95; P = 5.85 × 10 -7 ), and the difference was greater in HLA-C*06:02-negative patients with psoriatic arthritis (OR, 5.98; P = 6.89 × 10 -5 ). Biologic-naive patients who were HLA-C*06:02 positive and psoriatic arthritis negative demonstrated significantly poorer response to adalimumab at 12 months (OR, 0.31; P = 3.42 × 10 -4 ). Results from HLA-wide analyses were consistent with HLA-C*06:02 itself being the primary effect allele. We found no evidence for genetic interaction between HLA-C*06:02 and ERAP1., Conclusion: This large observational study suggests that reference to HLA-C*06:02 status could offer substantial clinical benefit when selecting treatments for severe psoriasis., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Biologic therapies have revolutionized the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. However, for reasons largely unknown, many patients do not respond or lose response to these drugs., Objectives: To evaluate demographic, social and clinical factors that could be used to predict effectiveness and stratify response to biologic therapies in psoriasis., Methods: Using a multicentre, observational, prospective pharmacovigilance study (BADBIR), we identified biologic-naive patients starting biologics with outcome data at 6 (n = 3079) and 12 (n = 3110) months. Associations between 31 putative predictors and outcomes were investigated in univariate and multivariable regression analyses. Potential stratifiers of treatment response were investigated with statistical interactions., Results: Eight factors associated with reduced odds of achieving ≥ 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 90) at 6 months were identified (described as odds ratio and 95% confidence interval): demographic (female sex, 0·78, 0·66-0·93); social (unemployment, 0·67, 0·45-0·99); unemployment due to ill health (0·62, 0·48-0·82); ex- and current smoking (0·81, 0·66-0·99 and 0·79, 0·63-0·99, respectively); clinical factors (high weight, 0·99, 0·99-0·99); psoriasis of the palms and/or soles (0·75, 0·61-0·91); and presence of small plaques only compared with small and large plaques (0·78, 0·62-0·96). White ethnicity (1·48, 1·12-1·97) and higher baseline PASI (1·04, 1·03-1·04) were associated with increased odds of achieving PASI 90. The findings were largely consistent at 12 months. There was little evidence for predictors of differential treatment response., Conclusions: Psoriasis phenotype and potentially modifiable factors are associated with poor outcomes with biologics, underscoring the need for lifestyle management. Effect sizes suggest that these factors alone cannot inform treatment selection., (© 2018 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: Patients with psoriasis are often concerned about the risk of serious infection associated with systemic psoriasis treatments., Objectives: To develop and externally validate a prediction model for serious infection in patients with psoriasis within 1 year of starting systemic therapies., Methods: The risk prediction model was developed using the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic Interventions Register (BADBIR), and the German Psoriasis Registry PsoBest was used as the validation dataset. Model discrimination and calibration were assessed internally and externally using the C-statistic, the calibration slope and the calibration in the large., Results: Overall 175 (1·7%) out of 10 033 participants from BADBIR and 41 (1·7%) out of 2423 participants from PsoBest developed a serious infection within 1 year of therapy initiation. Selected predictors in a multiple logistic regression model included nine baseline covariates, and starting infliximab was the strongest predictor. Evaluation of model performance showed a bootstrap optimism-corrected C-statistic of 0·64 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0·60-0·69], calibration in the large of 0·02 (95% CI -0·14 to 0·17) and a calibration slope of 0·88 (95% CI 0·70-1·07), while external validation performance was poor, with C-statistic 0·52 (95% CI 0·42-0·62), calibration in the large 0·06 (95% CI -0·25 to 0·37) and calibration slope 0·36 (95% CI -0·24 to 0·97)., Conclusions: We present the first results of the development of a multivariable prediction model. This model may help patients and dermatologists in the U.K. and the Republic of Ireland to identify modifiable risk factors and inform therapy choice in a shared decision-making process., (© 2018 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: Cancer risk following long-term exposure to systemic immunomodulatory therapies in patients with psoriasis is possible., Objectives: To assess a dose-response relationship between cumulative length of exposure to biological therapy and risk of cancer., Methods: Four national studies (a healthcare database from Israel, and prospective cohorts form Italy, Spain and the U.K. and Republic of Ireland) collaborating through Psonet (European Registry of Psoriasis) participated in these nested case-control studies, including nearly 60 000 person-years of observation. 'Cases' were patients who developed an incident cancer. Patients with previous cancers and benign or in situ tumours were excluded. Four cancer-free controls were matched to each case on year of birth, sex, geographic area and registration year. Follow-up for controls was censored at the date of cancer diagnosis for the matched case. Conditional logistic regression was performed by each registry. Results were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis., Results: A total of 728 cases and 2671 controls were identified. After matching, differences between cases and controls were present for the Charlson Comorbidity Index in all three registries, and in the prevalence of previous exposure to psoralen-ultraviolet A and smoking (the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic Interventions Register only). The risk of first cancers was not significantly associated with cumulative exposure to biologics (adjusted odds ratio per year of exposure 1·02, 95% confidence interval 0·92-1·13). Results were similar if squamous and basal cell carcinomas were included in the outcome., Conclusions: Cumulative length of exposure to biological therapies in patients with psoriasis in real-world clinical practice does not appear to be linked to a higher risk of cancer after several years of use., (© 2018 British Association of Dermatologists.)

Importance: Patients with psoriasis enrolled in clinical trials of biologics may not be representative of the real-world population. There is evidence that patients ineligible for such trials have a greater risk of serious adverse events (SAEs), but the effect on drug discontinuation and effectiveness are unknown., Objective: To determine whether (1) drug discontinuation, (2) effectiveness, and (3) rates of SAEs differ in patients with psoriasis categorized as eligible or ineligible for clinical trials., Design, Setting, and Participants: An observational study using 157 dermatology centers in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland was carried out wherein we applied the eligibility criteria of clinical trials of biologic therapies for psoriasis to patients who were being followed up in the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic Interventions Register (BADBIR) and being prescribed biologics as part of standard clinical care. Patients with psoriasis registered to BADBIR who were taking etanercept (enbrel only; n = 1509), adalimumab (n = 4000), and ustekinumab (n = 1627) with at least 1 follow-up visit. Eligibility criteria were extracted from phase 3 licensing trials for etanercept, adalimumab, and ustekinumab for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. Patients in BADBIR with a missing baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) or baseline PASI value less than 10 (etanercept) or less than 12 (adalimumab; ustekinumab) but who would otherwise be eligible were investigated separately. Eligibility categories applied to BADBIR included: eligible, ineligible, insufficient baseline PASI only, and missing baseline PASI only., Main Outcomes and Measures: (1) Drug discontinuation: cumulative incidence at 12 months by stop reason per eligibility category and drug; (2) effectiveness: linear regression of absolute change in PASI from baseline to 6 and 12 months; and (3) SAEs: incidence rate ratio (IRR) at 12 months between eligibility categories per drug., Results: The mean (SD) age of the 7136 patients included in the analysis was 45 (13) years and 2924 (41%) were women and 4212 (59%) were men. Of 7136 patients, 839 (56%) etanercept, 2219 (56%) adalimumab, and 754 (46%) ustekinumab registrations were categorized as eligible. The most common reasons for ineligibility were diabetes (etanercept, 143 [9%]; ustekinumab, 201 [12%]) and nonchronic plaque psoriasis (adalimumab, 157 [4%]). Patients categorized as ineligible (etanercept, 367 [24%]; adalimumab, 282 [7%]; ustekinumab, 394 [24%]) achieved a smaller absolute change in PASI after 6 and 12 months (adalimumab, ustekinumab), and had significantly higher rates of SAEs compared with the eligible category (etanercept: IRR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6; adalimumab: IRR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.5-2.6; ustekinumab: IRR, 2.8; 95% CI, 2.1-3.8). No significant differences in drug discontinuation were observed between categories., Conclusions and Relevance: Clinical trial effectiveness and safety outcomes are not representative of real-world patients in BADBIR patients categorized as ineligible for such trials.

Little is known about the drug survival of second-line biologic therapies for psoriasis in routine clinical practice. We assessed drug survival of second-line biologic therapies and estimated the risk of recurrent discontinuation due to adverse events or ineffectiveness in patients with psoriasis who had failed a first biologic therapy and switched to a second in a large, multicenter pharmacovigilance registry (n = 1,239; adalimumab, n = 538; etanercept, n = 104; ustekinumab, n = 597). The overall drug survival rate in the first year after switching was 77% (95% confidence interval = 74-79%), falling to 58% (55-61%) in the third year. Female sex, multiple comorbidities, concomitant therapy with cyclosporine, and a high Psoriasis Area and Severity Index at switching to the second-line biologic therapy were predictors of overall discontinuation (multivariable Cox proportional hazard model). Compared to adalimumab, patients receiving etanercept were more likely to discontinue therapy (hazard ratio = 1.87, 95% confidence interval = 1.24-2.83), whereas patients receiving ustekinumab were more likely to persist (hazard ratio = 0.46; 95% confidence interval = 0.33-0.64). Discontinuation of the first biologic therapy because of adverse events was associated with an increased rate of second drug discontinuation because of adverse events (hazard ratio = 2.55; 95% confidence interval = 1.50-4.32). In conclusion, drug survival rates differed among biologic therapies and decreased over time; second-line discontinuation because of adverse events was more common among those who discontinued first-line treatment for this reason. The results of this study should support clinical decision making when choosing second-line biologic therapy for patients with psoriasis., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Biological therapies are highly effective in psoriasis, but have profound effects on innate and adaptive immune pathways that may negatively impact on cancer immunosurveillance mechanisms., Objectives: To investigate the risk of cancer in patients with psoriasis treated with biological therapy., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (up to August 2016) for randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies and systematic reviews that reported cancer incidence in people exposed to biological therapy for psoriasis compared with a control population., Results: Eight prospective cohort studies met our inclusion criteria. All the evidence reviewed related to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) with the exception of one study on ustekinumab. An increased risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC), particularly squamous cell carcinoma, was reported with TNFi compared with both a general United States population and a rheumatoid arthritis population treated with TNFi. No evidence for increased risk of cancers (reported as all cancers, lymphoma, melanoma, prostate, colorectal and breast cancer) other than NMSC was identified., Conclusions: There were important limitations to the studies identified including choice of comparator arms, inadequate adjustment for confounding factors and failure to account for latency periods of cancer. There remains a need for ongoing pharmacovigilance in relation to cancer risk and biological therapy; the NMSC signal requires further investigation to determine the risk specifically attributable to biological therapy using prospectively collected data with adjustment for known NMSC risk factors., (© 2017 British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: The Psoriasis Stratification to Optimise Relevant Therapy (PSORT) consortium has a collective aim to develop a prescribing algorithm to help stratify eligible patients with psoriasis to the most appropriate biological treatment. To facilitate the adoption of a stratified approach, it is necessary to first understand the factors driving the choice of first-line biological therapy., Objectives: To identify and quantify factors that influence the selection of the first-line biological therapy for people with psoriasis., Methods: Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine the factors that influenced the probability of treatment selection, using data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic Interventions Register from January 2012 to December 2015. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the findings to key assumptions., Results: The main analysis was based on a dataset comprising 3040 people with psoriasis. The identified factors affecting first-line biological selection within the available therapies were: presence of psoriatic arthritis; patient weight; employment status; country of registration; and baseline disease severity. Importantly, the analysis showed a general shift in prescribing behaviour over time. These results were robust to sensitivity analysis., Conclusions: This study offers important insights into the factors influencing current prescribing practice for first-line biological therapies for people with psoriasis. It provides baseline data to inform the evaluation of future potential changes that may affect prescribing behaviour, such as stratified medicine., (© 2017 British Association of Dermatologists.)