User login
Once-daily oral JAK inhibitor for atopic dermatitis effective in phase 3 study
MADRID – (AD) on the strength of its knockout performance in the pivotal phase 3 JADE MONO-1 trial, presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
“The IGA [Investigator Global Assessment] and EASI [Eczema Area and Severity Index]-75 responses for both doses of abrocitinib were significantly greater than placebo as early as week 2 and continued to increase until week 12 with no plateau. This study stopped at week 12. I would have liked to see what happened at 16 weeks or further. I don’t know where this is going to end up maxing out,” commented principal investigator Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
JADE MONO-1 (JAK1 Atopic Dermatitis Efficacy and Safety Monotherapy–1) was a 12-week, double-blind, multicenter study which included 387 adolescents and adults with moderate or severe AD randomized 2:2:1 to abrocitinib at 200 mg or 100 mg once daily, or to placebo. Overall, this was a fairly severely affected population, with a mean baseline EASI (Eczema Area and Severity Index) score of about 30, a peak pruritus numeric rating scale score of 7 out of 10, and a mean Dermatology Quality Life Index score greater than 14. Nonetheless, this was a rigorous abrocitinib monotherapy trial, as participants were not allowed to take even a single dose of topical corticosteroids.
The coprimary endpoints in JADE MONO-1 were achievement of an IGA score of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear – at week 12 plus at least a 2-point improvement, compared with baseline on the 0-4 scale, and an EASI-75 response as defined by a 75% or greater improvement from baseline.
A clear-cut dose response was evident: the IGA response rate was 43.8% in the group on abrocitinib at 200 mg/day, 23.7% with 100 mg, and 7.9% with placebo. The EASI-75 response rates were 62.7%, 39.7%, and 11.8%, respectively, with a statistically significant separation from placebo by week 2.
Key secondary endpoints included the rigorous EASI-90 response rate: 38.6% with the higher dose of abrocitinib, 18.6% at 100 mg per day, and 5.3% with placebo. And again, that’s without resort to topical steroids, Dr. Simpson noted.
Another important secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 4-point improvement in itch on the pruritus self-rating scale by week 12: 57.2%, 37.7%, and 15.3%. The rapidity of the improvement was notable: By week 2, this endpoint was achieved in 45.6% of patients on abrocitinib on the 200-mg dose, 20.4% on the 100-mg dose, and 2.7% of placebo-treated controls.
“By day 2, 1 day after taking the first pill, you can see really nice reductions in itch at both doses, compared with placebo,” the dermatologist said.
Study dropout rates were low despite the inability to utilize topical steroids: 11% in the higher-dose abrocitinib group and 13.5% with abrocitinib at 100 mg/day, both of which were lower than in controls.
Turning to safety results, Dr. Simpson noted that the 9.1% rate of discontinuations because of adverse events in the placebo group was significantly higher than the 5.8% rates in each of the active treatment arms. The serious adverse event rate was 3.2% in each of the abrocitinib groups and 1.9% with placebo. Among the serious adverse events in abrocitinib-treated patients Dr. Simpson considered worthy of special mention were a single case of inflammatory bowel disease, which resolved after halting treatment; one case of peritonsillitis; and a case of pancreatitis in an alcoholic patient. No deaths, major adverse cardiovascular events, or malignancies occurred in this brief 12-week trial. Nor were there any cases of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, which has been an issue with some other JAK inhibitors.
“We need long-term safety data, of course,” he said.
Laboratory findings were generally unremarkable, with no clinically significant changes. Platelet counts dropped to a nadir at about 4 weeks while staying within normal range, then came back up. Mean LDL cholesterol levels rose by about 10%, an unwelcome event that was counterbalanced by a favorable 20% rise in HDL cholesterol.
Asked about the efficacy rates in the 20%-plus adolescent study participants, compared with the adults, Dr. Simpson replied that a detailed analysis is planned, adding: “I can say that things are looking pretty similar.”
Abrocitinib is selective for inhibition of JAK1, with resultant modulation of interleukins-4, -13, and -31, as well as interferon-gamma, all of which are cytokines involved in the pathophysiology of AD.
Of note, Pfizer, the drug’s developer, has announced positive results from the sister pivotal phase 3 trial, JADE MONO-2, with full details forthcoming in early 2020. Results of a phase 2b study of abrocitinib were also recently published (JAMA Dermatol. 2019 Oct 2. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.2855).
Dr. Simpson reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant to Pfizer, the study sponsor. He has similar financial relationships with close to a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.
MADRID – (AD) on the strength of its knockout performance in the pivotal phase 3 JADE MONO-1 trial, presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
“The IGA [Investigator Global Assessment] and EASI [Eczema Area and Severity Index]-75 responses for both doses of abrocitinib were significantly greater than placebo as early as week 2 and continued to increase until week 12 with no plateau. This study stopped at week 12. I would have liked to see what happened at 16 weeks or further. I don’t know where this is going to end up maxing out,” commented principal investigator Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
JADE MONO-1 (JAK1 Atopic Dermatitis Efficacy and Safety Monotherapy–1) was a 12-week, double-blind, multicenter study which included 387 adolescents and adults with moderate or severe AD randomized 2:2:1 to abrocitinib at 200 mg or 100 mg once daily, or to placebo. Overall, this was a fairly severely affected population, with a mean baseline EASI (Eczema Area and Severity Index) score of about 30, a peak pruritus numeric rating scale score of 7 out of 10, and a mean Dermatology Quality Life Index score greater than 14. Nonetheless, this was a rigorous abrocitinib monotherapy trial, as participants were not allowed to take even a single dose of topical corticosteroids.
The coprimary endpoints in JADE MONO-1 were achievement of an IGA score of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear – at week 12 plus at least a 2-point improvement, compared with baseline on the 0-4 scale, and an EASI-75 response as defined by a 75% or greater improvement from baseline.
A clear-cut dose response was evident: the IGA response rate was 43.8% in the group on abrocitinib at 200 mg/day, 23.7% with 100 mg, and 7.9% with placebo. The EASI-75 response rates were 62.7%, 39.7%, and 11.8%, respectively, with a statistically significant separation from placebo by week 2.
Key secondary endpoints included the rigorous EASI-90 response rate: 38.6% with the higher dose of abrocitinib, 18.6% at 100 mg per day, and 5.3% with placebo. And again, that’s without resort to topical steroids, Dr. Simpson noted.
Another important secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 4-point improvement in itch on the pruritus self-rating scale by week 12: 57.2%, 37.7%, and 15.3%. The rapidity of the improvement was notable: By week 2, this endpoint was achieved in 45.6% of patients on abrocitinib on the 200-mg dose, 20.4% on the 100-mg dose, and 2.7% of placebo-treated controls.
“By day 2, 1 day after taking the first pill, you can see really nice reductions in itch at both doses, compared with placebo,” the dermatologist said.
Study dropout rates were low despite the inability to utilize topical steroids: 11% in the higher-dose abrocitinib group and 13.5% with abrocitinib at 100 mg/day, both of which were lower than in controls.
Turning to safety results, Dr. Simpson noted that the 9.1% rate of discontinuations because of adverse events in the placebo group was significantly higher than the 5.8% rates in each of the active treatment arms. The serious adverse event rate was 3.2% in each of the abrocitinib groups and 1.9% with placebo. Among the serious adverse events in abrocitinib-treated patients Dr. Simpson considered worthy of special mention were a single case of inflammatory bowel disease, which resolved after halting treatment; one case of peritonsillitis; and a case of pancreatitis in an alcoholic patient. No deaths, major adverse cardiovascular events, or malignancies occurred in this brief 12-week trial. Nor were there any cases of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, which has been an issue with some other JAK inhibitors.
“We need long-term safety data, of course,” he said.
Laboratory findings were generally unremarkable, with no clinically significant changes. Platelet counts dropped to a nadir at about 4 weeks while staying within normal range, then came back up. Mean LDL cholesterol levels rose by about 10%, an unwelcome event that was counterbalanced by a favorable 20% rise in HDL cholesterol.
Asked about the efficacy rates in the 20%-plus adolescent study participants, compared with the adults, Dr. Simpson replied that a detailed analysis is planned, adding: “I can say that things are looking pretty similar.”
Abrocitinib is selective for inhibition of JAK1, with resultant modulation of interleukins-4, -13, and -31, as well as interferon-gamma, all of which are cytokines involved in the pathophysiology of AD.
Of note, Pfizer, the drug’s developer, has announced positive results from the sister pivotal phase 3 trial, JADE MONO-2, with full details forthcoming in early 2020. Results of a phase 2b study of abrocitinib were also recently published (JAMA Dermatol. 2019 Oct 2. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.2855).
Dr. Simpson reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant to Pfizer, the study sponsor. He has similar financial relationships with close to a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.
MADRID – (AD) on the strength of its knockout performance in the pivotal phase 3 JADE MONO-1 trial, presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
“The IGA [Investigator Global Assessment] and EASI [Eczema Area and Severity Index]-75 responses for both doses of abrocitinib were significantly greater than placebo as early as week 2 and continued to increase until week 12 with no plateau. This study stopped at week 12. I would have liked to see what happened at 16 weeks or further. I don’t know where this is going to end up maxing out,” commented principal investigator Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
JADE MONO-1 (JAK1 Atopic Dermatitis Efficacy and Safety Monotherapy–1) was a 12-week, double-blind, multicenter study which included 387 adolescents and adults with moderate or severe AD randomized 2:2:1 to abrocitinib at 200 mg or 100 mg once daily, or to placebo. Overall, this was a fairly severely affected population, with a mean baseline EASI (Eczema Area and Severity Index) score of about 30, a peak pruritus numeric rating scale score of 7 out of 10, and a mean Dermatology Quality Life Index score greater than 14. Nonetheless, this was a rigorous abrocitinib monotherapy trial, as participants were not allowed to take even a single dose of topical corticosteroids.
The coprimary endpoints in JADE MONO-1 were achievement of an IGA score of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear – at week 12 plus at least a 2-point improvement, compared with baseline on the 0-4 scale, and an EASI-75 response as defined by a 75% or greater improvement from baseline.
A clear-cut dose response was evident: the IGA response rate was 43.8% in the group on abrocitinib at 200 mg/day, 23.7% with 100 mg, and 7.9% with placebo. The EASI-75 response rates were 62.7%, 39.7%, and 11.8%, respectively, with a statistically significant separation from placebo by week 2.
Key secondary endpoints included the rigorous EASI-90 response rate: 38.6% with the higher dose of abrocitinib, 18.6% at 100 mg per day, and 5.3% with placebo. And again, that’s without resort to topical steroids, Dr. Simpson noted.
Another important secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 4-point improvement in itch on the pruritus self-rating scale by week 12: 57.2%, 37.7%, and 15.3%. The rapidity of the improvement was notable: By week 2, this endpoint was achieved in 45.6% of patients on abrocitinib on the 200-mg dose, 20.4% on the 100-mg dose, and 2.7% of placebo-treated controls.
“By day 2, 1 day after taking the first pill, you can see really nice reductions in itch at both doses, compared with placebo,” the dermatologist said.
Study dropout rates were low despite the inability to utilize topical steroids: 11% in the higher-dose abrocitinib group and 13.5% with abrocitinib at 100 mg/day, both of which were lower than in controls.
Turning to safety results, Dr. Simpson noted that the 9.1% rate of discontinuations because of adverse events in the placebo group was significantly higher than the 5.8% rates in each of the active treatment arms. The serious adverse event rate was 3.2% in each of the abrocitinib groups and 1.9% with placebo. Among the serious adverse events in abrocitinib-treated patients Dr. Simpson considered worthy of special mention were a single case of inflammatory bowel disease, which resolved after halting treatment; one case of peritonsillitis; and a case of pancreatitis in an alcoholic patient. No deaths, major adverse cardiovascular events, or malignancies occurred in this brief 12-week trial. Nor were there any cases of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, which has been an issue with some other JAK inhibitors.
“We need long-term safety data, of course,” he said.
Laboratory findings were generally unremarkable, with no clinically significant changes. Platelet counts dropped to a nadir at about 4 weeks while staying within normal range, then came back up. Mean LDL cholesterol levels rose by about 10%, an unwelcome event that was counterbalanced by a favorable 20% rise in HDL cholesterol.
Asked about the efficacy rates in the 20%-plus adolescent study participants, compared with the adults, Dr. Simpson replied that a detailed analysis is planned, adding: “I can say that things are looking pretty similar.”
Abrocitinib is selective for inhibition of JAK1, with resultant modulation of interleukins-4, -13, and -31, as well as interferon-gamma, all of which are cytokines involved in the pathophysiology of AD.
Of note, Pfizer, the drug’s developer, has announced positive results from the sister pivotal phase 3 trial, JADE MONO-2, with full details forthcoming in early 2020. Results of a phase 2b study of abrocitinib were also recently published (JAMA Dermatol. 2019 Oct 2. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.2855).
Dr. Simpson reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant to Pfizer, the study sponsor. He has similar financial relationships with close to a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.
REPORTING FROM THE EADV CONGRESS
Rituximab bests mycophenolate in pemphigus vulgaris
MADRID – Pascal Joly, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
Not only did rituximab prove superior in terms of efficacy in the PEMPHIX trial, with a five times greater likelihood of achieving a complete remission lasting for at least 16 weeks while off oral corticosteroids than with mycophenolate mofetil in the 52-week study, but the total number of disease flares in the mycophenolate mofetil group was five times higher. Moreover, rituximab-treated patients received a markedly lower cumulative dose of prednisone as well.
“Rituximab has a superior overall benefit-risk profile, compared to mycophenolate mofetil, in patients with moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris,” concluded Dr. Joly, professor of dermatology at the University of Rouen (France) and president of the French Society of Dermatology.
The study was undertaken because mycophenolate mofetil is commonly used as a corticosteroid-sparing drug in patients with pemphigus vulgaris, even though its efficacy for the treatment of this rare, severe autoimmune blistering disease is unproven, he explained.
In contrast, rituximab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration and European regulators for treatment of pemphigus vulgaris on the strength of the pivotal phase 3 Ritux 3 trial – also led by Dr. Joly – which demonstrated the superiority of this intravenously administered anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody plus short-term prednisone over high-dose corticosteroid monotherapy, which for decades had been the standard treatment despite its considerable toxicity burden (Lancet. 2017 May 20;389[10083]:2031-40).
An independently conducted analysis of Ritux 3 recently concluded that rituximab plus short-term prednisone was more effective than prednisone alone, with a lower risk of life-threatening, corticosteroid-related adverse events and less cumulative corticosteroid exposure (Br J Dermatol. 2019 Sep 5. doi: 10.1111/bjd.18482).
Also, an international panel of 93 pemphigus experts has declared that rituximab should be considered an evidence-based first-line therapy for moderate to-severe pemphigus (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Feb 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.02.021).
The phase 3, placebo-controlled PEMPHIX trial randomized 135 patients with moderate or severe pemphigus at 49 academic medical centers in the United States and nine other countries to double-blind rituximab or mycophenolate mofetil on top of background oral prednisone at 1.0-1.5 mg/kg per day, with the steroid to be tapered and discontinued within 4-6 months.
The primary endpoint of the study was the proportion of patients in each study arm at week 52 who had achieved a sustained complete remission lasting for at least 16 weeks while off prednisone. The rate was 40.3% in the rituximab group and 9.5% with mycophenolate mofetil, for a 383% increased likelihood of sustained complete remission in the rituximab group.
In addition, all of the study’s secondary endpoints significantly favored rituximab. The median cumulative dose of corticosteroid was 2.7 g through 52 weeks in the rituximab arm, compared with 4 g with mycophenolate mofetil. The total number of disease flares over 52 weeks was 6 in the rituximab group and 44 in the mycophenolate arm. Five rituximab-treated patients experienced disease flares, as did 26 on mycophenolate. Thus, the likelihood of a flare was seven times lower with rituximab.
Scores on the Dermatology Life Quality Index improved by an average of 8.87 points from baseline to week 52 in the rituximab group versus 6 points with mycophenolate. And 62.7% of rituximab-treated patients had a week-52 Dermatology Life Quality Index score of 0, meaning no impact of the disease on their quality of life, compared with 25% of the mycophenolate group.
Dr. Joly characterized the safety profile of rituximab as “manageable, with acceptable tolerability.” About 9% of the rituximab group and 7.4% of mycophenolate-treated patients had one or more treatment-related adverse events, a nonsignificant difference. The rate of treatment-related serious infections was 3.0% with rituximab and 2.9% with mycophenolate. Serious infusion reactions leading to study withdrawal occurred in three patients on rituximab and one on mycophenolate. The rate of grade 3 or worse corticosteroid-related adverse events was 1.5% with rituximab and significantly greater at 7.4% with mycophenolate.
An additional 48-week safety assessment beyond the 52-week primary outcome is ongoing.
Asked what future role he sees for mycophenolate in pemphigus vulgaris, Dr. Joly replied that the only study in the literature that shows the drug outperforms placebo was seriously flawed. “In the future, it’s very likely that the indications for use of mycophenolate in pemphigus vulgaris will be fewer and fewer,” the dermatologist added.
In reply to a question about the merits of routine antibiotic prophylaxis against pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in patients taking rituximab for pemphigus vulgaris, Dr. Joly said the incidence isn’t sufficiently high to justify such practice. After all, he noted, there were no cases of pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in rituximab-treated patients in PEMPHIX and only one in Ritux 3.
EADV Scientific Programming Committee Chair Brigitte Dreno, MD, PhD, professor and head of dermatology at University Hospital in Nantes, France, inquired as to whether there’s a role for maintenance therapy in a potent rituximab-based treatment strategy such as utilized in PEMPHIX.
Definitely, Dr. Joly replied. However, further study is required to work out the best maintenance program.
“There are many arguments for maintenance therapy in these patients. For one, the frequency of relapses increases with the length of follow-up. Also, anti–desmoglein-specific T cells can still be detected after rituximab therapy, even in patients in complete remission. So there is a need for maintenance therapy, perhaps at months 6, 12, and 18, but the optimal regimen isn’t determined yet,” according to Dr. Joly.
PEMPHIX was sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Joly reported serving as a consultant to Roche, Amgen, Principia Biopharma, and Argenx.
MADRID – Pascal Joly, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
Not only did rituximab prove superior in terms of efficacy in the PEMPHIX trial, with a five times greater likelihood of achieving a complete remission lasting for at least 16 weeks while off oral corticosteroids than with mycophenolate mofetil in the 52-week study, but the total number of disease flares in the mycophenolate mofetil group was five times higher. Moreover, rituximab-treated patients received a markedly lower cumulative dose of prednisone as well.
“Rituximab has a superior overall benefit-risk profile, compared to mycophenolate mofetil, in patients with moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris,” concluded Dr. Joly, professor of dermatology at the University of Rouen (France) and president of the French Society of Dermatology.
The study was undertaken because mycophenolate mofetil is commonly used as a corticosteroid-sparing drug in patients with pemphigus vulgaris, even though its efficacy for the treatment of this rare, severe autoimmune blistering disease is unproven, he explained.
In contrast, rituximab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration and European regulators for treatment of pemphigus vulgaris on the strength of the pivotal phase 3 Ritux 3 trial – also led by Dr. Joly – which demonstrated the superiority of this intravenously administered anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody plus short-term prednisone over high-dose corticosteroid monotherapy, which for decades had been the standard treatment despite its considerable toxicity burden (Lancet. 2017 May 20;389[10083]:2031-40).
An independently conducted analysis of Ritux 3 recently concluded that rituximab plus short-term prednisone was more effective than prednisone alone, with a lower risk of life-threatening, corticosteroid-related adverse events and less cumulative corticosteroid exposure (Br J Dermatol. 2019 Sep 5. doi: 10.1111/bjd.18482).
Also, an international panel of 93 pemphigus experts has declared that rituximab should be considered an evidence-based first-line therapy for moderate to-severe pemphigus (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Feb 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.02.021).
The phase 3, placebo-controlled PEMPHIX trial randomized 135 patients with moderate or severe pemphigus at 49 academic medical centers in the United States and nine other countries to double-blind rituximab or mycophenolate mofetil on top of background oral prednisone at 1.0-1.5 mg/kg per day, with the steroid to be tapered and discontinued within 4-6 months.
The primary endpoint of the study was the proportion of patients in each study arm at week 52 who had achieved a sustained complete remission lasting for at least 16 weeks while off prednisone. The rate was 40.3% in the rituximab group and 9.5% with mycophenolate mofetil, for a 383% increased likelihood of sustained complete remission in the rituximab group.
In addition, all of the study’s secondary endpoints significantly favored rituximab. The median cumulative dose of corticosteroid was 2.7 g through 52 weeks in the rituximab arm, compared with 4 g with mycophenolate mofetil. The total number of disease flares over 52 weeks was 6 in the rituximab group and 44 in the mycophenolate arm. Five rituximab-treated patients experienced disease flares, as did 26 on mycophenolate. Thus, the likelihood of a flare was seven times lower with rituximab.
Scores on the Dermatology Life Quality Index improved by an average of 8.87 points from baseline to week 52 in the rituximab group versus 6 points with mycophenolate. And 62.7% of rituximab-treated patients had a week-52 Dermatology Life Quality Index score of 0, meaning no impact of the disease on their quality of life, compared with 25% of the mycophenolate group.
Dr. Joly characterized the safety profile of rituximab as “manageable, with acceptable tolerability.” About 9% of the rituximab group and 7.4% of mycophenolate-treated patients had one or more treatment-related adverse events, a nonsignificant difference. The rate of treatment-related serious infections was 3.0% with rituximab and 2.9% with mycophenolate. Serious infusion reactions leading to study withdrawal occurred in three patients on rituximab and one on mycophenolate. The rate of grade 3 or worse corticosteroid-related adverse events was 1.5% with rituximab and significantly greater at 7.4% with mycophenolate.
An additional 48-week safety assessment beyond the 52-week primary outcome is ongoing.
Asked what future role he sees for mycophenolate in pemphigus vulgaris, Dr. Joly replied that the only study in the literature that shows the drug outperforms placebo was seriously flawed. “In the future, it’s very likely that the indications for use of mycophenolate in pemphigus vulgaris will be fewer and fewer,” the dermatologist added.
In reply to a question about the merits of routine antibiotic prophylaxis against pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in patients taking rituximab for pemphigus vulgaris, Dr. Joly said the incidence isn’t sufficiently high to justify such practice. After all, he noted, there were no cases of pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in rituximab-treated patients in PEMPHIX and only one in Ritux 3.
EADV Scientific Programming Committee Chair Brigitte Dreno, MD, PhD, professor and head of dermatology at University Hospital in Nantes, France, inquired as to whether there’s a role for maintenance therapy in a potent rituximab-based treatment strategy such as utilized in PEMPHIX.
Definitely, Dr. Joly replied. However, further study is required to work out the best maintenance program.
“There are many arguments for maintenance therapy in these patients. For one, the frequency of relapses increases with the length of follow-up. Also, anti–desmoglein-specific T cells can still be detected after rituximab therapy, even in patients in complete remission. So there is a need for maintenance therapy, perhaps at months 6, 12, and 18, but the optimal regimen isn’t determined yet,” according to Dr. Joly.
PEMPHIX was sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Joly reported serving as a consultant to Roche, Amgen, Principia Biopharma, and Argenx.
MADRID – Pascal Joly, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
Not only did rituximab prove superior in terms of efficacy in the PEMPHIX trial, with a five times greater likelihood of achieving a complete remission lasting for at least 16 weeks while off oral corticosteroids than with mycophenolate mofetil in the 52-week study, but the total number of disease flares in the mycophenolate mofetil group was five times higher. Moreover, rituximab-treated patients received a markedly lower cumulative dose of prednisone as well.
“Rituximab has a superior overall benefit-risk profile, compared to mycophenolate mofetil, in patients with moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris,” concluded Dr. Joly, professor of dermatology at the University of Rouen (France) and president of the French Society of Dermatology.
The study was undertaken because mycophenolate mofetil is commonly used as a corticosteroid-sparing drug in patients with pemphigus vulgaris, even though its efficacy for the treatment of this rare, severe autoimmune blistering disease is unproven, he explained.
In contrast, rituximab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration and European regulators for treatment of pemphigus vulgaris on the strength of the pivotal phase 3 Ritux 3 trial – also led by Dr. Joly – which demonstrated the superiority of this intravenously administered anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody plus short-term prednisone over high-dose corticosteroid monotherapy, which for decades had been the standard treatment despite its considerable toxicity burden (Lancet. 2017 May 20;389[10083]:2031-40).
An independently conducted analysis of Ritux 3 recently concluded that rituximab plus short-term prednisone was more effective than prednisone alone, with a lower risk of life-threatening, corticosteroid-related adverse events and less cumulative corticosteroid exposure (Br J Dermatol. 2019 Sep 5. doi: 10.1111/bjd.18482).
Also, an international panel of 93 pemphigus experts has declared that rituximab should be considered an evidence-based first-line therapy for moderate to-severe pemphigus (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Feb 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.02.021).
The phase 3, placebo-controlled PEMPHIX trial randomized 135 patients with moderate or severe pemphigus at 49 academic medical centers in the United States and nine other countries to double-blind rituximab or mycophenolate mofetil on top of background oral prednisone at 1.0-1.5 mg/kg per day, with the steroid to be tapered and discontinued within 4-6 months.
The primary endpoint of the study was the proportion of patients in each study arm at week 52 who had achieved a sustained complete remission lasting for at least 16 weeks while off prednisone. The rate was 40.3% in the rituximab group and 9.5% with mycophenolate mofetil, for a 383% increased likelihood of sustained complete remission in the rituximab group.
In addition, all of the study’s secondary endpoints significantly favored rituximab. The median cumulative dose of corticosteroid was 2.7 g through 52 weeks in the rituximab arm, compared with 4 g with mycophenolate mofetil. The total number of disease flares over 52 weeks was 6 in the rituximab group and 44 in the mycophenolate arm. Five rituximab-treated patients experienced disease flares, as did 26 on mycophenolate. Thus, the likelihood of a flare was seven times lower with rituximab.
Scores on the Dermatology Life Quality Index improved by an average of 8.87 points from baseline to week 52 in the rituximab group versus 6 points with mycophenolate. And 62.7% of rituximab-treated patients had a week-52 Dermatology Life Quality Index score of 0, meaning no impact of the disease on their quality of life, compared with 25% of the mycophenolate group.
Dr. Joly characterized the safety profile of rituximab as “manageable, with acceptable tolerability.” About 9% of the rituximab group and 7.4% of mycophenolate-treated patients had one or more treatment-related adverse events, a nonsignificant difference. The rate of treatment-related serious infections was 3.0% with rituximab and 2.9% with mycophenolate. Serious infusion reactions leading to study withdrawal occurred in three patients on rituximab and one on mycophenolate. The rate of grade 3 or worse corticosteroid-related adverse events was 1.5% with rituximab and significantly greater at 7.4% with mycophenolate.
An additional 48-week safety assessment beyond the 52-week primary outcome is ongoing.
Asked what future role he sees for mycophenolate in pemphigus vulgaris, Dr. Joly replied that the only study in the literature that shows the drug outperforms placebo was seriously flawed. “In the future, it’s very likely that the indications for use of mycophenolate in pemphigus vulgaris will be fewer and fewer,” the dermatologist added.
In reply to a question about the merits of routine antibiotic prophylaxis against pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in patients taking rituximab for pemphigus vulgaris, Dr. Joly said the incidence isn’t sufficiently high to justify such practice. After all, he noted, there were no cases of pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in rituximab-treated patients in PEMPHIX and only one in Ritux 3.
EADV Scientific Programming Committee Chair Brigitte Dreno, MD, PhD, professor and head of dermatology at University Hospital in Nantes, France, inquired as to whether there’s a role for maintenance therapy in a potent rituximab-based treatment strategy such as utilized in PEMPHIX.
Definitely, Dr. Joly replied. However, further study is required to work out the best maintenance program.
“There are many arguments for maintenance therapy in these patients. For one, the frequency of relapses increases with the length of follow-up. Also, anti–desmoglein-specific T cells can still be detected after rituximab therapy, even in patients in complete remission. So there is a need for maintenance therapy, perhaps at months 6, 12, and 18, but the optimal regimen isn’t determined yet,” according to Dr. Joly.
PEMPHIX was sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Joly reported serving as a consultant to Roche, Amgen, Principia Biopharma, and Argenx.
REPORTING FROM THE EADV CONGRESS
Psoriasis registry data provide evidence that adalimumab reduces mortality
MADRID – Psoriasis patients on adalimumab for up to 10 years in the prospective, observational, international, real-world ESPRIT registry had a sharply reduced likelihood of all-cause mortality, compared with the age- and sex-matched general population in participating countries, Diamant T. Thaci, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
“If someone tells you that you as a dermatologist can save patient lives by controlling psoriasis, you may not believe it. But look at this standardized mortality ratio data,” said Dr. Thaci, professor of dermatology and head of the Comprehensive Center for Inflammation Medicine at the University of Luebeck (Germany).
Indeed, the standardized in routine clinical practice, was 58% lower than expected, based upon published mortality rate data for the general population in the United States, Canada, and the 10 participating European countries. A total of 144 deaths were predicted in the matched general population, yet only 60 deaths occurred in adalimumab-treated registry participants.
This finding is all the more remarkable because ESPRIT participants had high rates of cardiovascular risk factors, as well as a substantial burden of comorbid conditions, as is typical for patients with chronic moderate to severe psoriasis encountered in real-world clinical practice. It’s a different population than enrollees in the long-term, open-label extensions of phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trials of biologics in psoriasis, which at the outset typically excluded patients with baseline substantial comorbidities, he noted.
Moreover, the incidence rates of serious infections, malignancies, and cardiovascular events in ESPRIT participants remained stable over time and well within the range of published rates in psoriasis patients not on biologic therapy.
“All of this underscores the importance of good control of psoriasis,” Dr. Thaci commented.
The ESPRIT registry began enrolling patients and evaluating them every 6 months in 2008, when the vast majority of dermatologists in clinical practice relied upon Physician Global Assessment (PGA) to evaluate treatment efficacy. For this reason, the PGA, rather than the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, was the main efficacy measure utilized in the registry. The rate of PGA “clear” or “almost clear” was steady over time at 57% at 1 year, 62.1% at 5 years, and 61.5% at 10 years. It should be noted that this was reported in an “as-observed” analysis, which introduces bias favoring a rosier picture of efficacy since by 10 years slightly under half of patients remained on the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.
However, the primary focus of this ESPRIT analysis was safety, not efficacy. The rate of serious infections was 1.0 event per 100 person-years on adalimumab, compared with published rates of 0.3-2.1 events/100 person-years in psoriasis patients not on a biologic. Malignancies occurred at a rate of 1.3 events/100 person-years in ESPRIT, compared with published rates of 0.5-2.0/100 person-years in psoriasis patients not on biologic therapy. Acute MI occurred at a rate of 0.1 cases/100 person-years in ESPRIT, stroke at 0.2 events/100 person-years, and heart failure at less than 0.1 event/100 person-years, versus a collective rate of 0.6-1.5 events/100 person-years in the comparator population.
Another view of the data is that, at 10 years, 99.4% of ESPRIT participants had not experienced an acute MI, 95.9% hadn’t had a malignancy, and 96.1% remained free of serious infection while on adalimumab, Dr. Thaci continued.
Injection-site reactions, a significant source of concern when adalimumab first reached the marketplace, occurred at a rate of 0.2 events/100 person-years over the course of 10 years. Oral candidiasis, active tuberculosis, demyelinating disorders, and lupus-like reactions were rare, each occurring at an incidence of less than 0.1 event/100 person-years.
Dr. Thaci’s 10-year update from the ongoing registry follows an earlier report of the 5-year results (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015 Sep;73[3]:410-9.e6).
The ESPRIT registry is sponsored by AbbVie. Dr. Thaci reported serving as a consultant to and/or receiving research grants from that pharmaceutical company and nearly two dozen others.
MADRID – Psoriasis patients on adalimumab for up to 10 years in the prospective, observational, international, real-world ESPRIT registry had a sharply reduced likelihood of all-cause mortality, compared with the age- and sex-matched general population in participating countries, Diamant T. Thaci, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
“If someone tells you that you as a dermatologist can save patient lives by controlling psoriasis, you may not believe it. But look at this standardized mortality ratio data,” said Dr. Thaci, professor of dermatology and head of the Comprehensive Center for Inflammation Medicine at the University of Luebeck (Germany).
Indeed, the standardized in routine clinical practice, was 58% lower than expected, based upon published mortality rate data for the general population in the United States, Canada, and the 10 participating European countries. A total of 144 deaths were predicted in the matched general population, yet only 60 deaths occurred in adalimumab-treated registry participants.
This finding is all the more remarkable because ESPRIT participants had high rates of cardiovascular risk factors, as well as a substantial burden of comorbid conditions, as is typical for patients with chronic moderate to severe psoriasis encountered in real-world clinical practice. It’s a different population than enrollees in the long-term, open-label extensions of phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trials of biologics in psoriasis, which at the outset typically excluded patients with baseline substantial comorbidities, he noted.
Moreover, the incidence rates of serious infections, malignancies, and cardiovascular events in ESPRIT participants remained stable over time and well within the range of published rates in psoriasis patients not on biologic therapy.
“All of this underscores the importance of good control of psoriasis,” Dr. Thaci commented.
The ESPRIT registry began enrolling patients and evaluating them every 6 months in 2008, when the vast majority of dermatologists in clinical practice relied upon Physician Global Assessment (PGA) to evaluate treatment efficacy. For this reason, the PGA, rather than the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, was the main efficacy measure utilized in the registry. The rate of PGA “clear” or “almost clear” was steady over time at 57% at 1 year, 62.1% at 5 years, and 61.5% at 10 years. It should be noted that this was reported in an “as-observed” analysis, which introduces bias favoring a rosier picture of efficacy since by 10 years slightly under half of patients remained on the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.
However, the primary focus of this ESPRIT analysis was safety, not efficacy. The rate of serious infections was 1.0 event per 100 person-years on adalimumab, compared with published rates of 0.3-2.1 events/100 person-years in psoriasis patients not on a biologic. Malignancies occurred at a rate of 1.3 events/100 person-years in ESPRIT, compared with published rates of 0.5-2.0/100 person-years in psoriasis patients not on biologic therapy. Acute MI occurred at a rate of 0.1 cases/100 person-years in ESPRIT, stroke at 0.2 events/100 person-years, and heart failure at less than 0.1 event/100 person-years, versus a collective rate of 0.6-1.5 events/100 person-years in the comparator population.
Another view of the data is that, at 10 years, 99.4% of ESPRIT participants had not experienced an acute MI, 95.9% hadn’t had a malignancy, and 96.1% remained free of serious infection while on adalimumab, Dr. Thaci continued.
Injection-site reactions, a significant source of concern when adalimumab first reached the marketplace, occurred at a rate of 0.2 events/100 person-years over the course of 10 years. Oral candidiasis, active tuberculosis, demyelinating disorders, and lupus-like reactions were rare, each occurring at an incidence of less than 0.1 event/100 person-years.
Dr. Thaci’s 10-year update from the ongoing registry follows an earlier report of the 5-year results (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015 Sep;73[3]:410-9.e6).
The ESPRIT registry is sponsored by AbbVie. Dr. Thaci reported serving as a consultant to and/or receiving research grants from that pharmaceutical company and nearly two dozen others.
MADRID – Psoriasis patients on adalimumab for up to 10 years in the prospective, observational, international, real-world ESPRIT registry had a sharply reduced likelihood of all-cause mortality, compared with the age- and sex-matched general population in participating countries, Diamant T. Thaci, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
“If someone tells you that you as a dermatologist can save patient lives by controlling psoriasis, you may not believe it. But look at this standardized mortality ratio data,” said Dr. Thaci, professor of dermatology and head of the Comprehensive Center for Inflammation Medicine at the University of Luebeck (Germany).
Indeed, the standardized in routine clinical practice, was 58% lower than expected, based upon published mortality rate data for the general population in the United States, Canada, and the 10 participating European countries. A total of 144 deaths were predicted in the matched general population, yet only 60 deaths occurred in adalimumab-treated registry participants.
This finding is all the more remarkable because ESPRIT participants had high rates of cardiovascular risk factors, as well as a substantial burden of comorbid conditions, as is typical for patients with chronic moderate to severe psoriasis encountered in real-world clinical practice. It’s a different population than enrollees in the long-term, open-label extensions of phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trials of biologics in psoriasis, which at the outset typically excluded patients with baseline substantial comorbidities, he noted.
Moreover, the incidence rates of serious infections, malignancies, and cardiovascular events in ESPRIT participants remained stable over time and well within the range of published rates in psoriasis patients not on biologic therapy.
“All of this underscores the importance of good control of psoriasis,” Dr. Thaci commented.
The ESPRIT registry began enrolling patients and evaluating them every 6 months in 2008, when the vast majority of dermatologists in clinical practice relied upon Physician Global Assessment (PGA) to evaluate treatment efficacy. For this reason, the PGA, rather than the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, was the main efficacy measure utilized in the registry. The rate of PGA “clear” or “almost clear” was steady over time at 57% at 1 year, 62.1% at 5 years, and 61.5% at 10 years. It should be noted that this was reported in an “as-observed” analysis, which introduces bias favoring a rosier picture of efficacy since by 10 years slightly under half of patients remained on the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.
However, the primary focus of this ESPRIT analysis was safety, not efficacy. The rate of serious infections was 1.0 event per 100 person-years on adalimumab, compared with published rates of 0.3-2.1 events/100 person-years in psoriasis patients not on a biologic. Malignancies occurred at a rate of 1.3 events/100 person-years in ESPRIT, compared with published rates of 0.5-2.0/100 person-years in psoriasis patients not on biologic therapy. Acute MI occurred at a rate of 0.1 cases/100 person-years in ESPRIT, stroke at 0.2 events/100 person-years, and heart failure at less than 0.1 event/100 person-years, versus a collective rate of 0.6-1.5 events/100 person-years in the comparator population.
Another view of the data is that, at 10 years, 99.4% of ESPRIT participants had not experienced an acute MI, 95.9% hadn’t had a malignancy, and 96.1% remained free of serious infection while on adalimumab, Dr. Thaci continued.
Injection-site reactions, a significant source of concern when adalimumab first reached the marketplace, occurred at a rate of 0.2 events/100 person-years over the course of 10 years. Oral candidiasis, active tuberculosis, demyelinating disorders, and lupus-like reactions were rare, each occurring at an incidence of less than 0.1 event/100 person-years.
Dr. Thaci’s 10-year update from the ongoing registry follows an earlier report of the 5-year results (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015 Sep;73[3]:410-9.e6).
The ESPRIT registry is sponsored by AbbVie. Dr. Thaci reported serving as a consultant to and/or receiving research grants from that pharmaceutical company and nearly two dozen others.
REPORTING FROM THE EADV CONGRESS