User login
In atopic dermatitis trial, abrocitinib offers faster itch relief than dupilumab
), in a multicenter randomized trial presented as a late breaker at the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
The earlier onset of action with the JAK inhibitor was achieved even though most patients in both arms were on topical corticosteroids, a design element that “is clinically relevant” for a practical comparison of these two agents, according to Kristian Reich, MD, PhD, Center for Translational Research in Inflammatory Skin Diseases, University Medical Center, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
The goal of this phase 3b trial, called JADE DARE, was to compare relative safety and efficacy of these strategies over the early course of treatment, he said.
Over 700 patients randomized
JADE DARE enrolled 727 patients over age 18 years who previously had an inadequate response to conventional topical therapies. All had moderate to severe AD defined by criteria such as body surface area greater than or equal to 10% and Eczema Area Severity Index (EASI) greater than or equal to 16. They were randomly assigned to 200 mg oral abrocitinib once daily or 300 mg subcutaneous dupilumab (after a loading dose of 600 mg) every 2 weeks. A double-dummy design preserved blinding.
The coprimary endpoints were at least a 4-point improvement in pruritus as measured with the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS) score at week 2 and at least a 90% improvement in the EASI (EASI 90) at week 4.
The primary endpoint for pruritus at 2 weeks was reached by nearly twice as many patients randomly assigned to abrocitinib (46.2% vs. 25.5%; P < .001). The proportion of those meeting the EASI 90 endpoint at week 4 was also superior on abrocitinib (28.5% vs. 14.6%; P < .001)
Advantage for pruritus control dissipates
For the pruritus endpoint, the advantage of abrocitinib slowly diminished over time after the peak difference observed at 2 weeks. Although the advantage at week 4 (58.1% vs. 40.8%) and week 8 (65.8% vs. 52.7%) remained sizable, there were very small differences thereafter. However, Dr. Reich pointed out that the percentages continued to favor abrocitinib at least numerically through the 26 weeks of follow-up completed so far.
The pattern of response on EASI 90 was not the same. After demonstrating superiority at the 4-week timepoint, the advantage of abrocitinib persisted. When compared at week 16, which was a secondary endpoint of the JADE DARE trial, the advantage of abrocitinib remained significant (54.3% vs. 41.9%; P < .001). The advantage of abrocitinib narrowed but remained numerically superior at 26 weeks (54.6% vs. 47.6%).
Based on the data collected to date, “abrocitinib is clearly superior early on,” Dr. Reich said. Moreover, he reiterated that topical corticosteroids were allowed as background therapy in both arms.
“It is difficult to show an advantage for one active therapy over the other in patients on background corticosteroids,” Dr. Reich maintained.
Both drugs are well tolerated
The drugs were similarly well tolerated. Serious adverse events were uncommon in either arm. The rate of study dropouts due to an adverse event potentially related to treatment assignment was 3% in each group.
Nausea (19% vs. 2%), acne (13.5% vs. 2%), and headache (13% vs. 7.5%) were all more common in patients randomly assigned to abrocitinib. Conjunctivitis was more common in the group randomly assigned to dupilumab (10% vs. 2%).
The two deaths that occurred during this study were in the abrocitinib arm, but one was the result of COVID-19 infection and the other was a cardiovascular event in a patient with risk factors. Neither was considered to be treatment-related.
Abrocitinib’s relative selectivity for the JAK1 inhibitor is a potential differentiator from other currently available JAK inhibitors, although direct comparisons of these therapies for clinical activity in AD as well as most other diseases remains limited.
The relatively rapid relief of pruritus with the JAK inhibitor relative to the monoclonal antibody in the JADE DARE trial is likely to be perceived as clinically significant by patients with AD, according to Sonja Ständer, MD, professor of dermatology and neurodermatology at the University Hospital Münster, Germany.
“One of the highest needs of patients with atopic dermatitis is a rapid and profound relief of itch,” Dr. Ständer, who wrote a review article on AD earlier this year, said in an interview.
Although several current therapies are effective against pruritus, Dr. Ständer believes that the higher proportion of patients achieving itch control at 2 weeks on abrocitinib “will attract the attention of affected patients.”
However, she added that patients need to take both benefits and risks into account, indicating that clinical utility cannot be judged on a single outcome. In selecting one drug over the others, she advised “a balanced use of therapies.”
Abrocitinib was first approved in the United Kingdom in early September, followed by Japan last Thursday, for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in patients ages 12 and older. It is under review elsewhere, including in the United States and the European Union for AD.
In September, the FDA approved the first JAK inhibitor for treating AD – a topical JAK inhibitor, ruxolitinib.
Dr. Reich reports financial relationships with 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, which provided funding for the JADE DARE trial. Dr. Ständer reports financial relationships with Beiersdorf AG, Galderma, Kliniska, Lilly, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
), in a multicenter randomized trial presented as a late breaker at the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
The earlier onset of action with the JAK inhibitor was achieved even though most patients in both arms were on topical corticosteroids, a design element that “is clinically relevant” for a practical comparison of these two agents, according to Kristian Reich, MD, PhD, Center for Translational Research in Inflammatory Skin Diseases, University Medical Center, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
The goal of this phase 3b trial, called JADE DARE, was to compare relative safety and efficacy of these strategies over the early course of treatment, he said.
Over 700 patients randomized
JADE DARE enrolled 727 patients over age 18 years who previously had an inadequate response to conventional topical therapies. All had moderate to severe AD defined by criteria such as body surface area greater than or equal to 10% and Eczema Area Severity Index (EASI) greater than or equal to 16. They were randomly assigned to 200 mg oral abrocitinib once daily or 300 mg subcutaneous dupilumab (after a loading dose of 600 mg) every 2 weeks. A double-dummy design preserved blinding.
The coprimary endpoints were at least a 4-point improvement in pruritus as measured with the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS) score at week 2 and at least a 90% improvement in the EASI (EASI 90) at week 4.
The primary endpoint for pruritus at 2 weeks was reached by nearly twice as many patients randomly assigned to abrocitinib (46.2% vs. 25.5%; P < .001). The proportion of those meeting the EASI 90 endpoint at week 4 was also superior on abrocitinib (28.5% vs. 14.6%; P < .001)
Advantage for pruritus control dissipates
For the pruritus endpoint, the advantage of abrocitinib slowly diminished over time after the peak difference observed at 2 weeks. Although the advantage at week 4 (58.1% vs. 40.8%) and week 8 (65.8% vs. 52.7%) remained sizable, there were very small differences thereafter. However, Dr. Reich pointed out that the percentages continued to favor abrocitinib at least numerically through the 26 weeks of follow-up completed so far.
The pattern of response on EASI 90 was not the same. After demonstrating superiority at the 4-week timepoint, the advantage of abrocitinib persisted. When compared at week 16, which was a secondary endpoint of the JADE DARE trial, the advantage of abrocitinib remained significant (54.3% vs. 41.9%; P < .001). The advantage of abrocitinib narrowed but remained numerically superior at 26 weeks (54.6% vs. 47.6%).
Based on the data collected to date, “abrocitinib is clearly superior early on,” Dr. Reich said. Moreover, he reiterated that topical corticosteroids were allowed as background therapy in both arms.
“It is difficult to show an advantage for one active therapy over the other in patients on background corticosteroids,” Dr. Reich maintained.
Both drugs are well tolerated
The drugs were similarly well tolerated. Serious adverse events were uncommon in either arm. The rate of study dropouts due to an adverse event potentially related to treatment assignment was 3% in each group.
Nausea (19% vs. 2%), acne (13.5% vs. 2%), and headache (13% vs. 7.5%) were all more common in patients randomly assigned to abrocitinib. Conjunctivitis was more common in the group randomly assigned to dupilumab (10% vs. 2%).
The two deaths that occurred during this study were in the abrocitinib arm, but one was the result of COVID-19 infection and the other was a cardiovascular event in a patient with risk factors. Neither was considered to be treatment-related.
Abrocitinib’s relative selectivity for the JAK1 inhibitor is a potential differentiator from other currently available JAK inhibitors, although direct comparisons of these therapies for clinical activity in AD as well as most other diseases remains limited.
The relatively rapid relief of pruritus with the JAK inhibitor relative to the monoclonal antibody in the JADE DARE trial is likely to be perceived as clinically significant by patients with AD, according to Sonja Ständer, MD, professor of dermatology and neurodermatology at the University Hospital Münster, Germany.
“One of the highest needs of patients with atopic dermatitis is a rapid and profound relief of itch,” Dr. Ständer, who wrote a review article on AD earlier this year, said in an interview.
Although several current therapies are effective against pruritus, Dr. Ständer believes that the higher proportion of patients achieving itch control at 2 weeks on abrocitinib “will attract the attention of affected patients.”
However, she added that patients need to take both benefits and risks into account, indicating that clinical utility cannot be judged on a single outcome. In selecting one drug over the others, she advised “a balanced use of therapies.”
Abrocitinib was first approved in the United Kingdom in early September, followed by Japan last Thursday, for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in patients ages 12 and older. It is under review elsewhere, including in the United States and the European Union for AD.
In September, the FDA approved the first JAK inhibitor for treating AD – a topical JAK inhibitor, ruxolitinib.
Dr. Reich reports financial relationships with 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, which provided funding for the JADE DARE trial. Dr. Ständer reports financial relationships with Beiersdorf AG, Galderma, Kliniska, Lilly, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
), in a multicenter randomized trial presented as a late breaker at the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
The earlier onset of action with the JAK inhibitor was achieved even though most patients in both arms were on topical corticosteroids, a design element that “is clinically relevant” for a practical comparison of these two agents, according to Kristian Reich, MD, PhD, Center for Translational Research in Inflammatory Skin Diseases, University Medical Center, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
The goal of this phase 3b trial, called JADE DARE, was to compare relative safety and efficacy of these strategies over the early course of treatment, he said.
Over 700 patients randomized
JADE DARE enrolled 727 patients over age 18 years who previously had an inadequate response to conventional topical therapies. All had moderate to severe AD defined by criteria such as body surface area greater than or equal to 10% and Eczema Area Severity Index (EASI) greater than or equal to 16. They were randomly assigned to 200 mg oral abrocitinib once daily or 300 mg subcutaneous dupilumab (after a loading dose of 600 mg) every 2 weeks. A double-dummy design preserved blinding.
The coprimary endpoints were at least a 4-point improvement in pruritus as measured with the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS) score at week 2 and at least a 90% improvement in the EASI (EASI 90) at week 4.
The primary endpoint for pruritus at 2 weeks was reached by nearly twice as many patients randomly assigned to abrocitinib (46.2% vs. 25.5%; P < .001). The proportion of those meeting the EASI 90 endpoint at week 4 was also superior on abrocitinib (28.5% vs. 14.6%; P < .001)
Advantage for pruritus control dissipates
For the pruritus endpoint, the advantage of abrocitinib slowly diminished over time after the peak difference observed at 2 weeks. Although the advantage at week 4 (58.1% vs. 40.8%) and week 8 (65.8% vs. 52.7%) remained sizable, there were very small differences thereafter. However, Dr. Reich pointed out that the percentages continued to favor abrocitinib at least numerically through the 26 weeks of follow-up completed so far.
The pattern of response on EASI 90 was not the same. After demonstrating superiority at the 4-week timepoint, the advantage of abrocitinib persisted. When compared at week 16, which was a secondary endpoint of the JADE DARE trial, the advantage of abrocitinib remained significant (54.3% vs. 41.9%; P < .001). The advantage of abrocitinib narrowed but remained numerically superior at 26 weeks (54.6% vs. 47.6%).
Based on the data collected to date, “abrocitinib is clearly superior early on,” Dr. Reich said. Moreover, he reiterated that topical corticosteroids were allowed as background therapy in both arms.
“It is difficult to show an advantage for one active therapy over the other in patients on background corticosteroids,” Dr. Reich maintained.
Both drugs are well tolerated
The drugs were similarly well tolerated. Serious adverse events were uncommon in either arm. The rate of study dropouts due to an adverse event potentially related to treatment assignment was 3% in each group.
Nausea (19% vs. 2%), acne (13.5% vs. 2%), and headache (13% vs. 7.5%) were all more common in patients randomly assigned to abrocitinib. Conjunctivitis was more common in the group randomly assigned to dupilumab (10% vs. 2%).
The two deaths that occurred during this study were in the abrocitinib arm, but one was the result of COVID-19 infection and the other was a cardiovascular event in a patient with risk factors. Neither was considered to be treatment-related.
Abrocitinib’s relative selectivity for the JAK1 inhibitor is a potential differentiator from other currently available JAK inhibitors, although direct comparisons of these therapies for clinical activity in AD as well as most other diseases remains limited.
The relatively rapid relief of pruritus with the JAK inhibitor relative to the monoclonal antibody in the JADE DARE trial is likely to be perceived as clinically significant by patients with AD, according to Sonja Ständer, MD, professor of dermatology and neurodermatology at the University Hospital Münster, Germany.
“One of the highest needs of patients with atopic dermatitis is a rapid and profound relief of itch,” Dr. Ständer, who wrote a review article on AD earlier this year, said in an interview.
Although several current therapies are effective against pruritus, Dr. Ständer believes that the higher proportion of patients achieving itch control at 2 weeks on abrocitinib “will attract the attention of affected patients.”
However, she added that patients need to take both benefits and risks into account, indicating that clinical utility cannot be judged on a single outcome. In selecting one drug over the others, she advised “a balanced use of therapies.”
Abrocitinib was first approved in the United Kingdom in early September, followed by Japan last Thursday, for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in patients ages 12 and older. It is under review elsewhere, including in the United States and the European Union for AD.
In September, the FDA approved the first JAK inhibitor for treating AD – a topical JAK inhibitor, ruxolitinib.
Dr. Reich reports financial relationships with 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, which provided funding for the JADE DARE trial. Dr. Ständer reports financial relationships with Beiersdorf AG, Galderma, Kliniska, Lilly, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
JAK inhibitor provides impressive hair growth for patients with alopecia areata
, according to the results of two phase 3 trials presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2021 Annual Meeting.
In both trials, severe alopecia areata, defined as a SALT (Severity of Alopecia Tool) score of greater than or equal to 50, was an enrollment requirement. The primary endpoint was a SALT score of less than or equal to 20, signifying 80% scalp coverage.
“The mean SALT score at entry was 85,” reported Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He explained that the SALT scale extends from 0 (no hair loss) to 100 (complete hair loss). About 45% of patients in the phase 3 trials had alopecia universalis.
In both trials, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, a response was seen with baricitinib after about 4 weeks. Response increased steadily through the entire 36 weeks of treatment. At the end of 36 weeks, when response curves still had an upward trajectory, the proportion of those treated with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib who had achieved a SALT score of less than or equal to 20 had reached 35.2% in BRAVE-AA1 and 32.5% in BRAVE-AA2.
The nearly identical BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials enrolled 654 and 546 patients, respectively. The patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2:2 ratio to receive baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg, or placebo. All treatments were taken once daily. Regrowth of eyebrow and eyelash hair were secondary outcomes.
There was a clear dose effect; hair growth increased more quickly with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib than with the 2-mg dose. The difference between the active therapy and placebo was significant by 16 weeks with the 4-mg dose. By 24 weeks, the advantage of the 2-mg dose over placebo also reached significance. The response rate with the 4-mg dose was nearly twice as great.
At the end of the 36-week trials, the proportion of patients treated with baricitinib 2 mg who achieved the primary endpoint was 21.7% and 17.3% in the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, respectively. Among patients taking placebo, the primary endpoint was met by 5.3% and 2.6%, respectively, at the end of the two trials.
The differences in responses with the 4-mg and the 2-mg doses were significantly higher compared with placebo (P ≤ .001 for both doses vs. placebo).
Using a scoring system for eyebrow and eyelash hair loss, the proportion of patients who achieved a score of 0 (full coverage) or 1 (minimal gaps) was again superior in both trials for patients taking the higher dose of baricitinib. This level of response was reached by about 31% to 35% of those taking the 4-mg dose in BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 (P ≤ .001 vs. placebo). With the lower dose, the rates were 19.1% and 13.5%, respectively. This endpoint was reached in only about 3% of patients who took placebo.
Rates of adverse events were modestly higher in the two active treatment groups in comparison with the group taking placebo. The most commonly occurring adverse events with baricitinib included upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infections, and headache, according to Dr. King.
“Most of the adverse events were mild to moderate,” he said. He also reported that none of these adverse events occurred in more than 10% of patients, and there were no cases of other opportunistic infections, thromboembolic events, or gastrointestinal perforations. The discontinuation rates because of adverse events with active therapy were less than 3% in both trials.
JAK inhibitors are currently employed in the treatment of a variety of inflammatory diseases. Baricitinib is currently approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Because specificity differs markedly for their inhibition of JAK kinases (JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and Tyk2), these drugs do not appear to be interchangeable with regard to clinical effect.
Several case reports of hair regrowth with baricitinib led to a phase 2 trial, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. In this trial, the therapy also yielded substantial benefit for patients with alopecia areata. The benefit of baricitinib is attributed to inhibition of JAK1 and JAK2 signaling, which has been implicated in cytokine-mediated immune dysfunction leading to damage of hair follicles.
Alopecia areata is a common disorder that can have a large adverse impact on quality of life, Dr. King noted. There is no approved therapy for this condition, so there is a large unmet need. Although longer follow-up is needed to gauge sustained efficacy and safety, he considers these results promising for a therapy with clinically meaningful benefit.
This point was reiterated by Yolanda Gilaberte Calzada, MD, PhD, head of the Dermatology Service, University Hospital Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain, who was moderator of the session in which Dr. King presented these data. She expressed excitement about the promise of baricitinib, particularly with regard to the substantial proportion of patients who achieved meaningful degrees of hair regrowth.
“All of us will be happy to have options for alopecia areata,” said Dr. Calzada, who predicted that the higher dose of baricitinib will be selected for clinical development, given its greater efficacy with little increase in safety concerns.
Eli Lilly provided funding for the BRAVE-AA1 and -AA2 trials. Dr. King has financial relationships with Arena, Aclaris, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Calzada has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to the results of two phase 3 trials presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2021 Annual Meeting.
In both trials, severe alopecia areata, defined as a SALT (Severity of Alopecia Tool) score of greater than or equal to 50, was an enrollment requirement. The primary endpoint was a SALT score of less than or equal to 20, signifying 80% scalp coverage.
“The mean SALT score at entry was 85,” reported Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He explained that the SALT scale extends from 0 (no hair loss) to 100 (complete hair loss). About 45% of patients in the phase 3 trials had alopecia universalis.
In both trials, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, a response was seen with baricitinib after about 4 weeks. Response increased steadily through the entire 36 weeks of treatment. At the end of 36 weeks, when response curves still had an upward trajectory, the proportion of those treated with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib who had achieved a SALT score of less than or equal to 20 had reached 35.2% in BRAVE-AA1 and 32.5% in BRAVE-AA2.
The nearly identical BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials enrolled 654 and 546 patients, respectively. The patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2:2 ratio to receive baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg, or placebo. All treatments were taken once daily. Regrowth of eyebrow and eyelash hair were secondary outcomes.
There was a clear dose effect; hair growth increased more quickly with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib than with the 2-mg dose. The difference between the active therapy and placebo was significant by 16 weeks with the 4-mg dose. By 24 weeks, the advantage of the 2-mg dose over placebo also reached significance. The response rate with the 4-mg dose was nearly twice as great.
At the end of the 36-week trials, the proportion of patients treated with baricitinib 2 mg who achieved the primary endpoint was 21.7% and 17.3% in the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, respectively. Among patients taking placebo, the primary endpoint was met by 5.3% and 2.6%, respectively, at the end of the two trials.
The differences in responses with the 4-mg and the 2-mg doses were significantly higher compared with placebo (P ≤ .001 for both doses vs. placebo).
Using a scoring system for eyebrow and eyelash hair loss, the proportion of patients who achieved a score of 0 (full coverage) or 1 (minimal gaps) was again superior in both trials for patients taking the higher dose of baricitinib. This level of response was reached by about 31% to 35% of those taking the 4-mg dose in BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 (P ≤ .001 vs. placebo). With the lower dose, the rates were 19.1% and 13.5%, respectively. This endpoint was reached in only about 3% of patients who took placebo.
Rates of adverse events were modestly higher in the two active treatment groups in comparison with the group taking placebo. The most commonly occurring adverse events with baricitinib included upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infections, and headache, according to Dr. King.
“Most of the adverse events were mild to moderate,” he said. He also reported that none of these adverse events occurred in more than 10% of patients, and there were no cases of other opportunistic infections, thromboembolic events, or gastrointestinal perforations. The discontinuation rates because of adverse events with active therapy were less than 3% in both trials.
JAK inhibitors are currently employed in the treatment of a variety of inflammatory diseases. Baricitinib is currently approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Because specificity differs markedly for their inhibition of JAK kinases (JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and Tyk2), these drugs do not appear to be interchangeable with regard to clinical effect.
Several case reports of hair regrowth with baricitinib led to a phase 2 trial, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. In this trial, the therapy also yielded substantial benefit for patients with alopecia areata. The benefit of baricitinib is attributed to inhibition of JAK1 and JAK2 signaling, which has been implicated in cytokine-mediated immune dysfunction leading to damage of hair follicles.
Alopecia areata is a common disorder that can have a large adverse impact on quality of life, Dr. King noted. There is no approved therapy for this condition, so there is a large unmet need. Although longer follow-up is needed to gauge sustained efficacy and safety, he considers these results promising for a therapy with clinically meaningful benefit.
This point was reiterated by Yolanda Gilaberte Calzada, MD, PhD, head of the Dermatology Service, University Hospital Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain, who was moderator of the session in which Dr. King presented these data. She expressed excitement about the promise of baricitinib, particularly with regard to the substantial proportion of patients who achieved meaningful degrees of hair regrowth.
“All of us will be happy to have options for alopecia areata,” said Dr. Calzada, who predicted that the higher dose of baricitinib will be selected for clinical development, given its greater efficacy with little increase in safety concerns.
Eli Lilly provided funding for the BRAVE-AA1 and -AA2 trials. Dr. King has financial relationships with Arena, Aclaris, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Calzada has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to the results of two phase 3 trials presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2021 Annual Meeting.
In both trials, severe alopecia areata, defined as a SALT (Severity of Alopecia Tool) score of greater than or equal to 50, was an enrollment requirement. The primary endpoint was a SALT score of less than or equal to 20, signifying 80% scalp coverage.
“The mean SALT score at entry was 85,” reported Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He explained that the SALT scale extends from 0 (no hair loss) to 100 (complete hair loss). About 45% of patients in the phase 3 trials had alopecia universalis.
In both trials, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, a response was seen with baricitinib after about 4 weeks. Response increased steadily through the entire 36 weeks of treatment. At the end of 36 weeks, when response curves still had an upward trajectory, the proportion of those treated with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib who had achieved a SALT score of less than or equal to 20 had reached 35.2% in BRAVE-AA1 and 32.5% in BRAVE-AA2.
The nearly identical BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials enrolled 654 and 546 patients, respectively. The patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2:2 ratio to receive baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg, or placebo. All treatments were taken once daily. Regrowth of eyebrow and eyelash hair were secondary outcomes.
There was a clear dose effect; hair growth increased more quickly with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib than with the 2-mg dose. The difference between the active therapy and placebo was significant by 16 weeks with the 4-mg dose. By 24 weeks, the advantage of the 2-mg dose over placebo also reached significance. The response rate with the 4-mg dose was nearly twice as great.
At the end of the 36-week trials, the proportion of patients treated with baricitinib 2 mg who achieved the primary endpoint was 21.7% and 17.3% in the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, respectively. Among patients taking placebo, the primary endpoint was met by 5.3% and 2.6%, respectively, at the end of the two trials.
The differences in responses with the 4-mg and the 2-mg doses were significantly higher compared with placebo (P ≤ .001 for both doses vs. placebo).
Using a scoring system for eyebrow and eyelash hair loss, the proportion of patients who achieved a score of 0 (full coverage) or 1 (minimal gaps) was again superior in both trials for patients taking the higher dose of baricitinib. This level of response was reached by about 31% to 35% of those taking the 4-mg dose in BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 (P ≤ .001 vs. placebo). With the lower dose, the rates were 19.1% and 13.5%, respectively. This endpoint was reached in only about 3% of patients who took placebo.
Rates of adverse events were modestly higher in the two active treatment groups in comparison with the group taking placebo. The most commonly occurring adverse events with baricitinib included upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infections, and headache, according to Dr. King.
“Most of the adverse events were mild to moderate,” he said. He also reported that none of these adverse events occurred in more than 10% of patients, and there were no cases of other opportunistic infections, thromboembolic events, or gastrointestinal perforations. The discontinuation rates because of adverse events with active therapy were less than 3% in both trials.
JAK inhibitors are currently employed in the treatment of a variety of inflammatory diseases. Baricitinib is currently approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Because specificity differs markedly for their inhibition of JAK kinases (JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and Tyk2), these drugs do not appear to be interchangeable with regard to clinical effect.
Several case reports of hair regrowth with baricitinib led to a phase 2 trial, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. In this trial, the therapy also yielded substantial benefit for patients with alopecia areata. The benefit of baricitinib is attributed to inhibition of JAK1 and JAK2 signaling, which has been implicated in cytokine-mediated immune dysfunction leading to damage of hair follicles.
Alopecia areata is a common disorder that can have a large adverse impact on quality of life, Dr. King noted. There is no approved therapy for this condition, so there is a large unmet need. Although longer follow-up is needed to gauge sustained efficacy and safety, he considers these results promising for a therapy with clinically meaningful benefit.
This point was reiterated by Yolanda Gilaberte Calzada, MD, PhD, head of the Dermatology Service, University Hospital Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain, who was moderator of the session in which Dr. King presented these data. She expressed excitement about the promise of baricitinib, particularly with regard to the substantial proportion of patients who achieved meaningful degrees of hair regrowth.
“All of us will be happy to have options for alopecia areata,” said Dr. Calzada, who predicted that the higher dose of baricitinib will be selected for clinical development, given its greater efficacy with little increase in safety concerns.
Eli Lilly provided funding for the BRAVE-AA1 and -AA2 trials. Dr. King has financial relationships with Arena, Aclaris, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Calzada has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ruxolitinib cream meets primary endpoints in phase 3 vitiligo trial
presented together at the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
On the primary endpoint of F-VASI 75 (75% improvement in the Facial and Vitiligo Scoring Index), rates were nearly four times higher at 24 weeks in one trial (29.9% vs. 7.5%; P < .0001) and more than twice as great in the other (29.9% vs. 12.9%; P < .01).
“The larger phase 3 trials confirm the previous phase 2 findings,” reported David Rosmarin, MD, vice chairman for research and education, department of dermatology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston. These findings not only include substantial clinical efficacy but good tolerability with “no serious treatment-related adverse events,” he noted.
600 patients randomized
In one of the trials, called TRuE-V1, 330 patients with vitiligo were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to 1.5% ruxolitinib or vehicle applied twice daily. In the other trial, called TRuE-V2, 344 patients were randomly assigned. The participating centers were in Europe and North America.
Patients aged 12 years or older with nonsegmental vitiligo and depigmentation covering no more than 10% of the total body surface area were eligible. The mean baseline F-VASI values were 1.0. The mean total VASI (T-FASI) values were 6.5. On those enrolled, half were female, 11% were adolescents, and 73% had Fitzpatrick skin phototypes III-VI.
Ruxolitinib cream provided near-complete vitiligo clearance (F-VASI 90) on the face at 24 weeks in only about 15% of patients, but this was several times higher than the 2% achieved on vehicle in the TRuE-V1 (P < .01) and the TRuE-V2 trials (P < .05), respectively.
F-VASI 50 response rates greater than 50%
For F-VASI 50, the response rate with ruxolitinib in both studies was approximately 51%. Relative to the 17.2% response on vehicle in TRuE-v1 and 23.4% in TRuE-V2 (both P < .0001 vs. active therapy), the advantage of the topical JAK inhibitor was considered to be a clinically meaningful, not just significant from a statistical standpoint.
In fact, improvement on the 5-point Vitiligo Noticeability Scale “also supported a clinically meaningful benefit,” Dr. Rosmarin reported. When those achieving a score of 4 (much less noticeable) or 5 (no longer noticeable), the response rates at 24 weeks were 24.5% and 21.6% in the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 trials, respectively. Again, these response rates were several times greater than the 3.3% (P < .001) and 6.6% (P < .01) observed in the vehicle arms of TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 (P < .01), respectively.
Treatment-related adverse events were infrequent. The most common were acne at the application site, which occurred in about 5% of patients receiving ruxolitinib (vs. 2% or fewer of those receiving vehicle) and pruritus, which also occurred in about 5% of patients. However, the rates of pruritus among those on placebo reached 4% in TRuE-V1 and 2% in TRuE-V2 trials.
In vitiligo, where there has been recent progress in understanding the pathophysiology, loss of melanocytes in immune dysregulation has been linked to activation of the JAK signaling pathway, according to Dr. Rosmarin. In the 52-week phase 2 trial with 205 patients, ruxolitinib was associated with a sustained response and no serious treatment-related adverse events.
52-week data might show more benefit
Patients are continuing to be followed in the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V-2 trials. Based on the phase 2 data and on the progressive improvement still being observed at the end of 24 weeks in the phase 3 trials, Dr. Rosmarin expects 52-week results be valuable in understanding the clinical role of ruxolitinib.
“We will be looking for further improvement in response as we follow these patients out to 1 year,” he said.
This further follow-up is important, agreed Iltefat Hamzavi, MD, senior staff physician, department of dermatology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.
Despite the promise of perhaps other JAK inhibitors, “we still need to understand how long it will take for the drug to offer optimal results. We already know that is more than 24 weeks,” said Dr. Hamzavi, who has been involved in the clinical trials with this drug but was not involved with the TRuE-V1 or -V2 trials.
He also said more follow-up is needed to understand the duration of effect. He is, however, optimistic about the clinical role of this mechanism for treatment of vitiligo.
“I do think that JAK inhibitors show a lot of promise [in vitiligo] for certain locations of the body,” he said.
Given the limited treatment options for effective and prolonged improvement in vitiligo, both Dr. Hamzavi and Dr. Rosmarin indicated an effective topical cream is likely to be considered by physicians and patients to be a substantial advance.
On Sept. 21, ruxolitinib (Opzelura) 1.5% cream was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the short-term treatment of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in children and adults ages 12 years and older – the first FDA approval of this product.
Dr. Rosmarin reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte, which provided funding for the TRuE-V1 and -V2 trials. Dr. Hamzavi reported financial relationships with more than 15 companies with pharmaceutical or cosmetic products, including Incyte.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
presented together at the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
On the primary endpoint of F-VASI 75 (75% improvement in the Facial and Vitiligo Scoring Index), rates were nearly four times higher at 24 weeks in one trial (29.9% vs. 7.5%; P < .0001) and more than twice as great in the other (29.9% vs. 12.9%; P < .01).
“The larger phase 3 trials confirm the previous phase 2 findings,” reported David Rosmarin, MD, vice chairman for research and education, department of dermatology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston. These findings not only include substantial clinical efficacy but good tolerability with “no serious treatment-related adverse events,” he noted.
600 patients randomized
In one of the trials, called TRuE-V1, 330 patients with vitiligo were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to 1.5% ruxolitinib or vehicle applied twice daily. In the other trial, called TRuE-V2, 344 patients were randomly assigned. The participating centers were in Europe and North America.
Patients aged 12 years or older with nonsegmental vitiligo and depigmentation covering no more than 10% of the total body surface area were eligible. The mean baseline F-VASI values were 1.0. The mean total VASI (T-FASI) values were 6.5. On those enrolled, half were female, 11% were adolescents, and 73% had Fitzpatrick skin phototypes III-VI.
Ruxolitinib cream provided near-complete vitiligo clearance (F-VASI 90) on the face at 24 weeks in only about 15% of patients, but this was several times higher than the 2% achieved on vehicle in the TRuE-V1 (P < .01) and the TRuE-V2 trials (P < .05), respectively.
F-VASI 50 response rates greater than 50%
For F-VASI 50, the response rate with ruxolitinib in both studies was approximately 51%. Relative to the 17.2% response on vehicle in TRuE-v1 and 23.4% in TRuE-V2 (both P < .0001 vs. active therapy), the advantage of the topical JAK inhibitor was considered to be a clinically meaningful, not just significant from a statistical standpoint.
In fact, improvement on the 5-point Vitiligo Noticeability Scale “also supported a clinically meaningful benefit,” Dr. Rosmarin reported. When those achieving a score of 4 (much less noticeable) or 5 (no longer noticeable), the response rates at 24 weeks were 24.5% and 21.6% in the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 trials, respectively. Again, these response rates were several times greater than the 3.3% (P < .001) and 6.6% (P < .01) observed in the vehicle arms of TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 (P < .01), respectively.
Treatment-related adverse events were infrequent. The most common were acne at the application site, which occurred in about 5% of patients receiving ruxolitinib (vs. 2% or fewer of those receiving vehicle) and pruritus, which also occurred in about 5% of patients. However, the rates of pruritus among those on placebo reached 4% in TRuE-V1 and 2% in TRuE-V2 trials.
In vitiligo, where there has been recent progress in understanding the pathophysiology, loss of melanocytes in immune dysregulation has been linked to activation of the JAK signaling pathway, according to Dr. Rosmarin. In the 52-week phase 2 trial with 205 patients, ruxolitinib was associated with a sustained response and no serious treatment-related adverse events.
52-week data might show more benefit
Patients are continuing to be followed in the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V-2 trials. Based on the phase 2 data and on the progressive improvement still being observed at the end of 24 weeks in the phase 3 trials, Dr. Rosmarin expects 52-week results be valuable in understanding the clinical role of ruxolitinib.
“We will be looking for further improvement in response as we follow these patients out to 1 year,” he said.
This further follow-up is important, agreed Iltefat Hamzavi, MD, senior staff physician, department of dermatology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.
Despite the promise of perhaps other JAK inhibitors, “we still need to understand how long it will take for the drug to offer optimal results. We already know that is more than 24 weeks,” said Dr. Hamzavi, who has been involved in the clinical trials with this drug but was not involved with the TRuE-V1 or -V2 trials.
He also said more follow-up is needed to understand the duration of effect. He is, however, optimistic about the clinical role of this mechanism for treatment of vitiligo.
“I do think that JAK inhibitors show a lot of promise [in vitiligo] for certain locations of the body,” he said.
Given the limited treatment options for effective and prolonged improvement in vitiligo, both Dr. Hamzavi and Dr. Rosmarin indicated an effective topical cream is likely to be considered by physicians and patients to be a substantial advance.
On Sept. 21, ruxolitinib (Opzelura) 1.5% cream was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the short-term treatment of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in children and adults ages 12 years and older – the first FDA approval of this product.
Dr. Rosmarin reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte, which provided funding for the TRuE-V1 and -V2 trials. Dr. Hamzavi reported financial relationships with more than 15 companies with pharmaceutical or cosmetic products, including Incyte.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
presented together at the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
On the primary endpoint of F-VASI 75 (75% improvement in the Facial and Vitiligo Scoring Index), rates were nearly four times higher at 24 weeks in one trial (29.9% vs. 7.5%; P < .0001) and more than twice as great in the other (29.9% vs. 12.9%; P < .01).
“The larger phase 3 trials confirm the previous phase 2 findings,” reported David Rosmarin, MD, vice chairman for research and education, department of dermatology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston. These findings not only include substantial clinical efficacy but good tolerability with “no serious treatment-related adverse events,” he noted.
600 patients randomized
In one of the trials, called TRuE-V1, 330 patients with vitiligo were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to 1.5% ruxolitinib or vehicle applied twice daily. In the other trial, called TRuE-V2, 344 patients were randomly assigned. The participating centers were in Europe and North America.
Patients aged 12 years or older with nonsegmental vitiligo and depigmentation covering no more than 10% of the total body surface area were eligible. The mean baseline F-VASI values were 1.0. The mean total VASI (T-FASI) values were 6.5. On those enrolled, half were female, 11% were adolescents, and 73% had Fitzpatrick skin phototypes III-VI.
Ruxolitinib cream provided near-complete vitiligo clearance (F-VASI 90) on the face at 24 weeks in only about 15% of patients, but this was several times higher than the 2% achieved on vehicle in the TRuE-V1 (P < .01) and the TRuE-V2 trials (P < .05), respectively.
F-VASI 50 response rates greater than 50%
For F-VASI 50, the response rate with ruxolitinib in both studies was approximately 51%. Relative to the 17.2% response on vehicle in TRuE-v1 and 23.4% in TRuE-V2 (both P < .0001 vs. active therapy), the advantage of the topical JAK inhibitor was considered to be a clinically meaningful, not just significant from a statistical standpoint.
In fact, improvement on the 5-point Vitiligo Noticeability Scale “also supported a clinically meaningful benefit,” Dr. Rosmarin reported. When those achieving a score of 4 (much less noticeable) or 5 (no longer noticeable), the response rates at 24 weeks were 24.5% and 21.6% in the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 trials, respectively. Again, these response rates were several times greater than the 3.3% (P < .001) and 6.6% (P < .01) observed in the vehicle arms of TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 (P < .01), respectively.
Treatment-related adverse events were infrequent. The most common were acne at the application site, which occurred in about 5% of patients receiving ruxolitinib (vs. 2% or fewer of those receiving vehicle) and pruritus, which also occurred in about 5% of patients. However, the rates of pruritus among those on placebo reached 4% in TRuE-V1 and 2% in TRuE-V2 trials.
In vitiligo, where there has been recent progress in understanding the pathophysiology, loss of melanocytes in immune dysregulation has been linked to activation of the JAK signaling pathway, according to Dr. Rosmarin. In the 52-week phase 2 trial with 205 patients, ruxolitinib was associated with a sustained response and no serious treatment-related adverse events.
52-week data might show more benefit
Patients are continuing to be followed in the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V-2 trials. Based on the phase 2 data and on the progressive improvement still being observed at the end of 24 weeks in the phase 3 trials, Dr. Rosmarin expects 52-week results be valuable in understanding the clinical role of ruxolitinib.
“We will be looking for further improvement in response as we follow these patients out to 1 year,” he said.
This further follow-up is important, agreed Iltefat Hamzavi, MD, senior staff physician, department of dermatology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.
Despite the promise of perhaps other JAK inhibitors, “we still need to understand how long it will take for the drug to offer optimal results. We already know that is more than 24 weeks,” said Dr. Hamzavi, who has been involved in the clinical trials with this drug but was not involved with the TRuE-V1 or -V2 trials.
He also said more follow-up is needed to understand the duration of effect. He is, however, optimistic about the clinical role of this mechanism for treatment of vitiligo.
“I do think that JAK inhibitors show a lot of promise [in vitiligo] for certain locations of the body,” he said.
Given the limited treatment options for effective and prolonged improvement in vitiligo, both Dr. Hamzavi and Dr. Rosmarin indicated an effective topical cream is likely to be considered by physicians and patients to be a substantial advance.
On Sept. 21, ruxolitinib (Opzelura) 1.5% cream was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the short-term treatment of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in children and adults ages 12 years and older – the first FDA approval of this product.
Dr. Rosmarin reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte, which provided funding for the TRuE-V1 and -V2 trials. Dr. Hamzavi reported financial relationships with more than 15 companies with pharmaceutical or cosmetic products, including Incyte.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Nonsteroidal topical found effective for psoriasis in 52-week study
Treatment with presented as a late-breaker at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
The drug has several unique features with meaningful clinical differences from other topical psoriasis therapies, according to Linda Stein Gold, MD, director of dermatology clinical research, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit.
“The currently available nonsteroidal topical therapies are typically associated with significant irritation. We did not see that with tapinarof,” said Dr. Stein Gold. This is one of several reasons she believes this drug will be a valuable addition if it receives regulatory approval.
Tapinarof is a small-molecule aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) modulating agent. AhR is widely expressed in immune cells, including macrophages, mast cells, and antigen-presenting cells. It is believed that modulation of AhR signaling by tapinarof reverses immune dysregulation that is involved in the formation of psoriatic lesions.
The newly presented PSOARING 3 data with tapinarof 1% build on the data from the 12-week PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 trials, which were released in August 2020 but have yet to be published.
The primary endpoint in both of the 12-week trials, each of which enrolled about 500 patients with plaque psoriasis, was a Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear). Relative to a placebo response rate of about 6% in both trials, the proportion of patients who achieved scores of 0/1 with tapinarof 1% was 35.4% and 40.2% in the PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 trials, respectively (P < .0001 vs. placebo in both studies).
For the key secondary endpoint of at least 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75), the relative advantage for tapinarof over placebo was similar. The results were highly statistically significant (P < .0001) in both of the 12-week trials.
More than 90% of the patients who participated in PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 and were eligible for the open-label PSOARING 3 extension trial, according to Dr. Stein Gold.
For the 79 patients with a score of 0 at the time of enrollment, tapinarof 1% was reapplied only if the PGA score reached at least 2 during the course of the study. For the 680 patients who entered with a PGA score of at least 1, once-daily applications of tapinarof 1% cream were maintained until a PGA score of 0 was achieved.
In the outcome analysis, response was defined as the proportion of patients with an initial PGA score of at least2 who achieved PGA 0. A remittive effect was defined as duration of a PGA score of 0 or 1 while off therapy after achieving a PGA score of 0. Durability of response was defined as the proportion of patients who achieved a PGA sore of 0 or 1 at least once during the study while on therapy. This last outcome provided a test of tachyphylaxis.
“Overall, 40.9% of patients achieved complete disease clearance at least once during the trial, and 58.2% who entered the study with a PGA score of 2 or higher achieved a PGA score of 0 or 1,” Dr. Stein Gold reported.
For the 79 patients who entered PSOARING 3 with a PGA score of 0 and were off treatment, the median duration of a remittive effect was 115 days. For the patients who entered the trial with a higher PGA score but who achieved a score of 0 during the study (312 patients), the mean remittive effect after discontinuing therapy was 130 days.
There was no evidence of tachyphylaxis. Rather, “there was no loss of effect despite intermittent therapy observed over the course of the trial,” Dr. Stein Gold reported.
The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in PSOARING 3, as in the previous PSOARING studies, were folliculitis, which was observed in 24.0% of patients; contact dermatitis, which occurred in 5.9% of patients; and headache, which was reported in 2%. Rates of study drug discontinuations for folliculitis and contact dermatitis were 1.2% and 1.4%, respectively. Headache did not lead to any study discontinuations.
Calling tapinarof a “first-in-class nonsteroidal,” Dr. Stein Gold suggested that this is likely to be a useful adjunctive therapy for psoriasis control. It avoids the adverse events associated with long-term topical steroid use, and its tolerability might be particularly attractive for use in sensitive areas.
“This is likely to be very useful in patients who are looking for a topical therapy for skin folds or the face, where there is a need for well-tolerated topical treatments,” Dr. Stein Gold said.
There are a lot of reasons to be positive about a new, well-tolerated topical agent for psoriasis, particularly as an alternative to topical steroids, agreed Adam Friedman, MD, director of translational research and professor and chair of the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. He considers the data with tapinarof promising in general, but he also likes any new, effective topical psoriasis therapy.
“Patients and physicians are always hungry for new options, especially psoriasis patients, given many have ‘been there and done that’ with topical steroids,” Dr. Friedman said.
“Topical steroids are not irritating, but long-term use beyond recommended dosing can lead to skin thinning, lightening, tachyphylaxis, and, if really abused, HPA [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal] axis suppression and adrenal insufficiency,” he observed.
A topical therapy with a durable effect is particularly intriguing.
“The other issue with topical steroids is that psoriatic plaques return rather easily after stopping. The data I have seen with tapinarof show more sustainability after cessation, owing to its mechanism of action,” Dr. Friedman said. Rather than its potential for application to sensitive areas, such as the face, the durability “to me is more interesting.”
He suspects that, owing to “the incurable steroid phobia that haunts many of our patients,” an effective nonsteroidal topical option is also likely to lead to better compliance with topical treatment over time.
“A well-tolerated nonsteroidal topical drug will probably find an important place in the future management of chronic inflammatory diseases,” Marius-Anton Ionescu, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at the Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, said in an interview. He referred to the positive effects of treatment with tapinarof in clinical trials in adults with atopic dermatitis, in addition to psoriasis.
Tapinarof 1% is also being investigated in a phase 3 study involving patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. In that study, patients are as young as age 2 years. The drug is under review at the Food and Drug Administration for the plaque psoriasis indication in adults.
Dr. Stein Gold has financial relationships with Arcutis, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Leo Pharma Ortho Dermatologic, UCB, and Dermavant Sciences, which is developing tapinarof and is provided funding for the PSOARING 3 trial. Dr. Friedman reported financial relationships with Amgen, Biogen, Encore, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, IntraDerm, Johnson & Johnson, Nerium, Novartis, Oculus, Onset, Pfizer, Sanova, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Ionescu has been a speaker or investigator (honoraria) for Celgene, Novartis, Lilly, and Uriage Cosmetics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Treatment with presented as a late-breaker at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
The drug has several unique features with meaningful clinical differences from other topical psoriasis therapies, according to Linda Stein Gold, MD, director of dermatology clinical research, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit.
“The currently available nonsteroidal topical therapies are typically associated with significant irritation. We did not see that with tapinarof,” said Dr. Stein Gold. This is one of several reasons she believes this drug will be a valuable addition if it receives regulatory approval.
Tapinarof is a small-molecule aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) modulating agent. AhR is widely expressed in immune cells, including macrophages, mast cells, and antigen-presenting cells. It is believed that modulation of AhR signaling by tapinarof reverses immune dysregulation that is involved in the formation of psoriatic lesions.
The newly presented PSOARING 3 data with tapinarof 1% build on the data from the 12-week PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 trials, which were released in August 2020 but have yet to be published.
The primary endpoint in both of the 12-week trials, each of which enrolled about 500 patients with plaque psoriasis, was a Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear). Relative to a placebo response rate of about 6% in both trials, the proportion of patients who achieved scores of 0/1 with tapinarof 1% was 35.4% and 40.2% in the PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 trials, respectively (P < .0001 vs. placebo in both studies).
For the key secondary endpoint of at least 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75), the relative advantage for tapinarof over placebo was similar. The results were highly statistically significant (P < .0001) in both of the 12-week trials.
More than 90% of the patients who participated in PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 and were eligible for the open-label PSOARING 3 extension trial, according to Dr. Stein Gold.
For the 79 patients with a score of 0 at the time of enrollment, tapinarof 1% was reapplied only if the PGA score reached at least 2 during the course of the study. For the 680 patients who entered with a PGA score of at least 1, once-daily applications of tapinarof 1% cream were maintained until a PGA score of 0 was achieved.
In the outcome analysis, response was defined as the proportion of patients with an initial PGA score of at least2 who achieved PGA 0. A remittive effect was defined as duration of a PGA score of 0 or 1 while off therapy after achieving a PGA score of 0. Durability of response was defined as the proportion of patients who achieved a PGA sore of 0 or 1 at least once during the study while on therapy. This last outcome provided a test of tachyphylaxis.
“Overall, 40.9% of patients achieved complete disease clearance at least once during the trial, and 58.2% who entered the study with a PGA score of 2 or higher achieved a PGA score of 0 or 1,” Dr. Stein Gold reported.
For the 79 patients who entered PSOARING 3 with a PGA score of 0 and were off treatment, the median duration of a remittive effect was 115 days. For the patients who entered the trial with a higher PGA score but who achieved a score of 0 during the study (312 patients), the mean remittive effect after discontinuing therapy was 130 days.
There was no evidence of tachyphylaxis. Rather, “there was no loss of effect despite intermittent therapy observed over the course of the trial,” Dr. Stein Gold reported.
The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in PSOARING 3, as in the previous PSOARING studies, were folliculitis, which was observed in 24.0% of patients; contact dermatitis, which occurred in 5.9% of patients; and headache, which was reported in 2%. Rates of study drug discontinuations for folliculitis and contact dermatitis were 1.2% and 1.4%, respectively. Headache did not lead to any study discontinuations.
Calling tapinarof a “first-in-class nonsteroidal,” Dr. Stein Gold suggested that this is likely to be a useful adjunctive therapy for psoriasis control. It avoids the adverse events associated with long-term topical steroid use, and its tolerability might be particularly attractive for use in sensitive areas.
“This is likely to be very useful in patients who are looking for a topical therapy for skin folds or the face, where there is a need for well-tolerated topical treatments,” Dr. Stein Gold said.
There are a lot of reasons to be positive about a new, well-tolerated topical agent for psoriasis, particularly as an alternative to topical steroids, agreed Adam Friedman, MD, director of translational research and professor and chair of the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. He considers the data with tapinarof promising in general, but he also likes any new, effective topical psoriasis therapy.
“Patients and physicians are always hungry for new options, especially psoriasis patients, given many have ‘been there and done that’ with topical steroids,” Dr. Friedman said.
“Topical steroids are not irritating, but long-term use beyond recommended dosing can lead to skin thinning, lightening, tachyphylaxis, and, if really abused, HPA [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal] axis suppression and adrenal insufficiency,” he observed.
A topical therapy with a durable effect is particularly intriguing.
“The other issue with topical steroids is that psoriatic plaques return rather easily after stopping. The data I have seen with tapinarof show more sustainability after cessation, owing to its mechanism of action,” Dr. Friedman said. Rather than its potential for application to sensitive areas, such as the face, the durability “to me is more interesting.”
He suspects that, owing to “the incurable steroid phobia that haunts many of our patients,” an effective nonsteroidal topical option is also likely to lead to better compliance with topical treatment over time.
“A well-tolerated nonsteroidal topical drug will probably find an important place in the future management of chronic inflammatory diseases,” Marius-Anton Ionescu, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at the Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, said in an interview. He referred to the positive effects of treatment with tapinarof in clinical trials in adults with atopic dermatitis, in addition to psoriasis.
Tapinarof 1% is also being investigated in a phase 3 study involving patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. In that study, patients are as young as age 2 years. The drug is under review at the Food and Drug Administration for the plaque psoriasis indication in adults.
Dr. Stein Gold has financial relationships with Arcutis, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Leo Pharma Ortho Dermatologic, UCB, and Dermavant Sciences, which is developing tapinarof and is provided funding for the PSOARING 3 trial. Dr. Friedman reported financial relationships with Amgen, Biogen, Encore, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, IntraDerm, Johnson & Johnson, Nerium, Novartis, Oculus, Onset, Pfizer, Sanova, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Ionescu has been a speaker or investigator (honoraria) for Celgene, Novartis, Lilly, and Uriage Cosmetics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Treatment with presented as a late-breaker at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
The drug has several unique features with meaningful clinical differences from other topical psoriasis therapies, according to Linda Stein Gold, MD, director of dermatology clinical research, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit.
“The currently available nonsteroidal topical therapies are typically associated with significant irritation. We did not see that with tapinarof,” said Dr. Stein Gold. This is one of several reasons she believes this drug will be a valuable addition if it receives regulatory approval.
Tapinarof is a small-molecule aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) modulating agent. AhR is widely expressed in immune cells, including macrophages, mast cells, and antigen-presenting cells. It is believed that modulation of AhR signaling by tapinarof reverses immune dysregulation that is involved in the formation of psoriatic lesions.
The newly presented PSOARING 3 data with tapinarof 1% build on the data from the 12-week PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 trials, which were released in August 2020 but have yet to be published.
The primary endpoint in both of the 12-week trials, each of which enrolled about 500 patients with plaque psoriasis, was a Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear). Relative to a placebo response rate of about 6% in both trials, the proportion of patients who achieved scores of 0/1 with tapinarof 1% was 35.4% and 40.2% in the PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 trials, respectively (P < .0001 vs. placebo in both studies).
For the key secondary endpoint of at least 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75), the relative advantage for tapinarof over placebo was similar. The results were highly statistically significant (P < .0001) in both of the 12-week trials.
More than 90% of the patients who participated in PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 and were eligible for the open-label PSOARING 3 extension trial, according to Dr. Stein Gold.
For the 79 patients with a score of 0 at the time of enrollment, tapinarof 1% was reapplied only if the PGA score reached at least 2 during the course of the study. For the 680 patients who entered with a PGA score of at least 1, once-daily applications of tapinarof 1% cream were maintained until a PGA score of 0 was achieved.
In the outcome analysis, response was defined as the proportion of patients with an initial PGA score of at least2 who achieved PGA 0. A remittive effect was defined as duration of a PGA score of 0 or 1 while off therapy after achieving a PGA score of 0. Durability of response was defined as the proportion of patients who achieved a PGA sore of 0 or 1 at least once during the study while on therapy. This last outcome provided a test of tachyphylaxis.
“Overall, 40.9% of patients achieved complete disease clearance at least once during the trial, and 58.2% who entered the study with a PGA score of 2 or higher achieved a PGA score of 0 or 1,” Dr. Stein Gold reported.
For the 79 patients who entered PSOARING 3 with a PGA score of 0 and were off treatment, the median duration of a remittive effect was 115 days. For the patients who entered the trial with a higher PGA score but who achieved a score of 0 during the study (312 patients), the mean remittive effect after discontinuing therapy was 130 days.
There was no evidence of tachyphylaxis. Rather, “there was no loss of effect despite intermittent therapy observed over the course of the trial,” Dr. Stein Gold reported.
The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in PSOARING 3, as in the previous PSOARING studies, were folliculitis, which was observed in 24.0% of patients; contact dermatitis, which occurred in 5.9% of patients; and headache, which was reported in 2%. Rates of study drug discontinuations for folliculitis and contact dermatitis were 1.2% and 1.4%, respectively. Headache did not lead to any study discontinuations.
Calling tapinarof a “first-in-class nonsteroidal,” Dr. Stein Gold suggested that this is likely to be a useful adjunctive therapy for psoriasis control. It avoids the adverse events associated with long-term topical steroid use, and its tolerability might be particularly attractive for use in sensitive areas.
“This is likely to be very useful in patients who are looking for a topical therapy for skin folds or the face, where there is a need for well-tolerated topical treatments,” Dr. Stein Gold said.
There are a lot of reasons to be positive about a new, well-tolerated topical agent for psoriasis, particularly as an alternative to topical steroids, agreed Adam Friedman, MD, director of translational research and professor and chair of the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. He considers the data with tapinarof promising in general, but he also likes any new, effective topical psoriasis therapy.
“Patients and physicians are always hungry for new options, especially psoriasis patients, given many have ‘been there and done that’ with topical steroids,” Dr. Friedman said.
“Topical steroids are not irritating, but long-term use beyond recommended dosing can lead to skin thinning, lightening, tachyphylaxis, and, if really abused, HPA [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal] axis suppression and adrenal insufficiency,” he observed.
A topical therapy with a durable effect is particularly intriguing.
“The other issue with topical steroids is that psoriatic plaques return rather easily after stopping. The data I have seen with tapinarof show more sustainability after cessation, owing to its mechanism of action,” Dr. Friedman said. Rather than its potential for application to sensitive areas, such as the face, the durability “to me is more interesting.”
He suspects that, owing to “the incurable steroid phobia that haunts many of our patients,” an effective nonsteroidal topical option is also likely to lead to better compliance with topical treatment over time.
“A well-tolerated nonsteroidal topical drug will probably find an important place in the future management of chronic inflammatory diseases,” Marius-Anton Ionescu, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at the Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, said in an interview. He referred to the positive effects of treatment with tapinarof in clinical trials in adults with atopic dermatitis, in addition to psoriasis.
Tapinarof 1% is also being investigated in a phase 3 study involving patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. In that study, patients are as young as age 2 years. The drug is under review at the Food and Drug Administration for the plaque psoriasis indication in adults.
Dr. Stein Gold has financial relationships with Arcutis, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Leo Pharma Ortho Dermatologic, UCB, and Dermavant Sciences, which is developing tapinarof and is provided funding for the PSOARING 3 trial. Dr. Friedman reported financial relationships with Amgen, Biogen, Encore, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, IntraDerm, Johnson & Johnson, Nerium, Novartis, Oculus, Onset, Pfizer, Sanova, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Ionescu has been a speaker or investigator (honoraria) for Celgene, Novartis, Lilly, and Uriage Cosmetics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
First-in-class TYK inhibitor shows durable effect for psoriasis
of follow-up, according to late-breaking data from two pivotal trials presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
From benefit reported on the two coprimary endpoints previously reported at 16 weeks, longer follow-up showed further gains out to 24 weeks and then persistent efficacy out to 52 weeks across these and multiple secondary endpoints, reported Richard Warren, MBChB, PhD, professor of dermatology and therapeutics, University of Manchester (England).
“This could be a unique oral therapy and an important treatment option for moderate to severe psoriasis,” Dr. Warren contended.
The multinational double-blind trials, called POETYK PSO-1 and PSO-2, enrolled 666 and 1,020 patients, respectively. The designs were similar. Patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis were randomly assigned in a 2:1:1 ratio to deucravacitinib (6 mg once daily), placebo, or apremilast (Otezla; 30 mg twice daily). At 16 weeks, those on placebo were switched to deucravacitinib.
For the coprimary endpoint of PASI 75 (75% clearance on the Psoriasis and Severity Index), the similar rate of response for deucravacitinib in the two studies (58.7%/53.6%) at week 16 was superior to the rates observed on both apremilast (35.1%/40.2%) and placebo (12.7%/9.4%).
By week 24, the proportion of deucravacitinib patients with a PASI 75 response had reached 69.3% and 58.7% in the POETYK PSO-1 and PSO-2 trials, respectively. The proportion of patients on apremilast with PASI 75 at this time point did not increase appreciably in one study and fell modestly in the other.
By week 52, the response rates achieved with deucravacitinib at week 24 were generally unchanged and nearly double those observed on apremilast.
The pattern of relative benefit on the other coprimary endpoint, which was a score of 0 or 1, signifying clear or almost clear skin on the static Physicians Global Assessment (sPGA), followed the same pattern. At week 16, 53.6% of patients had achieved sPGA 0/1. This was significantly higher than that observed on either apremilast or placebo, and this level of response was sustained through week 52.
When patients on placebo were switched to deucravacitinib at week 16, the PASI 75 response climbed quickly. There was complete catch-up by 32 weeks. In both groups, a PASI 75 response rate of about 65% or higher was maintained for the remainder of the study.
On a prespecified analysis, prior treatment exposure was not associated with any impact on the degree of response with deucravacitinib. This included a comparison between patients exposed to no prior biologic, one prior biologic, or two or more biologics, Dr. Warren reported.
Unlike patients in POETYK PSO-1, those with a PASI 75 response at 16 weeks in the POETYK PSO-2 trial were rerandomized to remain on deucravacitinib or switch to placebo. Designed to evaluate response durability, this analysis showed a relatively gradual decline in disease control.
“The median time to a loss of response was 12 weeks,” Dr. Warren said. He was referring in this case to the PASI 75 response, but the slope of decline was similar for sPGA score 0/1. At the end of 52 weeks, 31.3% of patients who had been rerandomized to placebo still maintained a PASI 75 while 80.4% of those who stayed on deucravacitinib still had PASI 75 clearance.
In the 52-week data from these two trials, several secondary endpoints have already been examined, and Dr. Warren said more analyses are coming. So far, the pattern of response has been similar for all endpoints.
Reporting on one as an example, Dr. Warren said that sPGA 0/1 for scalp psoriasis was achieved at week 16 by 70.3% of those randomly assigned to deucravacitinib versus 17.4% of those in the placebo arm. Among those switched from placebo to deucravacitinib at 16 weeks, the scalp response had caught up to that observed in those initiated on deucravacitinib by week 28. The response was sustained out to 52 weeks in both groups.
In the long-term trials, there have been no new safety concerns, according to Dr. Warren. He described this drug as “well tolerated,” adding that no significant laboratory abnormalities have been observed on long-term treatment. Although there has been a trend for increased risk of viral infections, such as herpes zoster, relative to apremilast, cases have so far been mild.
The Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) has been approved for psoriatic arthritis, and numerous other JAK inhibitors are now in clinical trials for plaque psoriasis. These agents vary for their relative selectivity for JAK1, 2, and 3 kinases, but deucravacitinib is the first JAK inhibitor to reach clinical trials that target TYK2, which inhibits interleukin-23 and other cytokines implicated in the pathogenesis of plaque psoriasis.
“Deucravacitinib is very distinct from the other JAK inhibitors, and I think we are seeing this in the clinical studies,” Dr. Warren said. As a result of responses in the POETYK PRO trials that rival those achieved with monoclonal antibodies, he expects this drug, if approved, to be an important option for those with moderate to severe disease who prefer oral therapies.
Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology and dean for clinical therapeutics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, shares this opinion. In an interview, he emphasized the unique mechanism of deucravacitinib and its clinical potential.
“Unlike other less specific JAK inhibitors, deucravacitinib has a unique binding site on TYK2, the regulatory domain of the molecule. This makes deucravacitinib more targeted and therefore safer than other JAK inhibitors,” said Dr. Lebwohl.
“After cyclosporine, which has many side effects, deucravacitinib is the most effective oral therapy we have for psoriasis and one of the safest,” he added.
The POETYK PSO-1 and PSO-2 trials received funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Warren has financial relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, and Xenoport. Dr. Lebwohl has financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
of follow-up, according to late-breaking data from two pivotal trials presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
From benefit reported on the two coprimary endpoints previously reported at 16 weeks, longer follow-up showed further gains out to 24 weeks and then persistent efficacy out to 52 weeks across these and multiple secondary endpoints, reported Richard Warren, MBChB, PhD, professor of dermatology and therapeutics, University of Manchester (England).
“This could be a unique oral therapy and an important treatment option for moderate to severe psoriasis,” Dr. Warren contended.
The multinational double-blind trials, called POETYK PSO-1 and PSO-2, enrolled 666 and 1,020 patients, respectively. The designs were similar. Patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis were randomly assigned in a 2:1:1 ratio to deucravacitinib (6 mg once daily), placebo, or apremilast (Otezla; 30 mg twice daily). At 16 weeks, those on placebo were switched to deucravacitinib.
For the coprimary endpoint of PASI 75 (75% clearance on the Psoriasis and Severity Index), the similar rate of response for deucravacitinib in the two studies (58.7%/53.6%) at week 16 was superior to the rates observed on both apremilast (35.1%/40.2%) and placebo (12.7%/9.4%).
By week 24, the proportion of deucravacitinib patients with a PASI 75 response had reached 69.3% and 58.7% in the POETYK PSO-1 and PSO-2 trials, respectively. The proportion of patients on apremilast with PASI 75 at this time point did not increase appreciably in one study and fell modestly in the other.
By week 52, the response rates achieved with deucravacitinib at week 24 were generally unchanged and nearly double those observed on apremilast.
The pattern of relative benefit on the other coprimary endpoint, which was a score of 0 or 1, signifying clear or almost clear skin on the static Physicians Global Assessment (sPGA), followed the same pattern. At week 16, 53.6% of patients had achieved sPGA 0/1. This was significantly higher than that observed on either apremilast or placebo, and this level of response was sustained through week 52.
When patients on placebo were switched to deucravacitinib at week 16, the PASI 75 response climbed quickly. There was complete catch-up by 32 weeks. In both groups, a PASI 75 response rate of about 65% or higher was maintained for the remainder of the study.
On a prespecified analysis, prior treatment exposure was not associated with any impact on the degree of response with deucravacitinib. This included a comparison between patients exposed to no prior biologic, one prior biologic, or two or more biologics, Dr. Warren reported.
Unlike patients in POETYK PSO-1, those with a PASI 75 response at 16 weeks in the POETYK PSO-2 trial were rerandomized to remain on deucravacitinib or switch to placebo. Designed to evaluate response durability, this analysis showed a relatively gradual decline in disease control.
“The median time to a loss of response was 12 weeks,” Dr. Warren said. He was referring in this case to the PASI 75 response, but the slope of decline was similar for sPGA score 0/1. At the end of 52 weeks, 31.3% of patients who had been rerandomized to placebo still maintained a PASI 75 while 80.4% of those who stayed on deucravacitinib still had PASI 75 clearance.
In the 52-week data from these two trials, several secondary endpoints have already been examined, and Dr. Warren said more analyses are coming. So far, the pattern of response has been similar for all endpoints.
Reporting on one as an example, Dr. Warren said that sPGA 0/1 for scalp psoriasis was achieved at week 16 by 70.3% of those randomly assigned to deucravacitinib versus 17.4% of those in the placebo arm. Among those switched from placebo to deucravacitinib at 16 weeks, the scalp response had caught up to that observed in those initiated on deucravacitinib by week 28. The response was sustained out to 52 weeks in both groups.
In the long-term trials, there have been no new safety concerns, according to Dr. Warren. He described this drug as “well tolerated,” adding that no significant laboratory abnormalities have been observed on long-term treatment. Although there has been a trend for increased risk of viral infections, such as herpes zoster, relative to apremilast, cases have so far been mild.
The Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) has been approved for psoriatic arthritis, and numerous other JAK inhibitors are now in clinical trials for plaque psoriasis. These agents vary for their relative selectivity for JAK1, 2, and 3 kinases, but deucravacitinib is the first JAK inhibitor to reach clinical trials that target TYK2, which inhibits interleukin-23 and other cytokines implicated in the pathogenesis of plaque psoriasis.
“Deucravacitinib is very distinct from the other JAK inhibitors, and I think we are seeing this in the clinical studies,” Dr. Warren said. As a result of responses in the POETYK PRO trials that rival those achieved with monoclonal antibodies, he expects this drug, if approved, to be an important option for those with moderate to severe disease who prefer oral therapies.
Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology and dean for clinical therapeutics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, shares this opinion. In an interview, he emphasized the unique mechanism of deucravacitinib and its clinical potential.
“Unlike other less specific JAK inhibitors, deucravacitinib has a unique binding site on TYK2, the regulatory domain of the molecule. This makes deucravacitinib more targeted and therefore safer than other JAK inhibitors,” said Dr. Lebwohl.
“After cyclosporine, which has many side effects, deucravacitinib is the most effective oral therapy we have for psoriasis and one of the safest,” he added.
The POETYK PSO-1 and PSO-2 trials received funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Warren has financial relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, and Xenoport. Dr. Lebwohl has financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
of follow-up, according to late-breaking data from two pivotal trials presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
From benefit reported on the two coprimary endpoints previously reported at 16 weeks, longer follow-up showed further gains out to 24 weeks and then persistent efficacy out to 52 weeks across these and multiple secondary endpoints, reported Richard Warren, MBChB, PhD, professor of dermatology and therapeutics, University of Manchester (England).
“This could be a unique oral therapy and an important treatment option for moderate to severe psoriasis,” Dr. Warren contended.
The multinational double-blind trials, called POETYK PSO-1 and PSO-2, enrolled 666 and 1,020 patients, respectively. The designs were similar. Patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis were randomly assigned in a 2:1:1 ratio to deucravacitinib (6 mg once daily), placebo, or apremilast (Otezla; 30 mg twice daily). At 16 weeks, those on placebo were switched to deucravacitinib.
For the coprimary endpoint of PASI 75 (75% clearance on the Psoriasis and Severity Index), the similar rate of response for deucravacitinib in the two studies (58.7%/53.6%) at week 16 was superior to the rates observed on both apremilast (35.1%/40.2%) and placebo (12.7%/9.4%).
By week 24, the proportion of deucravacitinib patients with a PASI 75 response had reached 69.3% and 58.7% in the POETYK PSO-1 and PSO-2 trials, respectively. The proportion of patients on apremilast with PASI 75 at this time point did not increase appreciably in one study and fell modestly in the other.
By week 52, the response rates achieved with deucravacitinib at week 24 were generally unchanged and nearly double those observed on apremilast.
The pattern of relative benefit on the other coprimary endpoint, which was a score of 0 or 1, signifying clear or almost clear skin on the static Physicians Global Assessment (sPGA), followed the same pattern. At week 16, 53.6% of patients had achieved sPGA 0/1. This was significantly higher than that observed on either apremilast or placebo, and this level of response was sustained through week 52.
When patients on placebo were switched to deucravacitinib at week 16, the PASI 75 response climbed quickly. There was complete catch-up by 32 weeks. In both groups, a PASI 75 response rate of about 65% or higher was maintained for the remainder of the study.
On a prespecified analysis, prior treatment exposure was not associated with any impact on the degree of response with deucravacitinib. This included a comparison between patients exposed to no prior biologic, one prior biologic, or two or more biologics, Dr. Warren reported.
Unlike patients in POETYK PSO-1, those with a PASI 75 response at 16 weeks in the POETYK PSO-2 trial were rerandomized to remain on deucravacitinib or switch to placebo. Designed to evaluate response durability, this analysis showed a relatively gradual decline in disease control.
“The median time to a loss of response was 12 weeks,” Dr. Warren said. He was referring in this case to the PASI 75 response, but the slope of decline was similar for sPGA score 0/1. At the end of 52 weeks, 31.3% of patients who had been rerandomized to placebo still maintained a PASI 75 while 80.4% of those who stayed on deucravacitinib still had PASI 75 clearance.
In the 52-week data from these two trials, several secondary endpoints have already been examined, and Dr. Warren said more analyses are coming. So far, the pattern of response has been similar for all endpoints.
Reporting on one as an example, Dr. Warren said that sPGA 0/1 for scalp psoriasis was achieved at week 16 by 70.3% of those randomly assigned to deucravacitinib versus 17.4% of those in the placebo arm. Among those switched from placebo to deucravacitinib at 16 weeks, the scalp response had caught up to that observed in those initiated on deucravacitinib by week 28. The response was sustained out to 52 weeks in both groups.
In the long-term trials, there have been no new safety concerns, according to Dr. Warren. He described this drug as “well tolerated,” adding that no significant laboratory abnormalities have been observed on long-term treatment. Although there has been a trend for increased risk of viral infections, such as herpes zoster, relative to apremilast, cases have so far been mild.
The Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) has been approved for psoriatic arthritis, and numerous other JAK inhibitors are now in clinical trials for plaque psoriasis. These agents vary for their relative selectivity for JAK1, 2, and 3 kinases, but deucravacitinib is the first JAK inhibitor to reach clinical trials that target TYK2, which inhibits interleukin-23 and other cytokines implicated in the pathogenesis of plaque psoriasis.
“Deucravacitinib is very distinct from the other JAK inhibitors, and I think we are seeing this in the clinical studies,” Dr. Warren said. As a result of responses in the POETYK PRO trials that rival those achieved with monoclonal antibodies, he expects this drug, if approved, to be an important option for those with moderate to severe disease who prefer oral therapies.
Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology and dean for clinical therapeutics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, shares this opinion. In an interview, he emphasized the unique mechanism of deucravacitinib and its clinical potential.
“Unlike other less specific JAK inhibitors, deucravacitinib has a unique binding site on TYK2, the regulatory domain of the molecule. This makes deucravacitinib more targeted and therefore safer than other JAK inhibitors,” said Dr. Lebwohl.
“After cyclosporine, which has many side effects, deucravacitinib is the most effective oral therapy we have for psoriasis and one of the safest,” he added.
The POETYK PSO-1 and PSO-2 trials received funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Warren has financial relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, and Xenoport. Dr. Lebwohl has financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.