Search

Background There are few reports of the practical use of adalimumab outside a clinical trial setting and, to our knowledge, none from the U.K. Objectives We assessed the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in a cohort of patients with severe psoriasis attending a tertiary dermatology referral centre in the U.K. Methods A retrospective case-note review was used to identify all patients initiated on adalimumab for psoriasis. Results Mean ± SD baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score was 24 ± 11 (range 9-54; n = 46). After 4 months' treatment with adalimumab, 64% (29/45) of patients had achieved PASI 75 (75% decrease from baseline) while 80% (36/45) of patients met National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) criteria for continuation of treatment. The therapy was well tolerated. Importantly, 68% (21/31) of patients who had previously received another tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor met NICE criteria for continuation of treatment at 16 weeks. Conclusions In a cohort of U.K. patients with severe psoriasis, adalimumab has proved to be a significant addition to the expanding armamentarium of biologics for psoriasis. Pharmacovigilance, in the form of registries, is essential to assess the long-term safety of such drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Large-scale clinical trials provide clear evidence of the efficacy and short-term toxicity of biologic therapies for psoriasis. However, to date, there are few reports of the practical use of these therapies outside of the trial setting and, to our knowledge, none from a U.K. cohort of patients with psoriasis. Objectives (i) To assess efficacy and safety of efalizumab, etanercept and infliximab in a U.K. cohort of patients with psoriasis, with mean Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and Dermatology Life Quality Index 21·8 and 21·7, respectively, outside of the clinical trial setting. (ii) To examine our approach to the processes involved in the initiation of biologic therapies in the era of National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance. Methods A retrospective case-note review to identify all patients initiated on biologic therapies for psoriasis in a U.K. tertiary referral centre. Results At 3 months of treatment the efficacy of efalizumab ( n = 28), etanercept ( n = 70) and infliximab ( n = 20), as assessed by PASI 75 (75% decrease from baseline score), was 24%, 35% and 85%, respectively. All three biologics used were well tolerated. Combination therapy with traditional systemic agents was required either at transition to, or to counter relapse while established on, a biologic therapy in 30% of cases. Streamlined approaches to screening and funding significantly ( P ≤ 0·05) hastened the initiation of biologic therapies. Conclusions In a cohort of U.K. patients with severe psoriasis, biologic therapies have proved to be a significant step forward in expanding the therapeutic armamentarium for psoriasis. Pharmacovigilance, in the form of registries, is essential to assess the long-term safety of such drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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: Patients with psoriasis and clinicians are concerned that infliximab may be associated with a risk of serious infections., Objectives: To compare the risk of serious infections associated with infliximab in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis against a cohort on nonbiologic systemic therapies., Methods: A prospective cohort study was performed using data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic Interventions Register (BADBIR). Infliximab was compared with nonbiologic systemic therapies, inclusive of any exposure to methotrexate, ciclosporin, acitretin, fumaric acid esters, psoralen-ultraviolet A or hydroxycarbamide. Serious infections were those associated with hospitalization, the use of intravenous antimicrobial therapy and/or those that led to death. Propensity score inverse probability treatment weights were used to adjust for potential confounding from a priori identified covariates. Cox proportional hazards models were calculated to obtain hazard ratios (HRs)., Results: In total, 3843 participants were included for analysis up to October 2016. The incidence rates were significantly higher in the infliximab cohort (47·8 per 1000 person-years) [95% confidence interval (CI) 35·7-64·0], compared with 14·2 per 1000 person-years (95% CI 11·5-17·4) in the nonbiologic systemic cohort. Infliximab was associated with an overall increase in the risk of serious infection compared with nonbiologics [adjusted HR (adjHR) 1·95, 95% CI 1·01-3·75] and methotrexate only (adjHR 2·96, 95% CI 1·58-5·57) and a higher risk of serious infection in the first 6 months of therapy (adjHR 3·49, 95% CI 1·14-10·70)., Conclusions: Infliximab is associated with an increased risk of serious infections compared with nonbiologic systemic therapies in patients with psoriasis in the U.K. and the Republic of Ireland., (© 2018 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: Psoriasis causes work productivity impairment that increases with disease severity. Whether differential treatment efficacy translates into differential indirect cost savings is unknown., Objective: To assess work hours lost and indirect costs associated with secukinumab versus ustekinumab and etanercept in the United Kingdom (UK)., Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of work impairment data collected in the CLEAR study (secukinumab vs. ustekinumab) and applied to the FIXTURE study (secukinumab vs. etanercept). Weighted weekly and annual average indirect costs per patient per treatment were calculated from (i) overall work impairment derived from Work Productivity and Activity Impairment data collected in CLEAR at 16 and 52 weeks by Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response level; (ii) weekly/annual work productivity loss by PASI response level; (iii) weekly and annual indirect costs by PASI response level, based on hours of work productivity loss; and (iv) weighted average indirect costs for each treatment. In the primary analysis, work impairment data for employed patients in CLEAR at Week 16 were used to compare secukinumab and ustekinumab. Secondary analyses were conducted at different time points and with patient cohorts, including FIXTURE., Results: In CLEAR, 452 patients (67%) were employed at baseline. At Week 16, percentages of weekly work impairment/mean hours lost decreased with higher PASI: PASI < 50: 22.8%/7.60 h; PASI 50-74: 13.3%/4.45 h; PASI 75-89: 6.4%/2.14 h; PASI ≥ 90: 4.9%/1.65 h. Weighted mean weekly/annual work hours lost were significantly lower for secukinumab than ustekinumab (1.96/102.51 vs. 2.40/125.12; P = 0.0006). Results were consistent for secukinumab versus etanercept (2.29/119.67 vs. 3.59/187.17; Ρ<0.0001). Average annual indirect cost savings with secukinumab were £355 vs. ustekinumab and £1061 versus etanercept. Results at 52 weeks were similar., Conclusions: Secukinumab significantly reduced work impairment and associated indirect costs of psoriasis compared with ustekinumab and etanercept at Week 16 through 52 in the United Kingdom., (© 2018 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.)