User login
52-week data show lebrikizumab atopic dermatitis effects maintained
from the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials.
“We’re focused on the responders,” said Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, as he presented the positive findings at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
Responders were the 291 people whose atopic dermatitis greatly improved after an initial 16 weeks’ treatment with lebrikizumab in both trials and who were then randomly allocated to receive injections every 2 weeks (Q2W, n = 113) or every 4 weeks (Q4W, n = 118), or to receive placebo injections Q2W (n = 60).
“Very interestingly, for me, the Q4W maintenance dosing was just as good as the Q2W maintenance dosing,” said Dr. Blauvelt, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.
“Another highlight of these data is that the patients who went on to placebo, about 50% of the patients maintained good responses, despite no treatment from week 16 to week 52,” he added.
Most patients did not require topical steroids, and “there were no surprises here” in terms of the safety profile. Lebrikizumab, a monoclonal antibody, binds to soluble interleukin-13 and blocks IL-13 signaling.
“So, the study really shows that specific targeting of IL-13 with lebrikizumab, either Q2W or Q4W, has high maintenance of efficacy and is reasonably tolerated and safe in adolescents and adults with atopic dermatitis,” Dr. Blauvelt concluded.
“We know now that IL-13 is a critical cytokine in AD [atopic dermatitis] pathogenesis. The unique features of this drug I want to highlight is that it has high binding affinity for IL-13,” he said.
“It has a slow dissociation off rate, meaning it binds IL-13 tightly, very potently, and stays blocking and stays hold of IL-13 in a strong manner,” he added. The drug has a half-life of 25 days.
These features could be very important for long-term dosing of the drug, he argued.
Lebrikizumab phase 3 trials
ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two of several phase 3 trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab for the treatment of atopic dermatitis.
These include the completed ADhere study, in which lebrikizumab was used in combination with topical steroids and showed positive results in skin improvement and relief of pruritus.
The ADore study, an open-label trial in adolescents, is yet to report. The ongoing ADjoin study, a long-term extension study, is actively recruiting.
ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two identically designed – multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group – monotherapy trials that initially pitched two dosing regimens of lebrikizumab (250 mg) against placebo with a double loading dose at baseline and week 2 and then one dose every 2 weeks. The pair of trials enrolled a total of 869 adolescents and adults.
After the 16-week induction period, all patients in the lebrikizumab arm who had responded to treatment were rerandomly assigned to receive lebrikizumab 250 mg Q2W or Q4W, or placebo Q2W during a 36-week long-term maintenance treatment period.
This brought the total treatment time to 52 weeks for those whose atopic dermatitis had initially responded to lebrikizumab, explained Blauvelt.
Responders were those who, at 16 weeks, had an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 (IGA 0/1) with a 2-point improvement or who had a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (EASI 75) without the need for rescue medication, compared with baseline values.
Induction and maintenance phase results
At the end of the 16-week induction period, a greater proportion of patients who had been treated with lebrikizumab than placebo met a primary outcome of IGA 0/1 in each trial (43.1% vs. 12.7% in ADvocate1 and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in ADvocate2).
A similar result was seen for another primary outcome, EASI 75 (58.8% vs. 16.2% and 52.1% vs. 18.1%) and for a secondary outcome, improvement in pruritus using a numerical rating scale (45.9% vs. 13.0% and 39.8% vs. 11.5%).
In the maintenance phase, with respect to responders, Dr. Blauvelt reported “very similar results” between the QW2 and Q4W maintenance dosing, “and still a quite high response in [half] the patients who were randomized to placebo at week 16.”
In the ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, respectively, an IGA 0/1 with at least a 2-point improvement was maintained at week 52 in 75.8% and 64.6% of patients treated with the Q2W lebrikizumab dose, 74.2% and 80.6% of those treated with the Q4W dose, and 46.5% and 49.8% of those given placebo.
EASI 75 was maintained at week 52 in a respective 79.2% and 77.4% of patients treated with the Q2W dose, 79.2% and 84.7% with the Q4W dose, and 61.3% and 72.0% with placebo.
As for maintenance of at least a 4-point improvement in pruritus score, results at 52 weeks were 81.2% and 90.3% for the 2-week dose, 80.4% and 88.1% for the 4-week dose, and 65.4% and 67.6% for placebo.
Although topical corticosteroid treatment was allowed during the maintenance phase, only about 15% of patients needed this, Dr. Blauvelt said.
Different dosing results questioned
During the discussion period, one delegate highlighted that the twice-weekly maintenance dosing schedule seemed to “do worse a little bit” than the 4-week dosing, with both “close to placebo,” although “the long-term effect is already very impressive.”
Dr. Blauvelt noted that a pooled analysis had been done and that “it’s very clear that being on lebrikizumab works better than not being on lebrikizumab.
“Now, Q2W versus Q4W. We believe that this may be due to the long half-life of the drug possibly. It could be due to the slow disassociation rate, it’s binding tightly,” he suggested.
“We also could talk about disease modification, right. So, it opens up the concept of hit hard, hit early for 16 weeks, and then maybe you can modify disease over time,” Dr. Blauvelt said.
He added: “That’s highly speculative, of course.”
Short-term safety data
The 52-week safety profile of lebrikizumab is consistent with previously published data at 16 weeks, Dr. Blauvelt said. The most common adverse events during the studies included atopic dermatitis, nasopharyngitis, conjunctivitis, conjunctivitis allergic, headache, and COVID-19.
“This drug has comparable efficacy with dupilumab and tralokinumab,” said Jashin J. Wu, MD, from the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., in an interview. He was not involved in the study.
“As it does not have any significant advantages with less long-term safety data, I do not see a place for it in my practice,” Dr. Wu said.
Dupilumab (Dupixent) and tralokinumab (Adbry) are monoclonal antibodies that also block IL-13. Both are already licensed for treating atopic dermatitis. Dupilumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017, and tralokinumab was approved in 2021.
The study was funded by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Eli Lilly has exclusive rights for the development and commercialization of lebrikizumab in the United States and all countries outside Europe; European rights belong to Almirall for all dermatology indications, including atopic dermatitis. Dr. Blauvelt acts as an investigator and adviser to these companies as well as many other pharmaceutical companies that are involved in developing new dermatologic treatments. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
from the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials.
“We’re focused on the responders,” said Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, as he presented the positive findings at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
Responders were the 291 people whose atopic dermatitis greatly improved after an initial 16 weeks’ treatment with lebrikizumab in both trials and who were then randomly allocated to receive injections every 2 weeks (Q2W, n = 113) or every 4 weeks (Q4W, n = 118), or to receive placebo injections Q2W (n = 60).
“Very interestingly, for me, the Q4W maintenance dosing was just as good as the Q2W maintenance dosing,” said Dr. Blauvelt, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.
“Another highlight of these data is that the patients who went on to placebo, about 50% of the patients maintained good responses, despite no treatment from week 16 to week 52,” he added.
Most patients did not require topical steroids, and “there were no surprises here” in terms of the safety profile. Lebrikizumab, a monoclonal antibody, binds to soluble interleukin-13 and blocks IL-13 signaling.
“So, the study really shows that specific targeting of IL-13 with lebrikizumab, either Q2W or Q4W, has high maintenance of efficacy and is reasonably tolerated and safe in adolescents and adults with atopic dermatitis,” Dr. Blauvelt concluded.
“We know now that IL-13 is a critical cytokine in AD [atopic dermatitis] pathogenesis. The unique features of this drug I want to highlight is that it has high binding affinity for IL-13,” he said.
“It has a slow dissociation off rate, meaning it binds IL-13 tightly, very potently, and stays blocking and stays hold of IL-13 in a strong manner,” he added. The drug has a half-life of 25 days.
These features could be very important for long-term dosing of the drug, he argued.
Lebrikizumab phase 3 trials
ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two of several phase 3 trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab for the treatment of atopic dermatitis.
These include the completed ADhere study, in which lebrikizumab was used in combination with topical steroids and showed positive results in skin improvement and relief of pruritus.
The ADore study, an open-label trial in adolescents, is yet to report. The ongoing ADjoin study, a long-term extension study, is actively recruiting.
ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two identically designed – multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group – monotherapy trials that initially pitched two dosing regimens of lebrikizumab (250 mg) against placebo with a double loading dose at baseline and week 2 and then one dose every 2 weeks. The pair of trials enrolled a total of 869 adolescents and adults.
After the 16-week induction period, all patients in the lebrikizumab arm who had responded to treatment were rerandomly assigned to receive lebrikizumab 250 mg Q2W or Q4W, or placebo Q2W during a 36-week long-term maintenance treatment period.
This brought the total treatment time to 52 weeks for those whose atopic dermatitis had initially responded to lebrikizumab, explained Blauvelt.
Responders were those who, at 16 weeks, had an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 (IGA 0/1) with a 2-point improvement or who had a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (EASI 75) without the need for rescue medication, compared with baseline values.
Induction and maintenance phase results
At the end of the 16-week induction period, a greater proportion of patients who had been treated with lebrikizumab than placebo met a primary outcome of IGA 0/1 in each trial (43.1% vs. 12.7% in ADvocate1 and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in ADvocate2).
A similar result was seen for another primary outcome, EASI 75 (58.8% vs. 16.2% and 52.1% vs. 18.1%) and for a secondary outcome, improvement in pruritus using a numerical rating scale (45.9% vs. 13.0% and 39.8% vs. 11.5%).
In the maintenance phase, with respect to responders, Dr. Blauvelt reported “very similar results” between the QW2 and Q4W maintenance dosing, “and still a quite high response in [half] the patients who were randomized to placebo at week 16.”
In the ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, respectively, an IGA 0/1 with at least a 2-point improvement was maintained at week 52 in 75.8% and 64.6% of patients treated with the Q2W lebrikizumab dose, 74.2% and 80.6% of those treated with the Q4W dose, and 46.5% and 49.8% of those given placebo.
EASI 75 was maintained at week 52 in a respective 79.2% and 77.4% of patients treated with the Q2W dose, 79.2% and 84.7% with the Q4W dose, and 61.3% and 72.0% with placebo.
As for maintenance of at least a 4-point improvement in pruritus score, results at 52 weeks were 81.2% and 90.3% for the 2-week dose, 80.4% and 88.1% for the 4-week dose, and 65.4% and 67.6% for placebo.
Although topical corticosteroid treatment was allowed during the maintenance phase, only about 15% of patients needed this, Dr. Blauvelt said.
Different dosing results questioned
During the discussion period, one delegate highlighted that the twice-weekly maintenance dosing schedule seemed to “do worse a little bit” than the 4-week dosing, with both “close to placebo,” although “the long-term effect is already very impressive.”
Dr. Blauvelt noted that a pooled analysis had been done and that “it’s very clear that being on lebrikizumab works better than not being on lebrikizumab.
“Now, Q2W versus Q4W. We believe that this may be due to the long half-life of the drug possibly. It could be due to the slow disassociation rate, it’s binding tightly,” he suggested.
“We also could talk about disease modification, right. So, it opens up the concept of hit hard, hit early for 16 weeks, and then maybe you can modify disease over time,” Dr. Blauvelt said.
He added: “That’s highly speculative, of course.”
Short-term safety data
The 52-week safety profile of lebrikizumab is consistent with previously published data at 16 weeks, Dr. Blauvelt said. The most common adverse events during the studies included atopic dermatitis, nasopharyngitis, conjunctivitis, conjunctivitis allergic, headache, and COVID-19.
“This drug has comparable efficacy with dupilumab and tralokinumab,” said Jashin J. Wu, MD, from the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., in an interview. He was not involved in the study.
“As it does not have any significant advantages with less long-term safety data, I do not see a place for it in my practice,” Dr. Wu said.
Dupilumab (Dupixent) and tralokinumab (Adbry) are monoclonal antibodies that also block IL-13. Both are already licensed for treating atopic dermatitis. Dupilumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017, and tralokinumab was approved in 2021.
The study was funded by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Eli Lilly has exclusive rights for the development and commercialization of lebrikizumab in the United States and all countries outside Europe; European rights belong to Almirall for all dermatology indications, including atopic dermatitis. Dr. Blauvelt acts as an investigator and adviser to these companies as well as many other pharmaceutical companies that are involved in developing new dermatologic treatments. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
from the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials.
“We’re focused on the responders,” said Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, as he presented the positive findings at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
Responders were the 291 people whose atopic dermatitis greatly improved after an initial 16 weeks’ treatment with lebrikizumab in both trials and who were then randomly allocated to receive injections every 2 weeks (Q2W, n = 113) or every 4 weeks (Q4W, n = 118), or to receive placebo injections Q2W (n = 60).
“Very interestingly, for me, the Q4W maintenance dosing was just as good as the Q2W maintenance dosing,” said Dr. Blauvelt, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.
“Another highlight of these data is that the patients who went on to placebo, about 50% of the patients maintained good responses, despite no treatment from week 16 to week 52,” he added.
Most patients did not require topical steroids, and “there were no surprises here” in terms of the safety profile. Lebrikizumab, a monoclonal antibody, binds to soluble interleukin-13 and blocks IL-13 signaling.
“So, the study really shows that specific targeting of IL-13 with lebrikizumab, either Q2W or Q4W, has high maintenance of efficacy and is reasonably tolerated and safe in adolescents and adults with atopic dermatitis,” Dr. Blauvelt concluded.
“We know now that IL-13 is a critical cytokine in AD [atopic dermatitis] pathogenesis. The unique features of this drug I want to highlight is that it has high binding affinity for IL-13,” he said.
“It has a slow dissociation off rate, meaning it binds IL-13 tightly, very potently, and stays blocking and stays hold of IL-13 in a strong manner,” he added. The drug has a half-life of 25 days.
These features could be very important for long-term dosing of the drug, he argued.
Lebrikizumab phase 3 trials
ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two of several phase 3 trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab for the treatment of atopic dermatitis.
These include the completed ADhere study, in which lebrikizumab was used in combination with topical steroids and showed positive results in skin improvement and relief of pruritus.
The ADore study, an open-label trial in adolescents, is yet to report. The ongoing ADjoin study, a long-term extension study, is actively recruiting.
ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two identically designed – multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group – monotherapy trials that initially pitched two dosing regimens of lebrikizumab (250 mg) against placebo with a double loading dose at baseline and week 2 and then one dose every 2 weeks. The pair of trials enrolled a total of 869 adolescents and adults.
After the 16-week induction period, all patients in the lebrikizumab arm who had responded to treatment were rerandomly assigned to receive lebrikizumab 250 mg Q2W or Q4W, or placebo Q2W during a 36-week long-term maintenance treatment period.
This brought the total treatment time to 52 weeks for those whose atopic dermatitis had initially responded to lebrikizumab, explained Blauvelt.
Responders were those who, at 16 weeks, had an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 (IGA 0/1) with a 2-point improvement or who had a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (EASI 75) without the need for rescue medication, compared with baseline values.
Induction and maintenance phase results
At the end of the 16-week induction period, a greater proportion of patients who had been treated with lebrikizumab than placebo met a primary outcome of IGA 0/1 in each trial (43.1% vs. 12.7% in ADvocate1 and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in ADvocate2).
A similar result was seen for another primary outcome, EASI 75 (58.8% vs. 16.2% and 52.1% vs. 18.1%) and for a secondary outcome, improvement in pruritus using a numerical rating scale (45.9% vs. 13.0% and 39.8% vs. 11.5%).
In the maintenance phase, with respect to responders, Dr. Blauvelt reported “very similar results” between the QW2 and Q4W maintenance dosing, “and still a quite high response in [half] the patients who were randomized to placebo at week 16.”
In the ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, respectively, an IGA 0/1 with at least a 2-point improvement was maintained at week 52 in 75.8% and 64.6% of patients treated with the Q2W lebrikizumab dose, 74.2% and 80.6% of those treated with the Q4W dose, and 46.5% and 49.8% of those given placebo.
EASI 75 was maintained at week 52 in a respective 79.2% and 77.4% of patients treated with the Q2W dose, 79.2% and 84.7% with the Q4W dose, and 61.3% and 72.0% with placebo.
As for maintenance of at least a 4-point improvement in pruritus score, results at 52 weeks were 81.2% and 90.3% for the 2-week dose, 80.4% and 88.1% for the 4-week dose, and 65.4% and 67.6% for placebo.
Although topical corticosteroid treatment was allowed during the maintenance phase, only about 15% of patients needed this, Dr. Blauvelt said.
Different dosing results questioned
During the discussion period, one delegate highlighted that the twice-weekly maintenance dosing schedule seemed to “do worse a little bit” than the 4-week dosing, with both “close to placebo,” although “the long-term effect is already very impressive.”
Dr. Blauvelt noted that a pooled analysis had been done and that “it’s very clear that being on lebrikizumab works better than not being on lebrikizumab.
“Now, Q2W versus Q4W. We believe that this may be due to the long half-life of the drug possibly. It could be due to the slow disassociation rate, it’s binding tightly,” he suggested.
“We also could talk about disease modification, right. So, it opens up the concept of hit hard, hit early for 16 weeks, and then maybe you can modify disease over time,” Dr. Blauvelt said.
He added: “That’s highly speculative, of course.”
Short-term safety data
The 52-week safety profile of lebrikizumab is consistent with previously published data at 16 weeks, Dr. Blauvelt said. The most common adverse events during the studies included atopic dermatitis, nasopharyngitis, conjunctivitis, conjunctivitis allergic, headache, and COVID-19.
“This drug has comparable efficacy with dupilumab and tralokinumab,” said Jashin J. Wu, MD, from the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., in an interview. He was not involved in the study.
“As it does not have any significant advantages with less long-term safety data, I do not see a place for it in my practice,” Dr. Wu said.
Dupilumab (Dupixent) and tralokinumab (Adbry) are monoclonal antibodies that also block IL-13. Both are already licensed for treating atopic dermatitis. Dupilumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017, and tralokinumab was approved in 2021.
The study was funded by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Eli Lilly has exclusive rights for the development and commercialization of lebrikizumab in the United States and all countries outside Europe; European rights belong to Almirall for all dermatology indications, including atopic dermatitis. Dr. Blauvelt acts as an investigator and adviser to these companies as well as many other pharmaceutical companies that are involved in developing new dermatologic treatments. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE EADV CONGRESS
Ruxolitinib repigments many vitiligo-affected body areas
.
Those difficult areas include the hands and feet, said Thierry Passeron, MD, PhD, of Université Côte d’Azur and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice (France).
Indeed, a 50% or greater improvement in the Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (VASI-50) of the hands and feet was achieved with ruxolitinib cream (Opzelura) in around one-third of patients after 52 weeks’ treatment, and more than half of patients showed improvement in the upper and lower extremities.
During one of the late-breaking news sessions, Dr. Passeron presented a pooled analysis of the Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Vitiligo Study 1 (TRuE-V1) and Study 2 (TruE-V2), which assessed VASI-50 data by body regions.
Similarly positive results were seen on the head and neck and the trunk, with VASI-50 being reached in a respective 68% and 48% of patients after a full year of treatment.
“VASI-50 response rates rose steadily through 52 weeks for both the head and trunk,” said Dr. Passeron. He noted that the trials were initially double-blinded for 24 weeks and that there was a further open-label extension phase through week 52.
In the latter phase, all patients were treated with ruxolitinib; those who originally received a vehicle agent as placebo crossed over to the active treatment.
First FDA-approved treatment for adults and adolescents with vitiligo
Ruxolitinib is a Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor that has been available for the treatment for atopic dermatitis for more than a year. It was recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of vitiligo in adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years and older.
This approval was based on the positive findings of the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 studies, which showed that after 24 weeks, 30% of patients treated with ruxolitinib had at least 75% improvement in the facial VASI, compared with 10% of placebo-treated patients.
“These studies demonstrated very nice results, especially on the face, which is the easiest part to repigment in vitiligo,” Dr. Passeron said.
“We know that the location is very important when it comes to repigmentation of vitiligo,” he added. He noted that other body areas, “the extremities, for example, are much more difficult.”
The analysis he presented specifically assessed the effect of ruxolitinib cream on repigmentation in other areas.
Pooled analysis performed
Data from the two TRuE-V trials were pooled. The new analysis included a total of 661 individuals; of those patients, 443 had been treated with topical ruxolitinib, and 218 had received a vehicle cream as a placebo.
For the first 24 weeks, patients received twice-daily 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle cream. This was followed by a 28-week extension phase in which everyone was treated with ruxolitinib cream, after which there was a 30-day final follow-up period.
Dr. Passeron reported data by body region for weeks 12, 24, and 52, which showed an increasing percentage of patients with VASI-50.
“We didn’t look at the face; that we know well, that is a very good result,” he said.
The best results were seen for the head and neck. VASI-50 was reached by 28.3%, 45.3%, and 68.1% of patients treated with ruxolitinib cream at weeks 12, 24, and 52, respectively. Corresponding rates for the placebo-crossover group were 19.8%, 23.8%, and 51%.
Repigmentation rates of the hand, upper extremities, trunk, lower extremities, and feet were about 9%-15% for both ruxolitinib and placebo at 12 weeks, but by 24 weeks, there was a clear increase in repigmentation rates in the ruxolitinib group for all body areas.
The 24-week VASI-50 rates for hand repigmentation were 24.9% for ruxolitinib cream and 14.4% for placebo. Corresponding rates for upper extremity repigmentation were 33.2% and 8.2%; for the trunk, 26.4% and 12.2%; for the lower extremities, 29.5% and 12.2%; and for the feet, 18.5% and 12.5%.
“The results are quite poor at 12 weeks,” Dr. Passeron said. “It’s very important to keep this in mind; it takes time to repigment vitiligo, it takes to 6-24 months. We have to explain to our patients that they will have to wait to see the results.”
Steady improvements, no new safety concerns
Regarding VASI-50 over time, there was a steady increase in total body scores; 47.7% of patients who received ruxolitinib and 23.3% of placebo-treated patients hit this target at 52 weeks.
“And what is also very important to see is that we didn’t reach the plateau,” Dr. Passeron reported.
Similar patterns were seen for all the other body areas. Again there was a suggestion that rates may continue to rise with continued long-term treatment.
“About one-third of the patients reached at least 50% repigmentation after 1 year of treatment in the hands and feet,” Dr. Passeron said. He noted that certain areas, such as the back of the hand or tips of the fingers, may be unresponsive.
“So, we have to also to warn the patient that probably on these areas we have to combine it with other treatment because it remains very, very difficult to treat.”
There were no new safety concerns regarding treatment-emergent adverse events, which were reported in 52% of patients who received ruxolitinib and in 36% of placebo-treated patients.
The most common adverse reactions included COVID-19 (6.1% vs. 3.1%), acne at the application site (5.3% vs. 1.3%), and pruritus at the application site (3.9% vs. 2.7%), although cases were “mild or moderate,” said Dr. Passeron.
An expert’s take-home
“The results of TRuE-V phase 3 studies are encouraging and exciting,” Viktoria Eleftheriadou, MD, MRCP(UK), SCE(Derm), PhD, said in providing an independent comment for this news organization.
“Although ruxolitinib cream is applied on the skin, this novel treatment for vitiligo is not without risks; therefore, careful monitoring of patients who are started on this topical treatment would be prudent,” said Dr. Eleftheriadou, who is a consultant dermatologist for Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust and the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
“I would like to see how many patients achieved VASI-75 or VASI-80 score, which from patients’ perspectives is a more meaningful outcome, as well as how long these results will last for,” she added.
The study was funded by Incyte Corporation. Dr. Passeron has received grants, honoraria, or both from AbbVie, ACM Pharma, Almirall, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galderma, Genzyme/Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and UCB. Dr. Passeron is the cofounder of YUKIN Therapeutics and has patents on WNT agonists or GSK2b antagonist for repigmentation of vitiligo and on the use of CXCR3B blockers in vitiligo. Dr. Eleftheriadou is an investigator and trial development group member on the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial (specific), a lead investigator on the pilot HI-Light Vitiligo Trial, and a medical advisory panel member of the Vitiligo Society UK. Dr. Eleftheriadou also provides consultancy services to Incyte and Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
.
Those difficult areas include the hands and feet, said Thierry Passeron, MD, PhD, of Université Côte d’Azur and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice (France).
Indeed, a 50% or greater improvement in the Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (VASI-50) of the hands and feet was achieved with ruxolitinib cream (Opzelura) in around one-third of patients after 52 weeks’ treatment, and more than half of patients showed improvement in the upper and lower extremities.
During one of the late-breaking news sessions, Dr. Passeron presented a pooled analysis of the Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Vitiligo Study 1 (TRuE-V1) and Study 2 (TruE-V2), which assessed VASI-50 data by body regions.
Similarly positive results were seen on the head and neck and the trunk, with VASI-50 being reached in a respective 68% and 48% of patients after a full year of treatment.
“VASI-50 response rates rose steadily through 52 weeks for both the head and trunk,” said Dr. Passeron. He noted that the trials were initially double-blinded for 24 weeks and that there was a further open-label extension phase through week 52.
In the latter phase, all patients were treated with ruxolitinib; those who originally received a vehicle agent as placebo crossed over to the active treatment.
First FDA-approved treatment for adults and adolescents with vitiligo
Ruxolitinib is a Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor that has been available for the treatment for atopic dermatitis for more than a year. It was recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of vitiligo in adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years and older.
This approval was based on the positive findings of the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 studies, which showed that after 24 weeks, 30% of patients treated with ruxolitinib had at least 75% improvement in the facial VASI, compared with 10% of placebo-treated patients.
“These studies demonstrated very nice results, especially on the face, which is the easiest part to repigment in vitiligo,” Dr. Passeron said.
“We know that the location is very important when it comes to repigmentation of vitiligo,” he added. He noted that other body areas, “the extremities, for example, are much more difficult.”
The analysis he presented specifically assessed the effect of ruxolitinib cream on repigmentation in other areas.
Pooled analysis performed
Data from the two TRuE-V trials were pooled. The new analysis included a total of 661 individuals; of those patients, 443 had been treated with topical ruxolitinib, and 218 had received a vehicle cream as a placebo.
For the first 24 weeks, patients received twice-daily 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle cream. This was followed by a 28-week extension phase in which everyone was treated with ruxolitinib cream, after which there was a 30-day final follow-up period.
Dr. Passeron reported data by body region for weeks 12, 24, and 52, which showed an increasing percentage of patients with VASI-50.
“We didn’t look at the face; that we know well, that is a very good result,” he said.
The best results were seen for the head and neck. VASI-50 was reached by 28.3%, 45.3%, and 68.1% of patients treated with ruxolitinib cream at weeks 12, 24, and 52, respectively. Corresponding rates for the placebo-crossover group were 19.8%, 23.8%, and 51%.
Repigmentation rates of the hand, upper extremities, trunk, lower extremities, and feet were about 9%-15% for both ruxolitinib and placebo at 12 weeks, but by 24 weeks, there was a clear increase in repigmentation rates in the ruxolitinib group for all body areas.
The 24-week VASI-50 rates for hand repigmentation were 24.9% for ruxolitinib cream and 14.4% for placebo. Corresponding rates for upper extremity repigmentation were 33.2% and 8.2%; for the trunk, 26.4% and 12.2%; for the lower extremities, 29.5% and 12.2%; and for the feet, 18.5% and 12.5%.
“The results are quite poor at 12 weeks,” Dr. Passeron said. “It’s very important to keep this in mind; it takes time to repigment vitiligo, it takes to 6-24 months. We have to explain to our patients that they will have to wait to see the results.”
Steady improvements, no new safety concerns
Regarding VASI-50 over time, there was a steady increase in total body scores; 47.7% of patients who received ruxolitinib and 23.3% of placebo-treated patients hit this target at 52 weeks.
“And what is also very important to see is that we didn’t reach the plateau,” Dr. Passeron reported.
Similar patterns were seen for all the other body areas. Again there was a suggestion that rates may continue to rise with continued long-term treatment.
“About one-third of the patients reached at least 50% repigmentation after 1 year of treatment in the hands and feet,” Dr. Passeron said. He noted that certain areas, such as the back of the hand or tips of the fingers, may be unresponsive.
“So, we have to also to warn the patient that probably on these areas we have to combine it with other treatment because it remains very, very difficult to treat.”
There were no new safety concerns regarding treatment-emergent adverse events, which were reported in 52% of patients who received ruxolitinib and in 36% of placebo-treated patients.
The most common adverse reactions included COVID-19 (6.1% vs. 3.1%), acne at the application site (5.3% vs. 1.3%), and pruritus at the application site (3.9% vs. 2.7%), although cases were “mild or moderate,” said Dr. Passeron.
An expert’s take-home
“The results of TRuE-V phase 3 studies are encouraging and exciting,” Viktoria Eleftheriadou, MD, MRCP(UK), SCE(Derm), PhD, said in providing an independent comment for this news organization.
“Although ruxolitinib cream is applied on the skin, this novel treatment for vitiligo is not without risks; therefore, careful monitoring of patients who are started on this topical treatment would be prudent,” said Dr. Eleftheriadou, who is a consultant dermatologist for Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust and the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
“I would like to see how many patients achieved VASI-75 or VASI-80 score, which from patients’ perspectives is a more meaningful outcome, as well as how long these results will last for,” she added.
The study was funded by Incyte Corporation. Dr. Passeron has received grants, honoraria, or both from AbbVie, ACM Pharma, Almirall, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galderma, Genzyme/Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and UCB. Dr. Passeron is the cofounder of YUKIN Therapeutics and has patents on WNT agonists or GSK2b antagonist for repigmentation of vitiligo and on the use of CXCR3B blockers in vitiligo. Dr. Eleftheriadou is an investigator and trial development group member on the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial (specific), a lead investigator on the pilot HI-Light Vitiligo Trial, and a medical advisory panel member of the Vitiligo Society UK. Dr. Eleftheriadou also provides consultancy services to Incyte and Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
.
Those difficult areas include the hands and feet, said Thierry Passeron, MD, PhD, of Université Côte d’Azur and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice (France).
Indeed, a 50% or greater improvement in the Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (VASI-50) of the hands and feet was achieved with ruxolitinib cream (Opzelura) in around one-third of patients after 52 weeks’ treatment, and more than half of patients showed improvement in the upper and lower extremities.
During one of the late-breaking news sessions, Dr. Passeron presented a pooled analysis of the Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Vitiligo Study 1 (TRuE-V1) and Study 2 (TruE-V2), which assessed VASI-50 data by body regions.
Similarly positive results were seen on the head and neck and the trunk, with VASI-50 being reached in a respective 68% and 48% of patients after a full year of treatment.
“VASI-50 response rates rose steadily through 52 weeks for both the head and trunk,” said Dr. Passeron. He noted that the trials were initially double-blinded for 24 weeks and that there was a further open-label extension phase through week 52.
In the latter phase, all patients were treated with ruxolitinib; those who originally received a vehicle agent as placebo crossed over to the active treatment.
First FDA-approved treatment for adults and adolescents with vitiligo
Ruxolitinib is a Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor that has been available for the treatment for atopic dermatitis for more than a year. It was recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of vitiligo in adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years and older.
This approval was based on the positive findings of the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 studies, which showed that after 24 weeks, 30% of patients treated with ruxolitinib had at least 75% improvement in the facial VASI, compared with 10% of placebo-treated patients.
“These studies demonstrated very nice results, especially on the face, which is the easiest part to repigment in vitiligo,” Dr. Passeron said.
“We know that the location is very important when it comes to repigmentation of vitiligo,” he added. He noted that other body areas, “the extremities, for example, are much more difficult.”
The analysis he presented specifically assessed the effect of ruxolitinib cream on repigmentation in other areas.
Pooled analysis performed
Data from the two TRuE-V trials were pooled. The new analysis included a total of 661 individuals; of those patients, 443 had been treated with topical ruxolitinib, and 218 had received a vehicle cream as a placebo.
For the first 24 weeks, patients received twice-daily 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle cream. This was followed by a 28-week extension phase in which everyone was treated with ruxolitinib cream, after which there was a 30-day final follow-up period.
Dr. Passeron reported data by body region for weeks 12, 24, and 52, which showed an increasing percentage of patients with VASI-50.
“We didn’t look at the face; that we know well, that is a very good result,” he said.
The best results were seen for the head and neck. VASI-50 was reached by 28.3%, 45.3%, and 68.1% of patients treated with ruxolitinib cream at weeks 12, 24, and 52, respectively. Corresponding rates for the placebo-crossover group were 19.8%, 23.8%, and 51%.
Repigmentation rates of the hand, upper extremities, trunk, lower extremities, and feet were about 9%-15% for both ruxolitinib and placebo at 12 weeks, but by 24 weeks, there was a clear increase in repigmentation rates in the ruxolitinib group for all body areas.
The 24-week VASI-50 rates for hand repigmentation were 24.9% for ruxolitinib cream and 14.4% for placebo. Corresponding rates for upper extremity repigmentation were 33.2% and 8.2%; for the trunk, 26.4% and 12.2%; for the lower extremities, 29.5% and 12.2%; and for the feet, 18.5% and 12.5%.
“The results are quite poor at 12 weeks,” Dr. Passeron said. “It’s very important to keep this in mind; it takes time to repigment vitiligo, it takes to 6-24 months. We have to explain to our patients that they will have to wait to see the results.”
Steady improvements, no new safety concerns
Regarding VASI-50 over time, there was a steady increase in total body scores; 47.7% of patients who received ruxolitinib and 23.3% of placebo-treated patients hit this target at 52 weeks.
“And what is also very important to see is that we didn’t reach the plateau,” Dr. Passeron reported.
Similar patterns were seen for all the other body areas. Again there was a suggestion that rates may continue to rise with continued long-term treatment.
“About one-third of the patients reached at least 50% repigmentation after 1 year of treatment in the hands and feet,” Dr. Passeron said. He noted that certain areas, such as the back of the hand or tips of the fingers, may be unresponsive.
“So, we have to also to warn the patient that probably on these areas we have to combine it with other treatment because it remains very, very difficult to treat.”
There were no new safety concerns regarding treatment-emergent adverse events, which were reported in 52% of patients who received ruxolitinib and in 36% of placebo-treated patients.
The most common adverse reactions included COVID-19 (6.1% vs. 3.1%), acne at the application site (5.3% vs. 1.3%), and pruritus at the application site (3.9% vs. 2.7%), although cases were “mild or moderate,” said Dr. Passeron.
An expert’s take-home
“The results of TRuE-V phase 3 studies are encouraging and exciting,” Viktoria Eleftheriadou, MD, MRCP(UK), SCE(Derm), PhD, said in providing an independent comment for this news organization.
“Although ruxolitinib cream is applied on the skin, this novel treatment for vitiligo is not without risks; therefore, careful monitoring of patients who are started on this topical treatment would be prudent,” said Dr. Eleftheriadou, who is a consultant dermatologist for Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust and the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
“I would like to see how many patients achieved VASI-75 or VASI-80 score, which from patients’ perspectives is a more meaningful outcome, as well as how long these results will last for,” she added.
The study was funded by Incyte Corporation. Dr. Passeron has received grants, honoraria, or both from AbbVie, ACM Pharma, Almirall, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galderma, Genzyme/Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and UCB. Dr. Passeron is the cofounder of YUKIN Therapeutics and has patents on WNT agonists or GSK2b antagonist for repigmentation of vitiligo and on the use of CXCR3B blockers in vitiligo. Dr. Eleftheriadou is an investigator and trial development group member on the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial (specific), a lead investigator on the pilot HI-Light Vitiligo Trial, and a medical advisory panel member of the Vitiligo Society UK. Dr. Eleftheriadou also provides consultancy services to Incyte and Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE EADV CONGRESS
BREEZE-AD-PEDS: First data for baricitinib in childhood eczema reported
The oral Janus kinase
After 16 weeks of treatment, the primary endpoint – an Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-point improvement from baseline – was met by 41.7% of patients given 2 mg (those younger than age 10) or 4 mg of baricitinib (those aged 10-17 years), the highest dose studied in each of those two age groups.
By comparison, the primary endpoint was met in 16.4% of children in the placebo group (P < .001).
Baricitinib is approved for the treatment of AD in adults in many countries, Antonio Torrelo, MD, of the Hospital Infantil Niño Jesús, Madrid, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating adults with severe alopecia areata in June and is under FDA review for the treatment of AD.
The phase 3 BREEZE-AD-PEDS trial
BREEZE-AD-PEDS was a randomized, double-blind trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of baricitinib in 483 children and adolescents with moderate to severe AD. Participants were aged 2-17 years. Those aged 2-5 years had been diagnosed with AD for at least 6 months; if they were older, they had been diagnosed for at least 12 months.
Three dosing levels of baricitinib were tested: 121 patients were given a low dose, which was 0.5 mg/day in children aged 2 to less than 10 years and 1 mg/day in those aged 10 to less than 18 years. A medium dose – 1 mg/day in the younger children and 2 mg/day in the older children – was given to 120 children, while a high dose – 2 mg/day and 4 mg/day, respectively – was given to another 120 children.
Topical treatments were permitted, although for entry into the trial, participants had to have had an inadequate response to steroids and an inadequate or no response to topical calcineurin inhibitors. In all groups, age, gender, race, geographic region, age at diagnosis of AD, and duration of AD “were more or less similar,” Dr. Torello said.
Good results, but only with highest dose
The primary IGA endpoint was reached by 25.8% of children in the medium-dose group and by 18.2% in the low-dose group. Neither result was statistically significant in comparison with placebo (16.4%).
When breaking down the results between different ages, “the results in the IGA scores are consistent in both age subgroups – below 10 years and over 10 years,” Dr. Torello noted. The results are also consistent across body weights (< 20 kg, 20-60 kg, and > 60 kg), he added.
Among those treated with the high dose of baricitinib, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) 75% and 95% improvement scores were reached in 52.5% and 30% of patients, respectively. Corresponding figures for the medium dose were 40% and 21.7%; for the low baricitinib dose, 32.2% and 11.6%; and for placebo, 32% and 12.3%. Again, only the results for the highest baricitinib dose were significant in comparison with placebo.
A similar pattern was seen for improvement in itch, and there was a 75% improvement in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD75) results.
Safety of baricitinib in children
The labeling for JAK inhibitors that have been approved to date, including baricitinib, include a boxed warning regarding risks for thrombosis, major adverse cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality. The warning is based on use by patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Dr. Torello summarized baricitinib’s safety profile in the trial as being “consistent with the well-known safety profile for baricitinib in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”
In the study, no severe adverse effects were noted, and no new safety signals were observed, he said. The rate of any treatment-emergent effect among patients was around 50% and was similar across all baricitinib and placebo groups. Study discontinuations because of a side effect were more frequent in the placebo arm (1.6% of patients) than in the baricitinib low-, medium-, and high-dose arms (0.8%, 0%, and 0.8%, respectively).
There were no cases of deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or other adverse effects of special interest, including major adverse cardiovascular events, gastrointestinal perforations, and opportunistic infections, Dr. Torrelo said.
No patient experienced elevations in liver enzyme levels, although there were some cases of elevated creatinine phosphokinase levels (16% in the placebo group and 19% in the baricitinib arms altogether) that were not from muscle injury. There was a possible increase in low-density cholesterol level (3.3% of those taking placebo vs. 10.1% of baricitinib-treated patients).
Is there a role for baricitinib?
“Baricitinib is a potential therapeutic option with a favorable benefit-to-risk profile for children between 2 and 18 years who have moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, and candidates for systemic therapy,” Dr. Torrelo said. “No single drug is capable to treat every patient with atopic dermatitis,” he added in discussing the possible place of baricitinib in pediatric practice.
“There are patients who do not respond to dupilumab, who apparently respond later to JAK inhibitors,” he noted.
“We are trying to work phenotypically, trying to learn what kind of patients – especially children who have a more heterogeneous disease than adults – can be better treated with JAK inhibitors or dupilumab.” There may be other important considerations in choosing a treatment in children, Dr. Torrelo said, including that JAK inhibitors can be given orally, while dupilumab is administered by injection.
Asked to comment on the results, Jashin J. Wu, MD, founder and CEO of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., pointed out that “only the higher dose is significantly more effective than placebo.”
In his view, “the potentially severe adverse events are not worth the risk compared to more effective agents, such as dupilumab, in this pediatric population,” added Dr. Wu, who recently authored a review of the role of JAK inhibitors in skin disease. He was not involved with the baricitinib study.
The study was funded by Eli Lilly in collaboration with Incyte. Dr. Torello has participated in advisory boards and/or has served as a principal investigator in clinical trials for AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The oral Janus kinase
After 16 weeks of treatment, the primary endpoint – an Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-point improvement from baseline – was met by 41.7% of patients given 2 mg (those younger than age 10) or 4 mg of baricitinib (those aged 10-17 years), the highest dose studied in each of those two age groups.
By comparison, the primary endpoint was met in 16.4% of children in the placebo group (P < .001).
Baricitinib is approved for the treatment of AD in adults in many countries, Antonio Torrelo, MD, of the Hospital Infantil Niño Jesús, Madrid, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating adults with severe alopecia areata in June and is under FDA review for the treatment of AD.
The phase 3 BREEZE-AD-PEDS trial
BREEZE-AD-PEDS was a randomized, double-blind trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of baricitinib in 483 children and adolescents with moderate to severe AD. Participants were aged 2-17 years. Those aged 2-5 years had been diagnosed with AD for at least 6 months; if they were older, they had been diagnosed for at least 12 months.
Three dosing levels of baricitinib were tested: 121 patients were given a low dose, which was 0.5 mg/day in children aged 2 to less than 10 years and 1 mg/day in those aged 10 to less than 18 years. A medium dose – 1 mg/day in the younger children and 2 mg/day in the older children – was given to 120 children, while a high dose – 2 mg/day and 4 mg/day, respectively – was given to another 120 children.
Topical treatments were permitted, although for entry into the trial, participants had to have had an inadequate response to steroids and an inadequate or no response to topical calcineurin inhibitors. In all groups, age, gender, race, geographic region, age at diagnosis of AD, and duration of AD “were more or less similar,” Dr. Torello said.
Good results, but only with highest dose
The primary IGA endpoint was reached by 25.8% of children in the medium-dose group and by 18.2% in the low-dose group. Neither result was statistically significant in comparison with placebo (16.4%).
When breaking down the results between different ages, “the results in the IGA scores are consistent in both age subgroups – below 10 years and over 10 years,” Dr. Torello noted. The results are also consistent across body weights (< 20 kg, 20-60 kg, and > 60 kg), he added.
Among those treated with the high dose of baricitinib, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) 75% and 95% improvement scores were reached in 52.5% and 30% of patients, respectively. Corresponding figures for the medium dose were 40% and 21.7%; for the low baricitinib dose, 32.2% and 11.6%; and for placebo, 32% and 12.3%. Again, only the results for the highest baricitinib dose were significant in comparison with placebo.
A similar pattern was seen for improvement in itch, and there was a 75% improvement in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD75) results.
Safety of baricitinib in children
The labeling for JAK inhibitors that have been approved to date, including baricitinib, include a boxed warning regarding risks for thrombosis, major adverse cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality. The warning is based on use by patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Dr. Torello summarized baricitinib’s safety profile in the trial as being “consistent with the well-known safety profile for baricitinib in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”
In the study, no severe adverse effects were noted, and no new safety signals were observed, he said. The rate of any treatment-emergent effect among patients was around 50% and was similar across all baricitinib and placebo groups. Study discontinuations because of a side effect were more frequent in the placebo arm (1.6% of patients) than in the baricitinib low-, medium-, and high-dose arms (0.8%, 0%, and 0.8%, respectively).
There were no cases of deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or other adverse effects of special interest, including major adverse cardiovascular events, gastrointestinal perforations, and opportunistic infections, Dr. Torrelo said.
No patient experienced elevations in liver enzyme levels, although there were some cases of elevated creatinine phosphokinase levels (16% in the placebo group and 19% in the baricitinib arms altogether) that were not from muscle injury. There was a possible increase in low-density cholesterol level (3.3% of those taking placebo vs. 10.1% of baricitinib-treated patients).
Is there a role for baricitinib?
“Baricitinib is a potential therapeutic option with a favorable benefit-to-risk profile for children between 2 and 18 years who have moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, and candidates for systemic therapy,” Dr. Torrelo said. “No single drug is capable to treat every patient with atopic dermatitis,” he added in discussing the possible place of baricitinib in pediatric practice.
“There are patients who do not respond to dupilumab, who apparently respond later to JAK inhibitors,” he noted.
“We are trying to work phenotypically, trying to learn what kind of patients – especially children who have a more heterogeneous disease than adults – can be better treated with JAK inhibitors or dupilumab.” There may be other important considerations in choosing a treatment in children, Dr. Torrelo said, including that JAK inhibitors can be given orally, while dupilumab is administered by injection.
Asked to comment on the results, Jashin J. Wu, MD, founder and CEO of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., pointed out that “only the higher dose is significantly more effective than placebo.”
In his view, “the potentially severe adverse events are not worth the risk compared to more effective agents, such as dupilumab, in this pediatric population,” added Dr. Wu, who recently authored a review of the role of JAK inhibitors in skin disease. He was not involved with the baricitinib study.
The study was funded by Eli Lilly in collaboration with Incyte. Dr. Torello has participated in advisory boards and/or has served as a principal investigator in clinical trials for AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The oral Janus kinase
After 16 weeks of treatment, the primary endpoint – an Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-point improvement from baseline – was met by 41.7% of patients given 2 mg (those younger than age 10) or 4 mg of baricitinib (those aged 10-17 years), the highest dose studied in each of those two age groups.
By comparison, the primary endpoint was met in 16.4% of children in the placebo group (P < .001).
Baricitinib is approved for the treatment of AD in adults in many countries, Antonio Torrelo, MD, of the Hospital Infantil Niño Jesús, Madrid, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating adults with severe alopecia areata in June and is under FDA review for the treatment of AD.
The phase 3 BREEZE-AD-PEDS trial
BREEZE-AD-PEDS was a randomized, double-blind trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of baricitinib in 483 children and adolescents with moderate to severe AD. Participants were aged 2-17 years. Those aged 2-5 years had been diagnosed with AD for at least 6 months; if they were older, they had been diagnosed for at least 12 months.
Three dosing levels of baricitinib were tested: 121 patients were given a low dose, which was 0.5 mg/day in children aged 2 to less than 10 years and 1 mg/day in those aged 10 to less than 18 years. A medium dose – 1 mg/day in the younger children and 2 mg/day in the older children – was given to 120 children, while a high dose – 2 mg/day and 4 mg/day, respectively – was given to another 120 children.
Topical treatments were permitted, although for entry into the trial, participants had to have had an inadequate response to steroids and an inadequate or no response to topical calcineurin inhibitors. In all groups, age, gender, race, geographic region, age at diagnosis of AD, and duration of AD “were more or less similar,” Dr. Torello said.
Good results, but only with highest dose
The primary IGA endpoint was reached by 25.8% of children in the medium-dose group and by 18.2% in the low-dose group. Neither result was statistically significant in comparison with placebo (16.4%).
When breaking down the results between different ages, “the results in the IGA scores are consistent in both age subgroups – below 10 years and over 10 years,” Dr. Torello noted. The results are also consistent across body weights (< 20 kg, 20-60 kg, and > 60 kg), he added.
Among those treated with the high dose of baricitinib, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) 75% and 95% improvement scores were reached in 52.5% and 30% of patients, respectively. Corresponding figures for the medium dose were 40% and 21.7%; for the low baricitinib dose, 32.2% and 11.6%; and for placebo, 32% and 12.3%. Again, only the results for the highest baricitinib dose were significant in comparison with placebo.
A similar pattern was seen for improvement in itch, and there was a 75% improvement in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD75) results.
Safety of baricitinib in children
The labeling for JAK inhibitors that have been approved to date, including baricitinib, include a boxed warning regarding risks for thrombosis, major adverse cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality. The warning is based on use by patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Dr. Torello summarized baricitinib’s safety profile in the trial as being “consistent with the well-known safety profile for baricitinib in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”
In the study, no severe adverse effects were noted, and no new safety signals were observed, he said. The rate of any treatment-emergent effect among patients was around 50% and was similar across all baricitinib and placebo groups. Study discontinuations because of a side effect were more frequent in the placebo arm (1.6% of patients) than in the baricitinib low-, medium-, and high-dose arms (0.8%, 0%, and 0.8%, respectively).
There were no cases of deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or other adverse effects of special interest, including major adverse cardiovascular events, gastrointestinal perforations, and opportunistic infections, Dr. Torrelo said.
No patient experienced elevations in liver enzyme levels, although there were some cases of elevated creatinine phosphokinase levels (16% in the placebo group and 19% in the baricitinib arms altogether) that were not from muscle injury. There was a possible increase in low-density cholesterol level (3.3% of those taking placebo vs. 10.1% of baricitinib-treated patients).
Is there a role for baricitinib?
“Baricitinib is a potential therapeutic option with a favorable benefit-to-risk profile for children between 2 and 18 years who have moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, and candidates for systemic therapy,” Dr. Torrelo said. “No single drug is capable to treat every patient with atopic dermatitis,” he added in discussing the possible place of baricitinib in pediatric practice.
“There are patients who do not respond to dupilumab, who apparently respond later to JAK inhibitors,” he noted.
“We are trying to work phenotypically, trying to learn what kind of patients – especially children who have a more heterogeneous disease than adults – can be better treated with JAK inhibitors or dupilumab.” There may be other important considerations in choosing a treatment in children, Dr. Torrelo said, including that JAK inhibitors can be given orally, while dupilumab is administered by injection.
Asked to comment on the results, Jashin J. Wu, MD, founder and CEO of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., pointed out that “only the higher dose is significantly more effective than placebo.”
In his view, “the potentially severe adverse events are not worth the risk compared to more effective agents, such as dupilumab, in this pediatric population,” added Dr. Wu, who recently authored a review of the role of JAK inhibitors in skin disease. He was not involved with the baricitinib study.
The study was funded by Eli Lilly in collaboration with Incyte. Dr. Torello has participated in advisory boards and/or has served as a principal investigator in clinical trials for AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE EADV CONGRESS
Monkeypox features include mucocutaneous involvement in almost all cases
MILAN – In the current spread of monkeypox among countries outside of Africa, this zoonotic orthopox DNA virus is sexually transmitted in more than 90% of cases, mostly among men having sex with men (MSM), and can produce severe skin and systemic symptoms but is rarely fatal, according to a breaking news presentation at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
Synthesizing data from 185 cases in Spain with several sets of recently published data, Alba Català, MD, a dermatologist at Centro Médico Teknon, Barcelona, said at the meeting that there have been only two deaths in Spain in the current epidemic. (As of Sept. 30, after the EADV meeting had concluded, a total of three deaths related to monkeypox in Spain and one death in the United States had been reported, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).
Hospitalizations have been uncommon, and in Spain, there were only four hospitalizations, according to data collected from the beginning of May through early August, she said. Almost all cases in this Spanish series were from men having high-risk sex with men. Upon screening, 76% had another sexually transmitted disease, including 41% infected with human immunodeficiency virus.
More than 40% of patients with monkeypox have HIV
These data are consistent with several other recently published studies, such as one that evaluated 528 infections in 16 non-African countries, including those in North America, South America, Europe, the Mideast, as well as Australia. In that survey, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and covering cases between late April and late June, 2022, 41% were HIV positive. Of those who were HIV negative, 57% were taking a pre-exposure prophylaxis regimen of antiretroviral drugs to prevent HIV infection.
However, these data do not preclude a significant risk of nonsexual transmission, according to Dr. Català, who noted that respiratory transmission and transmission through nonsexual skin contact is well documented in endemic areas.
“The virus has no preference for a sexual orientation,” Dr. Català cautioned. Despite the consistency of the data in regard to a largely MSM transmission in the epidemic so far, “these data may change with further spread of infection in the community.”
Typically, the incubation period of monkeypox lasts several days before the invasive period, which is commonly accompanied by systemic complaints, particularly fever, headache, and often lymphadenopathy. These systemic features usually but not always precede cutaneous involvement, which is seen in more than 90% of patients, according to Dr. Català. In the Spanish series, mucocutaneous involvement was recorded in 100% of patients.
Monkeypox and smallpox
“The differential diagnosis might include other vesicular eruptions, such as those caused by varicella or smallpox,” reported Dr. Català, who noted that monkeypox and smallpox are related.
Cutaneous lesions often appear first at the site of infection, such as the genitalia, but typically spread in a secondary eruption that is pruritic and may take days to resolve, according to Dr. Català. She reported that single lesions are less common but do occur. While hundreds of lesions have been reported among cases in endemic areas, most patients had 25 lesions or fewer in the Spanish epidemic and other recent series.
Even though there is a common progression in which lesions begin in a papular stage before the vesicular and pustular stages in a given area, new eruptions can occur before a prior eruption develops scabs.
“Frequently, not all the patient’s lesions are in the same stage of development,” said Dr. Català, who explained that disease activity and its complications, such as proctitis, pharyngitis, and penile edema, can take weeks to resolve. Because of the highly invasive nature of monkeypox, it is appropriate to be alert to less common manifestations, such as ocular involvement.
Many of these and other complications, such as secondary bacterial infections, will require targeted treatment, but the mainstay of therapy for the dermatologic manifestations of monkeypox is symptomatic treatment that includes nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and analgesics.
Re-epithelialization reduces transmission risk
“A clean, moist environment can mitigate transmission potential by covering infectious sores and promoting the re-epithelialization of the damaged exanthem,” Dr. Català advised. Tecovirimat (TPOXX, ST-246), an antiviral drug for smallpox, is approved for treating monkeypox in Europe but not in the United States (but it is approved for smallpox in the United States). Another antiviral drug, brincidofovir (CMX001 or Tembexa), is approved for smallpox in the United States, but not in Europe, according to Dr. Català. (In the United States, no treatment is specifically approved for treating monkeypox, but antivirals developed for smallpox “may prove beneficial against monkeypox,” according to the CDC.)
But she advised weighing the risks and benefits of using either drug in any individual patient.
The data suggest that the risk of viral shedding persists until the late stages of the disease trajectory. “A person is considered infectious from the onset of clinical manifestations until all skin lesions have scabbed over and re-epithelization has occurred,” Dr. Català said.
The prolonged period of contagion might be one reason to expect monkeypox to be transmitted more generally than it is now, according to Boghuma K. Titanji, MD, PhD, assistant professor of infectious diseases, Emory University, Atlanta.
“The longer the outbreak persists, the more likely we will see cases reported in groups other than MSM who have been most affected so far,” said Dr. Titanji, the first author of a recently published review article on monkeypox in Open Forum Infectious Diseases.
However, he acknowledged that a COVID-like spread is not expected. “The spread of monkeypox requires close and prolonged contact and is generally inefficient via fomites and droplet modes of transmission,” Dr. Titanji said in an interview. “Spread in heterosexual networks and congregate settings like crowded jails where close contact is unavoidable remains a concern that we need to educate the public about and maintain a high level of vigilance for.”
Dr. Català and Dr. Titanji report no potential conflicts of interest.
MILAN – In the current spread of monkeypox among countries outside of Africa, this zoonotic orthopox DNA virus is sexually transmitted in more than 90% of cases, mostly among men having sex with men (MSM), and can produce severe skin and systemic symptoms but is rarely fatal, according to a breaking news presentation at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
Synthesizing data from 185 cases in Spain with several sets of recently published data, Alba Català, MD, a dermatologist at Centro Médico Teknon, Barcelona, said at the meeting that there have been only two deaths in Spain in the current epidemic. (As of Sept. 30, after the EADV meeting had concluded, a total of three deaths related to monkeypox in Spain and one death in the United States had been reported, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).
Hospitalizations have been uncommon, and in Spain, there were only four hospitalizations, according to data collected from the beginning of May through early August, she said. Almost all cases in this Spanish series were from men having high-risk sex with men. Upon screening, 76% had another sexually transmitted disease, including 41% infected with human immunodeficiency virus.
More than 40% of patients with monkeypox have HIV
These data are consistent with several other recently published studies, such as one that evaluated 528 infections in 16 non-African countries, including those in North America, South America, Europe, the Mideast, as well as Australia. In that survey, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and covering cases between late April and late June, 2022, 41% were HIV positive. Of those who were HIV negative, 57% were taking a pre-exposure prophylaxis regimen of antiretroviral drugs to prevent HIV infection.
However, these data do not preclude a significant risk of nonsexual transmission, according to Dr. Català, who noted that respiratory transmission and transmission through nonsexual skin contact is well documented in endemic areas.
“The virus has no preference for a sexual orientation,” Dr. Català cautioned. Despite the consistency of the data in regard to a largely MSM transmission in the epidemic so far, “these data may change with further spread of infection in the community.”
Typically, the incubation period of monkeypox lasts several days before the invasive period, which is commonly accompanied by systemic complaints, particularly fever, headache, and often lymphadenopathy. These systemic features usually but not always precede cutaneous involvement, which is seen in more than 90% of patients, according to Dr. Català. In the Spanish series, mucocutaneous involvement was recorded in 100% of patients.
Monkeypox and smallpox
“The differential diagnosis might include other vesicular eruptions, such as those caused by varicella or smallpox,” reported Dr. Català, who noted that monkeypox and smallpox are related.
Cutaneous lesions often appear first at the site of infection, such as the genitalia, but typically spread in a secondary eruption that is pruritic and may take days to resolve, according to Dr. Català. She reported that single lesions are less common but do occur. While hundreds of lesions have been reported among cases in endemic areas, most patients had 25 lesions or fewer in the Spanish epidemic and other recent series.
Even though there is a common progression in which lesions begin in a papular stage before the vesicular and pustular stages in a given area, new eruptions can occur before a prior eruption develops scabs.
“Frequently, not all the patient’s lesions are in the same stage of development,” said Dr. Català, who explained that disease activity and its complications, such as proctitis, pharyngitis, and penile edema, can take weeks to resolve. Because of the highly invasive nature of monkeypox, it is appropriate to be alert to less common manifestations, such as ocular involvement.
Many of these and other complications, such as secondary bacterial infections, will require targeted treatment, but the mainstay of therapy for the dermatologic manifestations of monkeypox is symptomatic treatment that includes nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and analgesics.
Re-epithelialization reduces transmission risk
“A clean, moist environment can mitigate transmission potential by covering infectious sores and promoting the re-epithelialization of the damaged exanthem,” Dr. Català advised. Tecovirimat (TPOXX, ST-246), an antiviral drug for smallpox, is approved for treating monkeypox in Europe but not in the United States (but it is approved for smallpox in the United States). Another antiviral drug, brincidofovir (CMX001 or Tembexa), is approved for smallpox in the United States, but not in Europe, according to Dr. Català. (In the United States, no treatment is specifically approved for treating monkeypox, but antivirals developed for smallpox “may prove beneficial against monkeypox,” according to the CDC.)
But she advised weighing the risks and benefits of using either drug in any individual patient.
The data suggest that the risk of viral shedding persists until the late stages of the disease trajectory. “A person is considered infectious from the onset of clinical manifestations until all skin lesions have scabbed over and re-epithelization has occurred,” Dr. Català said.
The prolonged period of contagion might be one reason to expect monkeypox to be transmitted more generally than it is now, according to Boghuma K. Titanji, MD, PhD, assistant professor of infectious diseases, Emory University, Atlanta.
“The longer the outbreak persists, the more likely we will see cases reported in groups other than MSM who have been most affected so far,” said Dr. Titanji, the first author of a recently published review article on monkeypox in Open Forum Infectious Diseases.
However, he acknowledged that a COVID-like spread is not expected. “The spread of monkeypox requires close and prolonged contact and is generally inefficient via fomites and droplet modes of transmission,” Dr. Titanji said in an interview. “Spread in heterosexual networks and congregate settings like crowded jails where close contact is unavoidable remains a concern that we need to educate the public about and maintain a high level of vigilance for.”
Dr. Català and Dr. Titanji report no potential conflicts of interest.
MILAN – In the current spread of monkeypox among countries outside of Africa, this zoonotic orthopox DNA virus is sexually transmitted in more than 90% of cases, mostly among men having sex with men (MSM), and can produce severe skin and systemic symptoms but is rarely fatal, according to a breaking news presentation at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
Synthesizing data from 185 cases in Spain with several sets of recently published data, Alba Català, MD, a dermatologist at Centro Médico Teknon, Barcelona, said at the meeting that there have been only two deaths in Spain in the current epidemic. (As of Sept. 30, after the EADV meeting had concluded, a total of three deaths related to monkeypox in Spain and one death in the United States had been reported, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).
Hospitalizations have been uncommon, and in Spain, there were only four hospitalizations, according to data collected from the beginning of May through early August, she said. Almost all cases in this Spanish series were from men having high-risk sex with men. Upon screening, 76% had another sexually transmitted disease, including 41% infected with human immunodeficiency virus.
More than 40% of patients with monkeypox have HIV
These data are consistent with several other recently published studies, such as one that evaluated 528 infections in 16 non-African countries, including those in North America, South America, Europe, the Mideast, as well as Australia. In that survey, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and covering cases between late April and late June, 2022, 41% were HIV positive. Of those who were HIV negative, 57% were taking a pre-exposure prophylaxis regimen of antiretroviral drugs to prevent HIV infection.
However, these data do not preclude a significant risk of nonsexual transmission, according to Dr. Català, who noted that respiratory transmission and transmission through nonsexual skin contact is well documented in endemic areas.
“The virus has no preference for a sexual orientation,” Dr. Català cautioned. Despite the consistency of the data in regard to a largely MSM transmission in the epidemic so far, “these data may change with further spread of infection in the community.”
Typically, the incubation period of monkeypox lasts several days before the invasive period, which is commonly accompanied by systemic complaints, particularly fever, headache, and often lymphadenopathy. These systemic features usually but not always precede cutaneous involvement, which is seen in more than 90% of patients, according to Dr. Català. In the Spanish series, mucocutaneous involvement was recorded in 100% of patients.
Monkeypox and smallpox
“The differential diagnosis might include other vesicular eruptions, such as those caused by varicella or smallpox,” reported Dr. Català, who noted that monkeypox and smallpox are related.
Cutaneous lesions often appear first at the site of infection, such as the genitalia, but typically spread in a secondary eruption that is pruritic and may take days to resolve, according to Dr. Català. She reported that single lesions are less common but do occur. While hundreds of lesions have been reported among cases in endemic areas, most patients had 25 lesions or fewer in the Spanish epidemic and other recent series.
Even though there is a common progression in which lesions begin in a papular stage before the vesicular and pustular stages in a given area, new eruptions can occur before a prior eruption develops scabs.
“Frequently, not all the patient’s lesions are in the same stage of development,” said Dr. Català, who explained that disease activity and its complications, such as proctitis, pharyngitis, and penile edema, can take weeks to resolve. Because of the highly invasive nature of monkeypox, it is appropriate to be alert to less common manifestations, such as ocular involvement.
Many of these and other complications, such as secondary bacterial infections, will require targeted treatment, but the mainstay of therapy for the dermatologic manifestations of monkeypox is symptomatic treatment that includes nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and analgesics.
Re-epithelialization reduces transmission risk
“A clean, moist environment can mitigate transmission potential by covering infectious sores and promoting the re-epithelialization of the damaged exanthem,” Dr. Català advised. Tecovirimat (TPOXX, ST-246), an antiviral drug for smallpox, is approved for treating monkeypox in Europe but not in the United States (but it is approved for smallpox in the United States). Another antiviral drug, brincidofovir (CMX001 or Tembexa), is approved for smallpox in the United States, but not in Europe, according to Dr. Català. (In the United States, no treatment is specifically approved for treating monkeypox, but antivirals developed for smallpox “may prove beneficial against monkeypox,” according to the CDC.)
But she advised weighing the risks and benefits of using either drug in any individual patient.
The data suggest that the risk of viral shedding persists until the late stages of the disease trajectory. “A person is considered infectious from the onset of clinical manifestations until all skin lesions have scabbed over and re-epithelization has occurred,” Dr. Català said.
The prolonged period of contagion might be one reason to expect monkeypox to be transmitted more generally than it is now, according to Boghuma K. Titanji, MD, PhD, assistant professor of infectious diseases, Emory University, Atlanta.
“The longer the outbreak persists, the more likely we will see cases reported in groups other than MSM who have been most affected so far,” said Dr. Titanji, the first author of a recently published review article on monkeypox in Open Forum Infectious Diseases.
However, he acknowledged that a COVID-like spread is not expected. “The spread of monkeypox requires close and prolonged contact and is generally inefficient via fomites and droplet modes of transmission,” Dr. Titanji said in an interview. “Spread in heterosexual networks and congregate settings like crowded jails where close contact is unavoidable remains a concern that we need to educate the public about and maintain a high level of vigilance for.”
Dr. Català and Dr. Titanji report no potential conflicts of interest.
AT THE EADV CONGRESS
Alopecia areata: Positive results reported for two investigational JAK inhibitors
in separate studies reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
In the THRIVE-AA1 study, the primary endpoint of a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of 20 or lower –which indicates that hair regrowth has occurred on at least 80% of the scalp – was achieved among patients taking deuruxolitinib, which was a significantly higher proportion than with placebo (P < .0001). Importantly, the JAK inhibitor’s effects were seen in as early as 4 weeks, and there was significant improvement in both eyelash and eyebrow hair regrowth.
In the unrelated ALLEGRO-LT study, effects from treatment with the JAK inhibitor ritlecitinib appeared to be sustained for 2 years; 69.6% of patients treated with ritlecitinib had a SALT score of 20 or lower by 24 months.
These data are “very exciting for alopecia areata because the patients selected are very severe,” observed Mahtab Samimi, MD, PhD, who cochaired the late-breaking session in which the study findings were discussed.
THRIVE-AA1 included only patients with hair loss of 50% or more. The ALLEGRO-LT study included patients with total scalp or total body hair loss (areata totalis/areata universalis) of 25%-50% at enrollment.
Moreover, “very stringent criteria” were used. SALT scores of 10 or less were evaluated in both studies, observed Dr. Samimi, professor of dermatology at the University of Tours (France).
“We can be ambitious now for our patients with alopecia areata; that’s really good news,” Dr. Samimi added.
Deuruxolitinib and the THRIVE trials
Deuruxolitinib is an oral JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor that has been tested in two similarly designed, multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials in patients with AA, THRIVE-AA1 and THRIVE-AA2.
Two doses of deuruxolitinib, 8 mg and 12 mg given twice daily, were evaluated in the trials, which altogether included just over 1,200 patients.
Results of THRIVE-AA1 have been reported by the manufacturer. Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., presented a more comprehensive review at the EADV meeting.
He reported that at 24 weeks, SALT scores of 20 or lower were achieved by 30% of adults with AA who were treated with deuruxolitinib 8 mg and by 42% of those treated with deuruxolitinib 12 mg. This primary endpoint was seen in only 1% of the placebo-treated patients.
The more stringent endpoint of having a SALT score of 10 or less, which indicates that hair regrowth has occurred over 90% of the scalp, was met by 21% of patients who received deuruxolitinib 8 mg twice a day and by 35% of those who received the 12-mg dose twice a day at 24 weeks. This endpoint was not reached by any of the placebo-treated patients.
“This is truly transformative therapy,” Dr. King said when presenting the findings. “We know that the chances of spontaneous remission when you have severe disease is next to zero,” he added.
There were reasonably high rates of patient satisfaction with the treatment, according to Dr. King. He said that 42% of those who took 8 mg twice a day and 53% of those who took 12 mg twice a day said they were “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with the degree of scalp hair regrowth achieved, compared with 5% for placebo.
Safety was as expected, and there were no signs of any blood clots, said Dr. King. Common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) that affected 5% or more of patients included acne and headache. Serious TEAEs were reported by 1.1% and 0.5% of those taking the 8-mg and 12-mg twice-daily doses, respectively, compared with 2.9% of those who received placebo.
Overall, the results look promising for deuruxolitinib, he added. He noted that almost all patients included in the trial have opted to continue in the open-label long-term safety study.
Prescribing information of the JAK inhibitors approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration includes a boxed warning about risk of serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and thrombosis. The warning is based on experience with another JAK inhibitor for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Ritlecitinib and the ALLEGRO studies
Interim results of the ongoing, open-label, phase 3 ALLEGRO-LT study with ritlecitinib were presented separately by Athanasios Tsianakas, MD, head of the department of dermatology at Fachklinik Bad Bentheim, Germany.
Ritlecitinib, which targets JAK3 and also the TEC family of tyrosine kinases, had met all of its endpoints in the prior ALLEGRO Phase 2b/3 study, Dr. Tsianakas said. Those included the benchmarks of a SALT score of 20 or less and a SALT score of 10 or less.
“Ritlecitinib showed a very good long-term efficacy and good safety profile in our adolescent and adult patients suffering from alopecia areata,” said Dr. Tsianakas.
A total of 447 patients were included in the trial. They were treated with 50 mg of ritlecitinib every day; some had already participated in the ALLEGRO trial, while others had been newly recruited. The latter group entered the trial after a 4-week run-in period, during which a 200-mg daily loading dose was given for 4 weeks.
Most (86%) patients had been exposed to ritlecitinib for at least 12 months; one-fifth had discontinued treatment at the data cutoff, generally because the patients no longer met the eligibility criteria for the trial.
Safety was paramount, Dr. Tsianakas highlighted. There were few adverse events that led to temporary or permanent discontinuation of the study drug. The most common TEAEs that affected 5% or more of patients included headache and acne. There were two cases of MACE (one nonfatal myocardial infarction and one nonfatal stroke).
The proportion of patients with a SALT score of 20 or less was 2.5% at 1 month, 27.9% at 3 months, 50.1% at 6 months, 59.8% at 9 months, and 65.5% at 12 months. Thereafter, there was little shift in the response. A sustained effect, in which a SALT score of 20 or less was seen out to 24 months, occurred in 69.9% of patients.
A similar pattern was seen for SALT scores of 10 or less, ranging from 16.5% at 3 months to 62.5% at 24 months.
Following in baricitinib’s footsteps?
This not the first time that JAK inhibitors have been shown to have beneficial effects for patients with AA. Baricitinib (Olumiant) recently became the first JAK inhibitor to be granted marketing approval for AA in the United States, largely on the basis of two pivotal phase 3 studies, BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2.
“This is just such an incredibly exciting time,” said Dr. King. “Our discoveries in the lab are being translated into effective therapies for patients with diseases for which we’ve not previously had therapies,” he commented.
“Our concept of interferon gamma– and interleukin-15–mediated disease is probably not true for everybody,” said, Dr. King, who acknowledged that some patients with AA do not respond to JAK-inhibitor therapy or may need additional or alternative treatment.
“It’s probably not that homogeneous a disease,” he added. “It’s fascinating that the very first drugs for this disease are showing efficacy in as many patients as they are.”
The THRIVE-AAI study was funded by CONCERT Pharmaceuticals. Dr. King has served on advisory boards, has provided consulting services to, or has been a trial investigator for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including CoNCERT Pharmaceuticals. The ALLEGRO-LT study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Tsianakas has acted as a clinical trial investigator and speaker for Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in separate studies reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
In the THRIVE-AA1 study, the primary endpoint of a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of 20 or lower –which indicates that hair regrowth has occurred on at least 80% of the scalp – was achieved among patients taking deuruxolitinib, which was a significantly higher proportion than with placebo (P < .0001). Importantly, the JAK inhibitor’s effects were seen in as early as 4 weeks, and there was significant improvement in both eyelash and eyebrow hair regrowth.
In the unrelated ALLEGRO-LT study, effects from treatment with the JAK inhibitor ritlecitinib appeared to be sustained for 2 years; 69.6% of patients treated with ritlecitinib had a SALT score of 20 or lower by 24 months.
These data are “very exciting for alopecia areata because the patients selected are very severe,” observed Mahtab Samimi, MD, PhD, who cochaired the late-breaking session in which the study findings were discussed.
THRIVE-AA1 included only patients with hair loss of 50% or more. The ALLEGRO-LT study included patients with total scalp or total body hair loss (areata totalis/areata universalis) of 25%-50% at enrollment.
Moreover, “very stringent criteria” were used. SALT scores of 10 or less were evaluated in both studies, observed Dr. Samimi, professor of dermatology at the University of Tours (France).
“We can be ambitious now for our patients with alopecia areata; that’s really good news,” Dr. Samimi added.
Deuruxolitinib and the THRIVE trials
Deuruxolitinib is an oral JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor that has been tested in two similarly designed, multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials in patients with AA, THRIVE-AA1 and THRIVE-AA2.
Two doses of deuruxolitinib, 8 mg and 12 mg given twice daily, were evaluated in the trials, which altogether included just over 1,200 patients.
Results of THRIVE-AA1 have been reported by the manufacturer. Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., presented a more comprehensive review at the EADV meeting.
He reported that at 24 weeks, SALT scores of 20 or lower were achieved by 30% of adults with AA who were treated with deuruxolitinib 8 mg and by 42% of those treated with deuruxolitinib 12 mg. This primary endpoint was seen in only 1% of the placebo-treated patients.
The more stringent endpoint of having a SALT score of 10 or less, which indicates that hair regrowth has occurred over 90% of the scalp, was met by 21% of patients who received deuruxolitinib 8 mg twice a day and by 35% of those who received the 12-mg dose twice a day at 24 weeks. This endpoint was not reached by any of the placebo-treated patients.
“This is truly transformative therapy,” Dr. King said when presenting the findings. “We know that the chances of spontaneous remission when you have severe disease is next to zero,” he added.
There were reasonably high rates of patient satisfaction with the treatment, according to Dr. King. He said that 42% of those who took 8 mg twice a day and 53% of those who took 12 mg twice a day said they were “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with the degree of scalp hair regrowth achieved, compared with 5% for placebo.
Safety was as expected, and there were no signs of any blood clots, said Dr. King. Common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) that affected 5% or more of patients included acne and headache. Serious TEAEs were reported by 1.1% and 0.5% of those taking the 8-mg and 12-mg twice-daily doses, respectively, compared with 2.9% of those who received placebo.
Overall, the results look promising for deuruxolitinib, he added. He noted that almost all patients included in the trial have opted to continue in the open-label long-term safety study.
Prescribing information of the JAK inhibitors approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration includes a boxed warning about risk of serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and thrombosis. The warning is based on experience with another JAK inhibitor for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Ritlecitinib and the ALLEGRO studies
Interim results of the ongoing, open-label, phase 3 ALLEGRO-LT study with ritlecitinib were presented separately by Athanasios Tsianakas, MD, head of the department of dermatology at Fachklinik Bad Bentheim, Germany.
Ritlecitinib, which targets JAK3 and also the TEC family of tyrosine kinases, had met all of its endpoints in the prior ALLEGRO Phase 2b/3 study, Dr. Tsianakas said. Those included the benchmarks of a SALT score of 20 or less and a SALT score of 10 or less.
“Ritlecitinib showed a very good long-term efficacy and good safety profile in our adolescent and adult patients suffering from alopecia areata,” said Dr. Tsianakas.
A total of 447 patients were included in the trial. They were treated with 50 mg of ritlecitinib every day; some had already participated in the ALLEGRO trial, while others had been newly recruited. The latter group entered the trial after a 4-week run-in period, during which a 200-mg daily loading dose was given for 4 weeks.
Most (86%) patients had been exposed to ritlecitinib for at least 12 months; one-fifth had discontinued treatment at the data cutoff, generally because the patients no longer met the eligibility criteria for the trial.
Safety was paramount, Dr. Tsianakas highlighted. There were few adverse events that led to temporary or permanent discontinuation of the study drug. The most common TEAEs that affected 5% or more of patients included headache and acne. There were two cases of MACE (one nonfatal myocardial infarction and one nonfatal stroke).
The proportion of patients with a SALT score of 20 or less was 2.5% at 1 month, 27.9% at 3 months, 50.1% at 6 months, 59.8% at 9 months, and 65.5% at 12 months. Thereafter, there was little shift in the response. A sustained effect, in which a SALT score of 20 or less was seen out to 24 months, occurred in 69.9% of patients.
A similar pattern was seen for SALT scores of 10 or less, ranging from 16.5% at 3 months to 62.5% at 24 months.
Following in baricitinib’s footsteps?
This not the first time that JAK inhibitors have been shown to have beneficial effects for patients with AA. Baricitinib (Olumiant) recently became the first JAK inhibitor to be granted marketing approval for AA in the United States, largely on the basis of two pivotal phase 3 studies, BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2.
“This is just such an incredibly exciting time,” said Dr. King. “Our discoveries in the lab are being translated into effective therapies for patients with diseases for which we’ve not previously had therapies,” he commented.
“Our concept of interferon gamma– and interleukin-15–mediated disease is probably not true for everybody,” said, Dr. King, who acknowledged that some patients with AA do not respond to JAK-inhibitor therapy or may need additional or alternative treatment.
“It’s probably not that homogeneous a disease,” he added. “It’s fascinating that the very first drugs for this disease are showing efficacy in as many patients as they are.”
The THRIVE-AAI study was funded by CONCERT Pharmaceuticals. Dr. King has served on advisory boards, has provided consulting services to, or has been a trial investigator for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including CoNCERT Pharmaceuticals. The ALLEGRO-LT study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Tsianakas has acted as a clinical trial investigator and speaker for Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in separate studies reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
In the THRIVE-AA1 study, the primary endpoint of a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of 20 or lower –which indicates that hair regrowth has occurred on at least 80% of the scalp – was achieved among patients taking deuruxolitinib, which was a significantly higher proportion than with placebo (P < .0001). Importantly, the JAK inhibitor’s effects were seen in as early as 4 weeks, and there was significant improvement in both eyelash and eyebrow hair regrowth.
In the unrelated ALLEGRO-LT study, effects from treatment with the JAK inhibitor ritlecitinib appeared to be sustained for 2 years; 69.6% of patients treated with ritlecitinib had a SALT score of 20 or lower by 24 months.
These data are “very exciting for alopecia areata because the patients selected are very severe,” observed Mahtab Samimi, MD, PhD, who cochaired the late-breaking session in which the study findings were discussed.
THRIVE-AA1 included only patients with hair loss of 50% or more. The ALLEGRO-LT study included patients with total scalp or total body hair loss (areata totalis/areata universalis) of 25%-50% at enrollment.
Moreover, “very stringent criteria” were used. SALT scores of 10 or less were evaluated in both studies, observed Dr. Samimi, professor of dermatology at the University of Tours (France).
“We can be ambitious now for our patients with alopecia areata; that’s really good news,” Dr. Samimi added.
Deuruxolitinib and the THRIVE trials
Deuruxolitinib is an oral JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor that has been tested in two similarly designed, multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials in patients with AA, THRIVE-AA1 and THRIVE-AA2.
Two doses of deuruxolitinib, 8 mg and 12 mg given twice daily, were evaluated in the trials, which altogether included just over 1,200 patients.
Results of THRIVE-AA1 have been reported by the manufacturer. Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., presented a more comprehensive review at the EADV meeting.
He reported that at 24 weeks, SALT scores of 20 or lower were achieved by 30% of adults with AA who were treated with deuruxolitinib 8 mg and by 42% of those treated with deuruxolitinib 12 mg. This primary endpoint was seen in only 1% of the placebo-treated patients.
The more stringent endpoint of having a SALT score of 10 or less, which indicates that hair regrowth has occurred over 90% of the scalp, was met by 21% of patients who received deuruxolitinib 8 mg twice a day and by 35% of those who received the 12-mg dose twice a day at 24 weeks. This endpoint was not reached by any of the placebo-treated patients.
“This is truly transformative therapy,” Dr. King said when presenting the findings. “We know that the chances of spontaneous remission when you have severe disease is next to zero,” he added.
There were reasonably high rates of patient satisfaction with the treatment, according to Dr. King. He said that 42% of those who took 8 mg twice a day and 53% of those who took 12 mg twice a day said they were “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with the degree of scalp hair regrowth achieved, compared with 5% for placebo.
Safety was as expected, and there were no signs of any blood clots, said Dr. King. Common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) that affected 5% or more of patients included acne and headache. Serious TEAEs were reported by 1.1% and 0.5% of those taking the 8-mg and 12-mg twice-daily doses, respectively, compared with 2.9% of those who received placebo.
Overall, the results look promising for deuruxolitinib, he added. He noted that almost all patients included in the trial have opted to continue in the open-label long-term safety study.
Prescribing information of the JAK inhibitors approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration includes a boxed warning about risk of serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and thrombosis. The warning is based on experience with another JAK inhibitor for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Ritlecitinib and the ALLEGRO studies
Interim results of the ongoing, open-label, phase 3 ALLEGRO-LT study with ritlecitinib were presented separately by Athanasios Tsianakas, MD, head of the department of dermatology at Fachklinik Bad Bentheim, Germany.
Ritlecitinib, which targets JAK3 and also the TEC family of tyrosine kinases, had met all of its endpoints in the prior ALLEGRO Phase 2b/3 study, Dr. Tsianakas said. Those included the benchmarks of a SALT score of 20 or less and a SALT score of 10 or less.
“Ritlecitinib showed a very good long-term efficacy and good safety profile in our adolescent and adult patients suffering from alopecia areata,” said Dr. Tsianakas.
A total of 447 patients were included in the trial. They were treated with 50 mg of ritlecitinib every day; some had already participated in the ALLEGRO trial, while others had been newly recruited. The latter group entered the trial after a 4-week run-in period, during which a 200-mg daily loading dose was given for 4 weeks.
Most (86%) patients had been exposed to ritlecitinib for at least 12 months; one-fifth had discontinued treatment at the data cutoff, generally because the patients no longer met the eligibility criteria for the trial.
Safety was paramount, Dr. Tsianakas highlighted. There were few adverse events that led to temporary or permanent discontinuation of the study drug. The most common TEAEs that affected 5% or more of patients included headache and acne. There were two cases of MACE (one nonfatal myocardial infarction and one nonfatal stroke).
The proportion of patients with a SALT score of 20 or less was 2.5% at 1 month, 27.9% at 3 months, 50.1% at 6 months, 59.8% at 9 months, and 65.5% at 12 months. Thereafter, there was little shift in the response. A sustained effect, in which a SALT score of 20 or less was seen out to 24 months, occurred in 69.9% of patients.
A similar pattern was seen for SALT scores of 10 or less, ranging from 16.5% at 3 months to 62.5% at 24 months.
Following in baricitinib’s footsteps?
This not the first time that JAK inhibitors have been shown to have beneficial effects for patients with AA. Baricitinib (Olumiant) recently became the first JAK inhibitor to be granted marketing approval for AA in the United States, largely on the basis of two pivotal phase 3 studies, BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2.
“This is just such an incredibly exciting time,” said Dr. King. “Our discoveries in the lab are being translated into effective therapies for patients with diseases for which we’ve not previously had therapies,” he commented.
“Our concept of interferon gamma– and interleukin-15–mediated disease is probably not true for everybody,” said, Dr. King, who acknowledged that some patients with AA do not respond to JAK-inhibitor therapy or may need additional or alternative treatment.
“It’s probably not that homogeneous a disease,” he added. “It’s fascinating that the very first drugs for this disease are showing efficacy in as many patients as they are.”
The THRIVE-AAI study was funded by CONCERT Pharmaceuticals. Dr. King has served on advisory boards, has provided consulting services to, or has been a trial investigator for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including CoNCERT Pharmaceuticals. The ALLEGRO-LT study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Tsianakas has acted as a clinical trial investigator and speaker for Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE EADV CONGRESS
Study identifies skin biomarkers that predict newborn eczema risk
It might be possible to develop a simple test to identify newborn children who are at risk of later developing atopic dermatitis (AD), according to findings from a Danish prospective birth cohort study.
but also for having more severe disease.
“We are able to identify predictive immune biomarkers of atopic dermatitis using a noninvasive method that was not associated with any pain,” one of the study’s investigators, Anne-Sofie Halling, MD, said at a press briefing at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
“Importantly, we were able to predict atopic dermatitis occurring months after [sample] collection,” said Dr. Halling, who works at Bispebjerg Hospital and is a PhD student at the University of Copenhagen.
These findings could hopefully be used to help identify children “so that preventive strategies can target these children ... and decrease the incidence of this common disease,” she added.
AD is caused “by a complex interplay between skin barrier dysfunction and immune dysregulation,” Dr. Halling said, and it is “the first step in the so-called atopic march, where children also develop food allergy, asthma, and rhinitis.” Almost all cases of AD begin during the first years of life. Approximately 15%-20% of children can be affected, she noted, emphasizing the high burden of the disease and pointing out that strategies are shifting toward trying to prevent the disease in those at risk.
Copenhagen BABY cohort
This is where the BABY study comes in, Dr. Halling said. The study enrolled 450 children at birth and followed them until age 2 years. Gene mutation testing was performed at enrollment. All children underwent skin examination, and skin samples were taken using tape strips. Tape strips were applied to the back of the hand of children born at term and between the shoulder blades on the back of children who were premature.
Skin examinations were repeated, and skin samples were obtained again at age 2 months. They were taken again only if there were any signs of AD. For those diagnosed with AD, disease severity was assessed using the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) by the treating physician. Children were excluded if they had AD at the time the tape strip testing was due to be performed.
Comparing term and preterm children
Dr. Halling noted that analyses were performed separately for the 300 children born at term and for the 150 who were preterm.
The prevalence of AD was higher among children born at term than among the preterm children (34.6% vs. 21.2%), and the median time to onset was shorter (6 months vs. 8 months). There were also differences in the EASI scores among those who developed AD; median scores were higher in the children born at term than in the preterm children (4.1 vs. 1.6).
More children born at term than preterm children had moderate to severe AD (23.3% vs. 8%), Dr. Halling reported.
TARC, IL-8, and IL-18 predictive of AD
Multiple immune biomarkers were tested, including various cytokines and filaggrin degradation products. On examination of skin samples collected at birth, no particular biomarkers were found at higher levels among children who developed AD in comparison with those who did not develop AD.
With regard to biomarkers examined in skin samples at 2 months of age, however, the results were different, Dr. Halling said. One particular cytokine, thymus and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC), was seen to double the risk of AD in the first 2 years of a child’s life.
This doubled risk was seen not only among the children born at term but also among those born preterm, although the data were only significant with regard to the children born at term.
The unadjusted hazard ratios and adjusted HRs (adjusted for parental atopy and filaggrin gene mutations) in term children were 2.11 (95% confidence interval, 1.36-3.26; P = .0008) and 1.85 (95% CI, 1.18-2.89; P = .007), respectively.
For preterm children, the HRs were 2.23 (95% CI, 0.85-5.86; P = .1) and 2.60 (95% CI, 0.98-6.85; P =.05), respectively.
These findings were in line with findings of other studies, Dr. Halling said. “It is well recognized that TARC is currently the best biomarker in patients with established atopic dermatitis.” Moreover, she reported that TARC was associated with a cumulative increase in the risk for AD and that levels were found to be higher in children in whom onset occurred at a later age than among those diagnosed before 6 months of age.
“This is important, as these findings shows that TARC levels predict atopic dermatitis that occurred many months later,” Dr. Halling said.
And, in term-born children at least, TARC upped the chances that the severity of AD would be greater than had it not been present (adjusted HR, 4.65; 95% CI, 1.91-11.31; P = .0007).
Increased levels of interleukin-8 (IL-8) and IL-18 at 2 months of age were also found to be predictive of having moderate to severe AD. The risk was more than double in comparison with those in whom levels were not increased, again only in term-born children.
‘Stimulating and interesting findings’
These data are “very stimulating and interesting,” Dedee Murrell, MD, professor and head of the department of dermatology at St. George Hospital, University of New South Wales, Sydney, observed at the press briefing.
“You found this significant association mainly in the newborn children born at term, and the association in the preterm babies wasn’t as high. Is that anything to do with how they were taken care of in the hospital?” Dr. Murrell asked.
“That’s a really good question,” Dr. Halling said. “Maybe they need to be exposed for a month or two before we are actually able to identify which children will develop atopic dermatitis.”
The study was funded by the Lundbeck Foundation. Dr. Halling has acted as a consultant for Coloplast and as a speaker for Leo Pharma. Dr. Murrell has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It might be possible to develop a simple test to identify newborn children who are at risk of later developing atopic dermatitis (AD), according to findings from a Danish prospective birth cohort study.
but also for having more severe disease.
“We are able to identify predictive immune biomarkers of atopic dermatitis using a noninvasive method that was not associated with any pain,” one of the study’s investigators, Anne-Sofie Halling, MD, said at a press briefing at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
“Importantly, we were able to predict atopic dermatitis occurring months after [sample] collection,” said Dr. Halling, who works at Bispebjerg Hospital and is a PhD student at the University of Copenhagen.
These findings could hopefully be used to help identify children “so that preventive strategies can target these children ... and decrease the incidence of this common disease,” she added.
AD is caused “by a complex interplay between skin barrier dysfunction and immune dysregulation,” Dr. Halling said, and it is “the first step in the so-called atopic march, where children also develop food allergy, asthma, and rhinitis.” Almost all cases of AD begin during the first years of life. Approximately 15%-20% of children can be affected, she noted, emphasizing the high burden of the disease and pointing out that strategies are shifting toward trying to prevent the disease in those at risk.
Copenhagen BABY cohort
This is where the BABY study comes in, Dr. Halling said. The study enrolled 450 children at birth and followed them until age 2 years. Gene mutation testing was performed at enrollment. All children underwent skin examination, and skin samples were taken using tape strips. Tape strips were applied to the back of the hand of children born at term and between the shoulder blades on the back of children who were premature.
Skin examinations were repeated, and skin samples were obtained again at age 2 months. They were taken again only if there were any signs of AD. For those diagnosed with AD, disease severity was assessed using the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) by the treating physician. Children were excluded if they had AD at the time the tape strip testing was due to be performed.
Comparing term and preterm children
Dr. Halling noted that analyses were performed separately for the 300 children born at term and for the 150 who were preterm.
The prevalence of AD was higher among children born at term than among the preterm children (34.6% vs. 21.2%), and the median time to onset was shorter (6 months vs. 8 months). There were also differences in the EASI scores among those who developed AD; median scores were higher in the children born at term than in the preterm children (4.1 vs. 1.6).
More children born at term than preterm children had moderate to severe AD (23.3% vs. 8%), Dr. Halling reported.
TARC, IL-8, and IL-18 predictive of AD
Multiple immune biomarkers were tested, including various cytokines and filaggrin degradation products. On examination of skin samples collected at birth, no particular biomarkers were found at higher levels among children who developed AD in comparison with those who did not develop AD.
With regard to biomarkers examined in skin samples at 2 months of age, however, the results were different, Dr. Halling said. One particular cytokine, thymus and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC), was seen to double the risk of AD in the first 2 years of a child’s life.
This doubled risk was seen not only among the children born at term but also among those born preterm, although the data were only significant with regard to the children born at term.
The unadjusted hazard ratios and adjusted HRs (adjusted for parental atopy and filaggrin gene mutations) in term children were 2.11 (95% confidence interval, 1.36-3.26; P = .0008) and 1.85 (95% CI, 1.18-2.89; P = .007), respectively.
For preterm children, the HRs were 2.23 (95% CI, 0.85-5.86; P = .1) and 2.60 (95% CI, 0.98-6.85; P =.05), respectively.
These findings were in line with findings of other studies, Dr. Halling said. “It is well recognized that TARC is currently the best biomarker in patients with established atopic dermatitis.” Moreover, she reported that TARC was associated with a cumulative increase in the risk for AD and that levels were found to be higher in children in whom onset occurred at a later age than among those diagnosed before 6 months of age.
“This is important, as these findings shows that TARC levels predict atopic dermatitis that occurred many months later,” Dr. Halling said.
And, in term-born children at least, TARC upped the chances that the severity of AD would be greater than had it not been present (adjusted HR, 4.65; 95% CI, 1.91-11.31; P = .0007).
Increased levels of interleukin-8 (IL-8) and IL-18 at 2 months of age were also found to be predictive of having moderate to severe AD. The risk was more than double in comparison with those in whom levels were not increased, again only in term-born children.
‘Stimulating and interesting findings’
These data are “very stimulating and interesting,” Dedee Murrell, MD, professor and head of the department of dermatology at St. George Hospital, University of New South Wales, Sydney, observed at the press briefing.
“You found this significant association mainly in the newborn children born at term, and the association in the preterm babies wasn’t as high. Is that anything to do with how they were taken care of in the hospital?” Dr. Murrell asked.
“That’s a really good question,” Dr. Halling said. “Maybe they need to be exposed for a month or two before we are actually able to identify which children will develop atopic dermatitis.”
The study was funded by the Lundbeck Foundation. Dr. Halling has acted as a consultant for Coloplast and as a speaker for Leo Pharma. Dr. Murrell has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It might be possible to develop a simple test to identify newborn children who are at risk of later developing atopic dermatitis (AD), according to findings from a Danish prospective birth cohort study.
but also for having more severe disease.
“We are able to identify predictive immune biomarkers of atopic dermatitis using a noninvasive method that was not associated with any pain,” one of the study’s investigators, Anne-Sofie Halling, MD, said at a press briefing at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
“Importantly, we were able to predict atopic dermatitis occurring months after [sample] collection,” said Dr. Halling, who works at Bispebjerg Hospital and is a PhD student at the University of Copenhagen.
These findings could hopefully be used to help identify children “so that preventive strategies can target these children ... and decrease the incidence of this common disease,” she added.
AD is caused “by a complex interplay between skin barrier dysfunction and immune dysregulation,” Dr. Halling said, and it is “the first step in the so-called atopic march, where children also develop food allergy, asthma, and rhinitis.” Almost all cases of AD begin during the first years of life. Approximately 15%-20% of children can be affected, she noted, emphasizing the high burden of the disease and pointing out that strategies are shifting toward trying to prevent the disease in those at risk.
Copenhagen BABY cohort
This is where the BABY study comes in, Dr. Halling said. The study enrolled 450 children at birth and followed them until age 2 years. Gene mutation testing was performed at enrollment. All children underwent skin examination, and skin samples were taken using tape strips. Tape strips were applied to the back of the hand of children born at term and between the shoulder blades on the back of children who were premature.
Skin examinations were repeated, and skin samples were obtained again at age 2 months. They were taken again only if there were any signs of AD. For those diagnosed with AD, disease severity was assessed using the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) by the treating physician. Children were excluded if they had AD at the time the tape strip testing was due to be performed.
Comparing term and preterm children
Dr. Halling noted that analyses were performed separately for the 300 children born at term and for the 150 who were preterm.
The prevalence of AD was higher among children born at term than among the preterm children (34.6% vs. 21.2%), and the median time to onset was shorter (6 months vs. 8 months). There were also differences in the EASI scores among those who developed AD; median scores were higher in the children born at term than in the preterm children (4.1 vs. 1.6).
More children born at term than preterm children had moderate to severe AD (23.3% vs. 8%), Dr. Halling reported.
TARC, IL-8, and IL-18 predictive of AD
Multiple immune biomarkers were tested, including various cytokines and filaggrin degradation products. On examination of skin samples collected at birth, no particular biomarkers were found at higher levels among children who developed AD in comparison with those who did not develop AD.
With regard to biomarkers examined in skin samples at 2 months of age, however, the results were different, Dr. Halling said. One particular cytokine, thymus and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC), was seen to double the risk of AD in the first 2 years of a child’s life.
This doubled risk was seen not only among the children born at term but also among those born preterm, although the data were only significant with regard to the children born at term.
The unadjusted hazard ratios and adjusted HRs (adjusted for parental atopy and filaggrin gene mutations) in term children were 2.11 (95% confidence interval, 1.36-3.26; P = .0008) and 1.85 (95% CI, 1.18-2.89; P = .007), respectively.
For preterm children, the HRs were 2.23 (95% CI, 0.85-5.86; P = .1) and 2.60 (95% CI, 0.98-6.85; P =.05), respectively.
These findings were in line with findings of other studies, Dr. Halling said. “It is well recognized that TARC is currently the best biomarker in patients with established atopic dermatitis.” Moreover, she reported that TARC was associated with a cumulative increase in the risk for AD and that levels were found to be higher in children in whom onset occurred at a later age than among those diagnosed before 6 months of age.
“This is important, as these findings shows that TARC levels predict atopic dermatitis that occurred many months later,” Dr. Halling said.
And, in term-born children at least, TARC upped the chances that the severity of AD would be greater than had it not been present (adjusted HR, 4.65; 95% CI, 1.91-11.31; P = .0007).
Increased levels of interleukin-8 (IL-8) and IL-18 at 2 months of age were also found to be predictive of having moderate to severe AD. The risk was more than double in comparison with those in whom levels were not increased, again only in term-born children.
‘Stimulating and interesting findings’
These data are “very stimulating and interesting,” Dedee Murrell, MD, professor and head of the department of dermatology at St. George Hospital, University of New South Wales, Sydney, observed at the press briefing.
“You found this significant association mainly in the newborn children born at term, and the association in the preterm babies wasn’t as high. Is that anything to do with how they were taken care of in the hospital?” Dr. Murrell asked.
“That’s a really good question,” Dr. Halling said. “Maybe they need to be exposed for a month or two before we are actually able to identify which children will develop atopic dermatitis.”
The study was funded by the Lundbeck Foundation. Dr. Halling has acted as a consultant for Coloplast and as a speaker for Leo Pharma. Dr. Murrell has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE EADV CONGRESS
Apremilast alleviates severe psoriasis in some children, data show
not controlled by topical therapy, according to the results of a phase 3 trial.
“Unfortunately, there are limited treatment options for pediatric patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis” who do not respond to or cannot use topical therapy, said study investigator Anna Belloni Fortina, MD, speaking at the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
“In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial, oral apremilast demonstrated effectiveness and was well tolerated,” added Dr. Belloni Fortina, of Azienda Ospedale Università Padova (Italy). “I underline oral because for children, oral administration is better than the injection treatment.”
Key findings
Dubbed the SPROUT study, the trial set a primary endpoint of the percentage of children with a Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) response after 16 weeks of treatment or placebo. The sPGA is a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (clear) to 4 (severe). The study enrolled children with an sPGA greater than or equal to 3. Response was defined as a sPGA score of 0 or 1, indicating clear or almost clear skin, with at least a 2-point reduction from baseline values.
At week 16, the primary endpoint was met by 33% of 163 children treated with apremilast versus 11% of 82 children who had been given a placebo, a treatment difference of 21.7% (95% confidence interval, 11.2%-32.1%).
A greater proportion of children treated with apremilast also achieved a major secondary endpoint, a 75% or greater reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-75) (45.4% vs. 16.1%), a treatment difference of 29.4% (95% CI, 17.8%-40.9%).
Results unaffected by weight and age
Regarding apremilast, “it’s important to underline that patients were dosed according to their weight,” Dr. Belloni Fortina said.
A dose of 20 mg twice daily was given to children who weighed between 20 kg and less than 50 kg, and a 30-mg twice-daily dose was given to those who weighed greater than or equal to 50 kg.
When the data were analyzed according to weight, proportionately more children on apremilast saw a sPGA response: 47.4% versus 21.8% in the lower weight and dose range and 19.2% versus 1.6% in the higher weight and dose range.
As for PASI-75, a greater proportion of children on apremilast also responded in both the lower and upper weight ranges, a respective 52.4% and 38.7% of patients, compared with 21.4% and 11% of those treated with placebo.
Data were also evaluated according to age, with a younger (aged 6-11 years) and older (age 12-17 years) group. The mean age of children was 12 years overall. Results showed a similar pattern for weight: The psoriasis of more children treated with apremilast was reduced by both measures, sPGA response, and PASI-75.
Safety of apremilast in children
“The overall safety profile during the placebo-controlled phase was comparable with the known safety profile of apremilast,” Dr. Belloni Fontina reported. “No new safety signals were identified.”
The rate of any adverse event was substantially higher in children given the active treatment, however, at 65% versus 41.3% for placebo.
Rates of severe and serious adverse events were low, at around 1.3%, and similar between the groups.
There was also a low rate of withdrawal because of side effects, although this was higher in the apremilast group (3.1% vs. 1.3%).
The primary reason for withdrawal of apremilast treatment were the most commonly reported adverse events: gastrointestinal disorders, including diarrhea, nausea, upper and lower abdominal pain, and vomiting. Headache, pyrexia, and nasopharyngitis were also reported.
Despite being common, most treatment-related adverse effects resolved within 3 days, Dr. Belloni Fontina said.
Expect further data
Further data from the trial are to be expected, because only the 16-week primary endpoint results have been released so far. The trial also included a 36-week extension phase, during which all children who had originally been randomly assigned to placebo were now eligible to be treated with apremilast, and all those who were originally given the active treatment were able to continue. This extension treatment period means that data will be available for a full year of treatment, and there will also be a further 2-week observational follow-up at the end of the trial.
The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Belloni Fontina reported acting as an investigator and advisory board member for and receiving honoraria from Amgen, Galderma, Leo Pharma, and Pfizer. She also reported speaking on behalf of Pierre-Fabre and Galderma.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
not controlled by topical therapy, according to the results of a phase 3 trial.
“Unfortunately, there are limited treatment options for pediatric patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis” who do not respond to or cannot use topical therapy, said study investigator Anna Belloni Fortina, MD, speaking at the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
“In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial, oral apremilast demonstrated effectiveness and was well tolerated,” added Dr. Belloni Fortina, of Azienda Ospedale Università Padova (Italy). “I underline oral because for children, oral administration is better than the injection treatment.”
Key findings
Dubbed the SPROUT study, the trial set a primary endpoint of the percentage of children with a Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) response after 16 weeks of treatment or placebo. The sPGA is a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (clear) to 4 (severe). The study enrolled children with an sPGA greater than or equal to 3. Response was defined as a sPGA score of 0 or 1, indicating clear or almost clear skin, with at least a 2-point reduction from baseline values.
At week 16, the primary endpoint was met by 33% of 163 children treated with apremilast versus 11% of 82 children who had been given a placebo, a treatment difference of 21.7% (95% confidence interval, 11.2%-32.1%).
A greater proportion of children treated with apremilast also achieved a major secondary endpoint, a 75% or greater reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-75) (45.4% vs. 16.1%), a treatment difference of 29.4% (95% CI, 17.8%-40.9%).
Results unaffected by weight and age
Regarding apremilast, “it’s important to underline that patients were dosed according to their weight,” Dr. Belloni Fortina said.
A dose of 20 mg twice daily was given to children who weighed between 20 kg and less than 50 kg, and a 30-mg twice-daily dose was given to those who weighed greater than or equal to 50 kg.
When the data were analyzed according to weight, proportionately more children on apremilast saw a sPGA response: 47.4% versus 21.8% in the lower weight and dose range and 19.2% versus 1.6% in the higher weight and dose range.
As for PASI-75, a greater proportion of children on apremilast also responded in both the lower and upper weight ranges, a respective 52.4% and 38.7% of patients, compared with 21.4% and 11% of those treated with placebo.
Data were also evaluated according to age, with a younger (aged 6-11 years) and older (age 12-17 years) group. The mean age of children was 12 years overall. Results showed a similar pattern for weight: The psoriasis of more children treated with apremilast was reduced by both measures, sPGA response, and PASI-75.
Safety of apremilast in children
“The overall safety profile during the placebo-controlled phase was comparable with the known safety profile of apremilast,” Dr. Belloni Fontina reported. “No new safety signals were identified.”
The rate of any adverse event was substantially higher in children given the active treatment, however, at 65% versus 41.3% for placebo.
Rates of severe and serious adverse events were low, at around 1.3%, and similar between the groups.
There was also a low rate of withdrawal because of side effects, although this was higher in the apremilast group (3.1% vs. 1.3%).
The primary reason for withdrawal of apremilast treatment were the most commonly reported adverse events: gastrointestinal disorders, including diarrhea, nausea, upper and lower abdominal pain, and vomiting. Headache, pyrexia, and nasopharyngitis were also reported.
Despite being common, most treatment-related adverse effects resolved within 3 days, Dr. Belloni Fontina said.
Expect further data
Further data from the trial are to be expected, because only the 16-week primary endpoint results have been released so far. The trial also included a 36-week extension phase, during which all children who had originally been randomly assigned to placebo were now eligible to be treated with apremilast, and all those who were originally given the active treatment were able to continue. This extension treatment period means that data will be available for a full year of treatment, and there will also be a further 2-week observational follow-up at the end of the trial.
The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Belloni Fontina reported acting as an investigator and advisory board member for and receiving honoraria from Amgen, Galderma, Leo Pharma, and Pfizer. She also reported speaking on behalf of Pierre-Fabre and Galderma.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
not controlled by topical therapy, according to the results of a phase 3 trial.
“Unfortunately, there are limited treatment options for pediatric patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis” who do not respond to or cannot use topical therapy, said study investigator Anna Belloni Fortina, MD, speaking at the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
“In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial, oral apremilast demonstrated effectiveness and was well tolerated,” added Dr. Belloni Fortina, of Azienda Ospedale Università Padova (Italy). “I underline oral because for children, oral administration is better than the injection treatment.”
Key findings
Dubbed the SPROUT study, the trial set a primary endpoint of the percentage of children with a Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) response after 16 weeks of treatment or placebo. The sPGA is a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (clear) to 4 (severe). The study enrolled children with an sPGA greater than or equal to 3. Response was defined as a sPGA score of 0 or 1, indicating clear or almost clear skin, with at least a 2-point reduction from baseline values.
At week 16, the primary endpoint was met by 33% of 163 children treated with apremilast versus 11% of 82 children who had been given a placebo, a treatment difference of 21.7% (95% confidence interval, 11.2%-32.1%).
A greater proportion of children treated with apremilast also achieved a major secondary endpoint, a 75% or greater reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-75) (45.4% vs. 16.1%), a treatment difference of 29.4% (95% CI, 17.8%-40.9%).
Results unaffected by weight and age
Regarding apremilast, “it’s important to underline that patients were dosed according to their weight,” Dr. Belloni Fortina said.
A dose of 20 mg twice daily was given to children who weighed between 20 kg and less than 50 kg, and a 30-mg twice-daily dose was given to those who weighed greater than or equal to 50 kg.
When the data were analyzed according to weight, proportionately more children on apremilast saw a sPGA response: 47.4% versus 21.8% in the lower weight and dose range and 19.2% versus 1.6% in the higher weight and dose range.
As for PASI-75, a greater proportion of children on apremilast also responded in both the lower and upper weight ranges, a respective 52.4% and 38.7% of patients, compared with 21.4% and 11% of those treated with placebo.
Data were also evaluated according to age, with a younger (aged 6-11 years) and older (age 12-17 years) group. The mean age of children was 12 years overall. Results showed a similar pattern for weight: The psoriasis of more children treated with apremilast was reduced by both measures, sPGA response, and PASI-75.
Safety of apremilast in children
“The overall safety profile during the placebo-controlled phase was comparable with the known safety profile of apremilast,” Dr. Belloni Fontina reported. “No new safety signals were identified.”
The rate of any adverse event was substantially higher in children given the active treatment, however, at 65% versus 41.3% for placebo.
Rates of severe and serious adverse events were low, at around 1.3%, and similar between the groups.
There was also a low rate of withdrawal because of side effects, although this was higher in the apremilast group (3.1% vs. 1.3%).
The primary reason for withdrawal of apremilast treatment were the most commonly reported adverse events: gastrointestinal disorders, including diarrhea, nausea, upper and lower abdominal pain, and vomiting. Headache, pyrexia, and nasopharyngitis were also reported.
Despite being common, most treatment-related adverse effects resolved within 3 days, Dr. Belloni Fontina said.
Expect further data
Further data from the trial are to be expected, because only the 16-week primary endpoint results have been released so far. The trial also included a 36-week extension phase, during which all children who had originally been randomly assigned to placebo were now eligible to be treated with apremilast, and all those who were originally given the active treatment were able to continue. This extension treatment period means that data will be available for a full year of treatment, and there will also be a further 2-week observational follow-up at the end of the trial.
The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Belloni Fontina reported acting as an investigator and advisory board member for and receiving honoraria from Amgen, Galderma, Leo Pharma, and Pfizer. She also reported speaking on behalf of Pierre-Fabre and Galderma.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EADV 2022
Hope shines bright for hidradenitis suppurativa treatments
in separate trials.
Around 40%-50% of patients exhibited a clinical response to these agents at 16 weeks, a leading HS expert reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
Time in the spotlight for HS
Research into HS is “an incredibly active field at this moment,” said Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology, Harvard Medical School, and president and chief executive officer of Harvard Medical Faculty Physicians at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.
It’s “been great for advancing our understanding of the biology and the treatments that we will be able to use,” she said.
During the late-breaking sessions at the annual EADV Congress, Dr. Kimball presented data from two trials – SUNSHINE and SUNRISE – that investigated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of the interleukin (IL) 17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) versus placebo in the treatment of moderate to severe HS.
“This is only the second phase 3 program we have ever seen in HS and the first one since 2016,” Dr. Kimball said of the trials. It’s also the largest trial program in HS conducted to date, she added, “so it really is a milestone.”
The last big development was when adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker, gained regulatory approval for HS in 2016, observed Neil Patel, PhD, MRCP, who leads the HS service at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust in London.
“Adalimumab has been very helpful for many patients, but not all patients respond, and others may respond initially but then the treatment starts to fail after a year or 2,” Dr. Patel said in an interview with this news organization.
“There is definitely a huge need for alternative medication for this condition, which still has a lack of effective treatment options,” added Dr. Patel, who was not involved in either of the studies.
“One major upside for secukinumab is that its safety profile is generally very good and familiarity in the dermatologic community is already well established,” Christopher Sayed, MD, said in a separate interview.
“This will make most providers very comfortable offering it as a potential treatment option sooner rather than later given that its efficacy has now been demonstrated in phase 3 trials,” added Dr. Sayed, associate professor of dermatology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Two identically designed trials
Altogether, SUNSHINE and SUNRISE enrolled just over 1,000 patients at 219 sites in 33 countries. Both trials were identical in their design: A 4-week run-in phase before a randomized, double-blind treatment phase that tested two dosing regimens of secukinumab (300 mg administered subcutaneously) every 2 or 4 weeks vs. placebo for 16 weeks. The trial continued after this time, with patients in the placebo arm re–randomly assigned to treatment with one of the two secukinumab regimens out to a year.
The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) after 16 weeks of treatment, with key secondary endpoints, which were abscess and inflammatory nodule (AN) count, occurrence of flares, and at least a 30% reduction in Patient’s Global Assessment of Skin Pain assessed using a numeric rating scale (NPRS30).
Secukinumab superior to placebo
The HiSCR is defined as at least a 50% decrease in AN count with no increase in the number of abscesses or in the number of draining fistulas relative to baseline. This was achieved by about 42%-45% of patients who received secukinumab every 2 weeks, about 42%-46% of those who received secukinumab every 4 weeks, and about 31%-33% of those on placebo in both studies.
Of note, fewer patients treated with secukinumab (about 15%-20% among those treated every 2 weeks, and about 15% to 23% among those treated every 4 weeks) than those on placebo (27%-29%) experienced flares, defined as at least a 25% increase in AN count and at least a two-point increase relative to baseline values.
Improvement in HS pain can be a difficult parameter to meet, Dr. Kimball noted. “Pain is such an important feature of this disease as it so debilitating for the patients.” More than one-third (almost 36%-39%) of patients given secukinumab vs. just over a quarter (26.9%) given placebo achieved at least a 30% reduction in NPRS30 ratings, she reported. The difference between active and placebo treatment was significant only when secukinumab was given every 2 weeks, however.
“The placebo rates that we see in these studies are exactly parallel to what we saw in other studies, and other disease states when we had a 50% bar of improvement,” Dr. Kimball said when questioned about these results.
“HS is a highly variable disease; it’s maybe not so much the placebo rate or the scoring system used but maybe the 50% bar set for improvement is too low. It’s likely, as data start to mature and a 75% HiSCR can be calculated, that the placebo rates will drop,” she said.
There were no surprises when it came to the safety of secukinumab, being an old player in a new game, she noted. It was “well tolerated” and tolerability was “consistent with the known safety profile,” Dr. Kimball said, “so we expect it to be a new, safe, and effective add to our armamentarium in treating this disease.”
This research involves “basically borrowing drugs from other areas and trying them in HS to see what effect they may have,” Dr. Patel said, noting that drugs such as adalimumab and secukinumab already had a proven track record in other diseases, such as psoriasis. “These early data for secukinumab definitely are very exciting, but we would need to see real-life results” in patients with HS who are not enrolled in trials to see the benefits, he added.
‘Tipping point’ for HS research
“I think we will look back on this meeting and realize that it was an incredibly important tipping point for the treatment of this incredibly debilitating disease,” Dr. Kimball said.
Elsewhere at the meeting, she had presented findings from a phase 2a study that pitted three different kinase inhibitors with different modes of action against each other and compared them with placebo.
The three agents evaluated are an IL-1 receptor–associated kinase 4 inhibitor known as PF-06650833, a tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) JAK1 inhibitor brepocitinib, and the TYK2 inhibitor PF-06826647.
“This technique has been used in oncology,” Dr. Kimball said, noting that the ability to test multiple drugs at the same time “means we can really much more efficiently test two different things at the same time, and also put fewer patients at risk for potential problems if drugs don’t work.”
Positive signs for brepocitinib, not the other kinases tested
The results showed that though brepocitinib worked in HS, the other two novel compounds did not appear to have beneficial effects. Just over half (52%) of the 52 patients treated with brepocitinib achieved an HiSCR at 16 weeks, compared with around one-third of those given placebo, PF-06650833, or PF-06826647.
A similar benefit was seen in terms of reduction in flares for brepocitinib but not the other agents, although there was no difference between them all in terms of NPRS30 pain reduction.
“We’ve been able to test three different modalities. This tells us some things about the pathophysiology for HS, which is a very profoundly intensive inflammatory process,” which, Dr. Kimball said, “may require multiple modalities of action to get it under control.” In addition, these “general modalities seem to safe and well tolerated,” she added.
Take-homes for practice and future research
“While it is disappointing that two of the drugs tested did not clearly demonstrate efficacy, it is very possible that these mechanisms of action may be successful targets in the future as new dosing strategies and drugs targeting these pathways are developed,” Dr. Sayed said.
A case in point, he added, was that “adalimumab did not meet treatment endpoints at a dose of 40 mg every other week, but clearly has made a major impact at 40 mg weekly.”
The bottom line is that “both secukinumab and beprocitinib demonstrated efficacy over placebo and are likely to be helpful for a significant number of patients with HS,” Dr. Sayed said. “Hopefully, we’ll see head-to-head trials and more data regarding proportions of patients with deeper responses using criteria such as HiSCR75 and HiSCR90.”
Moreover, “having a larger number of drugs with a range of mechanisms of action is extraordinarily helpful given how difficult the disease can be to manage. We will hopefully continue to see creative approaches and further successes in the current wave of phase 1, 2, and 3 trials that are already underway.”
The SUNSHINE and SUNRISE studies were funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. The phase 2A study Dr. Kimball presented was sponsored by Pfizer.
Dr. Kimball disclosed ties to both Novartis and Pfizer and acts as a consultant and investigator to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB. She is an investigator for Incyte and AnaptysBio; acts as a consultant to Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ventyz, Moonlake, Lily, Concert, EvoImmune, Sonoma Bio, and Sanofi; receives fellowship funding from Janssen, and serves on the Board of Directors for Almirall.
Dr. Patel had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Sayed is the director of the HS Foundation, a nonprofit organization, and has acted as an adviser or consultant to, speaker for, and received research funding from multiple drug companies including AbbVie, ChemoCentryx, Incyte, InflaRx, Novartis, and UCB.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in separate trials.
Around 40%-50% of patients exhibited a clinical response to these agents at 16 weeks, a leading HS expert reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
Time in the spotlight for HS
Research into HS is “an incredibly active field at this moment,” said Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology, Harvard Medical School, and president and chief executive officer of Harvard Medical Faculty Physicians at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.
It’s “been great for advancing our understanding of the biology and the treatments that we will be able to use,” she said.
During the late-breaking sessions at the annual EADV Congress, Dr. Kimball presented data from two trials – SUNSHINE and SUNRISE – that investigated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of the interleukin (IL) 17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) versus placebo in the treatment of moderate to severe HS.
“This is only the second phase 3 program we have ever seen in HS and the first one since 2016,” Dr. Kimball said of the trials. It’s also the largest trial program in HS conducted to date, she added, “so it really is a milestone.”
The last big development was when adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker, gained regulatory approval for HS in 2016, observed Neil Patel, PhD, MRCP, who leads the HS service at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust in London.
“Adalimumab has been very helpful for many patients, but not all patients respond, and others may respond initially but then the treatment starts to fail after a year or 2,” Dr. Patel said in an interview with this news organization.
“There is definitely a huge need for alternative medication for this condition, which still has a lack of effective treatment options,” added Dr. Patel, who was not involved in either of the studies.
“One major upside for secukinumab is that its safety profile is generally very good and familiarity in the dermatologic community is already well established,” Christopher Sayed, MD, said in a separate interview.
“This will make most providers very comfortable offering it as a potential treatment option sooner rather than later given that its efficacy has now been demonstrated in phase 3 trials,” added Dr. Sayed, associate professor of dermatology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Two identically designed trials
Altogether, SUNSHINE and SUNRISE enrolled just over 1,000 patients at 219 sites in 33 countries. Both trials were identical in their design: A 4-week run-in phase before a randomized, double-blind treatment phase that tested two dosing regimens of secukinumab (300 mg administered subcutaneously) every 2 or 4 weeks vs. placebo for 16 weeks. The trial continued after this time, with patients in the placebo arm re–randomly assigned to treatment with one of the two secukinumab regimens out to a year.
The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) after 16 weeks of treatment, with key secondary endpoints, which were abscess and inflammatory nodule (AN) count, occurrence of flares, and at least a 30% reduction in Patient’s Global Assessment of Skin Pain assessed using a numeric rating scale (NPRS30).
Secukinumab superior to placebo
The HiSCR is defined as at least a 50% decrease in AN count with no increase in the number of abscesses or in the number of draining fistulas relative to baseline. This was achieved by about 42%-45% of patients who received secukinumab every 2 weeks, about 42%-46% of those who received secukinumab every 4 weeks, and about 31%-33% of those on placebo in both studies.
Of note, fewer patients treated with secukinumab (about 15%-20% among those treated every 2 weeks, and about 15% to 23% among those treated every 4 weeks) than those on placebo (27%-29%) experienced flares, defined as at least a 25% increase in AN count and at least a two-point increase relative to baseline values.
Improvement in HS pain can be a difficult parameter to meet, Dr. Kimball noted. “Pain is such an important feature of this disease as it so debilitating for the patients.” More than one-third (almost 36%-39%) of patients given secukinumab vs. just over a quarter (26.9%) given placebo achieved at least a 30% reduction in NPRS30 ratings, she reported. The difference between active and placebo treatment was significant only when secukinumab was given every 2 weeks, however.
“The placebo rates that we see in these studies are exactly parallel to what we saw in other studies, and other disease states when we had a 50% bar of improvement,” Dr. Kimball said when questioned about these results.
“HS is a highly variable disease; it’s maybe not so much the placebo rate or the scoring system used but maybe the 50% bar set for improvement is too low. It’s likely, as data start to mature and a 75% HiSCR can be calculated, that the placebo rates will drop,” she said.
There were no surprises when it came to the safety of secukinumab, being an old player in a new game, she noted. It was “well tolerated” and tolerability was “consistent with the known safety profile,” Dr. Kimball said, “so we expect it to be a new, safe, and effective add to our armamentarium in treating this disease.”
This research involves “basically borrowing drugs from other areas and trying them in HS to see what effect they may have,” Dr. Patel said, noting that drugs such as adalimumab and secukinumab already had a proven track record in other diseases, such as psoriasis. “These early data for secukinumab definitely are very exciting, but we would need to see real-life results” in patients with HS who are not enrolled in trials to see the benefits, he added.
‘Tipping point’ for HS research
“I think we will look back on this meeting and realize that it was an incredibly important tipping point for the treatment of this incredibly debilitating disease,” Dr. Kimball said.
Elsewhere at the meeting, she had presented findings from a phase 2a study that pitted three different kinase inhibitors with different modes of action against each other and compared them with placebo.
The three agents evaluated are an IL-1 receptor–associated kinase 4 inhibitor known as PF-06650833, a tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) JAK1 inhibitor brepocitinib, and the TYK2 inhibitor PF-06826647.
“This technique has been used in oncology,” Dr. Kimball said, noting that the ability to test multiple drugs at the same time “means we can really much more efficiently test two different things at the same time, and also put fewer patients at risk for potential problems if drugs don’t work.”
Positive signs for brepocitinib, not the other kinases tested
The results showed that though brepocitinib worked in HS, the other two novel compounds did not appear to have beneficial effects. Just over half (52%) of the 52 patients treated with brepocitinib achieved an HiSCR at 16 weeks, compared with around one-third of those given placebo, PF-06650833, or PF-06826647.
A similar benefit was seen in terms of reduction in flares for brepocitinib but not the other agents, although there was no difference between them all in terms of NPRS30 pain reduction.
“We’ve been able to test three different modalities. This tells us some things about the pathophysiology for HS, which is a very profoundly intensive inflammatory process,” which, Dr. Kimball said, “may require multiple modalities of action to get it under control.” In addition, these “general modalities seem to safe and well tolerated,” she added.
Take-homes for practice and future research
“While it is disappointing that two of the drugs tested did not clearly demonstrate efficacy, it is very possible that these mechanisms of action may be successful targets in the future as new dosing strategies and drugs targeting these pathways are developed,” Dr. Sayed said.
A case in point, he added, was that “adalimumab did not meet treatment endpoints at a dose of 40 mg every other week, but clearly has made a major impact at 40 mg weekly.”
The bottom line is that “both secukinumab and beprocitinib demonstrated efficacy over placebo and are likely to be helpful for a significant number of patients with HS,” Dr. Sayed said. “Hopefully, we’ll see head-to-head trials and more data regarding proportions of patients with deeper responses using criteria such as HiSCR75 and HiSCR90.”
Moreover, “having a larger number of drugs with a range of mechanisms of action is extraordinarily helpful given how difficult the disease can be to manage. We will hopefully continue to see creative approaches and further successes in the current wave of phase 1, 2, and 3 trials that are already underway.”
The SUNSHINE and SUNRISE studies were funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. The phase 2A study Dr. Kimball presented was sponsored by Pfizer.
Dr. Kimball disclosed ties to both Novartis and Pfizer and acts as a consultant and investigator to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB. She is an investigator for Incyte and AnaptysBio; acts as a consultant to Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ventyz, Moonlake, Lily, Concert, EvoImmune, Sonoma Bio, and Sanofi; receives fellowship funding from Janssen, and serves on the Board of Directors for Almirall.
Dr. Patel had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Sayed is the director of the HS Foundation, a nonprofit organization, and has acted as an adviser or consultant to, speaker for, and received research funding from multiple drug companies including AbbVie, ChemoCentryx, Incyte, InflaRx, Novartis, and UCB.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in separate trials.
Around 40%-50% of patients exhibited a clinical response to these agents at 16 weeks, a leading HS expert reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
Time in the spotlight for HS
Research into HS is “an incredibly active field at this moment,” said Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology, Harvard Medical School, and president and chief executive officer of Harvard Medical Faculty Physicians at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.
It’s “been great for advancing our understanding of the biology and the treatments that we will be able to use,” she said.
During the late-breaking sessions at the annual EADV Congress, Dr. Kimball presented data from two trials – SUNSHINE and SUNRISE – that investigated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of the interleukin (IL) 17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) versus placebo in the treatment of moderate to severe HS.
“This is only the second phase 3 program we have ever seen in HS and the first one since 2016,” Dr. Kimball said of the trials. It’s also the largest trial program in HS conducted to date, she added, “so it really is a milestone.”
The last big development was when adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker, gained regulatory approval for HS in 2016, observed Neil Patel, PhD, MRCP, who leads the HS service at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust in London.
“Adalimumab has been very helpful for many patients, but not all patients respond, and others may respond initially but then the treatment starts to fail after a year or 2,” Dr. Patel said in an interview with this news organization.
“There is definitely a huge need for alternative medication for this condition, which still has a lack of effective treatment options,” added Dr. Patel, who was not involved in either of the studies.
“One major upside for secukinumab is that its safety profile is generally very good and familiarity in the dermatologic community is already well established,” Christopher Sayed, MD, said in a separate interview.
“This will make most providers very comfortable offering it as a potential treatment option sooner rather than later given that its efficacy has now been demonstrated in phase 3 trials,” added Dr. Sayed, associate professor of dermatology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Two identically designed trials
Altogether, SUNSHINE and SUNRISE enrolled just over 1,000 patients at 219 sites in 33 countries. Both trials were identical in their design: A 4-week run-in phase before a randomized, double-blind treatment phase that tested two dosing regimens of secukinumab (300 mg administered subcutaneously) every 2 or 4 weeks vs. placebo for 16 weeks. The trial continued after this time, with patients in the placebo arm re–randomly assigned to treatment with one of the two secukinumab regimens out to a year.
The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) after 16 weeks of treatment, with key secondary endpoints, which were abscess and inflammatory nodule (AN) count, occurrence of flares, and at least a 30% reduction in Patient’s Global Assessment of Skin Pain assessed using a numeric rating scale (NPRS30).
Secukinumab superior to placebo
The HiSCR is defined as at least a 50% decrease in AN count with no increase in the number of abscesses or in the number of draining fistulas relative to baseline. This was achieved by about 42%-45% of patients who received secukinumab every 2 weeks, about 42%-46% of those who received secukinumab every 4 weeks, and about 31%-33% of those on placebo in both studies.
Of note, fewer patients treated with secukinumab (about 15%-20% among those treated every 2 weeks, and about 15% to 23% among those treated every 4 weeks) than those on placebo (27%-29%) experienced flares, defined as at least a 25% increase in AN count and at least a two-point increase relative to baseline values.
Improvement in HS pain can be a difficult parameter to meet, Dr. Kimball noted. “Pain is such an important feature of this disease as it so debilitating for the patients.” More than one-third (almost 36%-39%) of patients given secukinumab vs. just over a quarter (26.9%) given placebo achieved at least a 30% reduction in NPRS30 ratings, she reported. The difference between active and placebo treatment was significant only when secukinumab was given every 2 weeks, however.
“The placebo rates that we see in these studies are exactly parallel to what we saw in other studies, and other disease states when we had a 50% bar of improvement,” Dr. Kimball said when questioned about these results.
“HS is a highly variable disease; it’s maybe not so much the placebo rate or the scoring system used but maybe the 50% bar set for improvement is too low. It’s likely, as data start to mature and a 75% HiSCR can be calculated, that the placebo rates will drop,” she said.
There were no surprises when it came to the safety of secukinumab, being an old player in a new game, she noted. It was “well tolerated” and tolerability was “consistent with the known safety profile,” Dr. Kimball said, “so we expect it to be a new, safe, and effective add to our armamentarium in treating this disease.”
This research involves “basically borrowing drugs from other areas and trying them in HS to see what effect they may have,” Dr. Patel said, noting that drugs such as adalimumab and secukinumab already had a proven track record in other diseases, such as psoriasis. “These early data for secukinumab definitely are very exciting, but we would need to see real-life results” in patients with HS who are not enrolled in trials to see the benefits, he added.
‘Tipping point’ for HS research
“I think we will look back on this meeting and realize that it was an incredibly important tipping point for the treatment of this incredibly debilitating disease,” Dr. Kimball said.
Elsewhere at the meeting, she had presented findings from a phase 2a study that pitted three different kinase inhibitors with different modes of action against each other and compared them with placebo.
The three agents evaluated are an IL-1 receptor–associated kinase 4 inhibitor known as PF-06650833, a tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) JAK1 inhibitor brepocitinib, and the TYK2 inhibitor PF-06826647.
“This technique has been used in oncology,” Dr. Kimball said, noting that the ability to test multiple drugs at the same time “means we can really much more efficiently test two different things at the same time, and also put fewer patients at risk for potential problems if drugs don’t work.”
Positive signs for brepocitinib, not the other kinases tested
The results showed that though brepocitinib worked in HS, the other two novel compounds did not appear to have beneficial effects. Just over half (52%) of the 52 patients treated with brepocitinib achieved an HiSCR at 16 weeks, compared with around one-third of those given placebo, PF-06650833, or PF-06826647.
A similar benefit was seen in terms of reduction in flares for brepocitinib but not the other agents, although there was no difference between them all in terms of NPRS30 pain reduction.
“We’ve been able to test three different modalities. This tells us some things about the pathophysiology for HS, which is a very profoundly intensive inflammatory process,” which, Dr. Kimball said, “may require multiple modalities of action to get it under control.” In addition, these “general modalities seem to safe and well tolerated,” she added.
Take-homes for practice and future research
“While it is disappointing that two of the drugs tested did not clearly demonstrate efficacy, it is very possible that these mechanisms of action may be successful targets in the future as new dosing strategies and drugs targeting these pathways are developed,” Dr. Sayed said.
A case in point, he added, was that “adalimumab did not meet treatment endpoints at a dose of 40 mg every other week, but clearly has made a major impact at 40 mg weekly.”
The bottom line is that “both secukinumab and beprocitinib demonstrated efficacy over placebo and are likely to be helpful for a significant number of patients with HS,” Dr. Sayed said. “Hopefully, we’ll see head-to-head trials and more data regarding proportions of patients with deeper responses using criteria such as HiSCR75 and HiSCR90.”
Moreover, “having a larger number of drugs with a range of mechanisms of action is extraordinarily helpful given how difficult the disease can be to manage. We will hopefully continue to see creative approaches and further successes in the current wave of phase 1, 2, and 3 trials that are already underway.”
The SUNSHINE and SUNRISE studies were funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. The phase 2A study Dr. Kimball presented was sponsored by Pfizer.
Dr. Kimball disclosed ties to both Novartis and Pfizer and acts as a consultant and investigator to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB. She is an investigator for Incyte and AnaptysBio; acts as a consultant to Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ventyz, Moonlake, Lily, Concert, EvoImmune, Sonoma Bio, and Sanofi; receives fellowship funding from Janssen, and serves on the Board of Directors for Almirall.
Dr. Patel had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Sayed is the director of the HS Foundation, a nonprofit organization, and has acted as an adviser or consultant to, speaker for, and received research funding from multiple drug companies including AbbVie, ChemoCentryx, Incyte, InflaRx, Novartis, and UCB.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE EADV CONGRESS
Sustained response at 2 years reported for newly approved oral psoriasis agent
MILAN – The day after deucravacitinib became the first TYK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, long-term data were presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, suggesting that a high degree of benefit persists for at least 2 years, making this oral drug a potential competitor for biologics.
,” said Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology and dean of clinical therapeutics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Just 2 months after the 52-week data from the phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, a long-term extension study found essentially no loss of benefit at 112 weeks, according to Dr. Lebwohl.
One of the two co-primary endpoints was a 75% clearance on the Psoriasis and Severity Index (PASI75) score. At 52 weeks, 80.2% of patients on deucravacitinib had met this criterion of benefit. At 112 weeks, the proportion was 84.4%.
The other primary endpoint was a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score of clear or almost clear skin. The proportion of patients meeting this criterion at weeks 52 and 112 weeks were 65.6% and 67.6%, respectively.
When assessed by Treatment Failure Rule (TFR) or modified nonresponder imputation (mNRI), results were similar. For both, the primary endpoints at every time interval were just one or two percentage points lower but not clinically meaningfully different, according to Dr. Lebwohl.
The same type of sustained response out to 112 weeks was observed in multiple analyses. When the researchers isolated the subgroup of patients who had achieved a PASI 75 response at 16 weeks (100%), there was a modest decline in the PASI 75 rate at week 52 (90.2%) but then no additional decline at week 112 (91.3%).
There were essentially no changes in the PASI 90 rates at week 16 (63%), week 52 (65.3%), and week 112 (63.1%), Dr. Lebwohl reported. PASI 100 rates, once achieved, were sustained long term.
The target, TYK2, is one of four Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Until now, almost all JAK inhibitors have had greater relative specificity for JAK 1, JAK 2, and JAK 3, but several inhibitors of TYK2 inhibitors other than deucravacitinib are in development for inflammatory diseases. Deucravacitinib (Sotyktu), approved by the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 9, is the only TYK2 inhibitor with regulatory approval for plaque psoriasis.
In the POETYK PSO-1 trial, 666 patients were initially randomized in a 2:1:1 ratio to 6 mg deucravacitinib (now the approved dose), placebo, or the oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor apremilast. At week 16, patients on placebo were switched over to deucravacitinib. At week 24, patients who did not achieve a PASI 50 on apremilast (which had been titrated to 10 mg daily to 30 mg twice a day over the first 5 days of dosing) were switched to deucravacitinib.
In the previously reported data, deucravacitinib was superior for all efficacy endpoints at week 16, including an analysis of quality of life when compared with placebo (P < .0001) or apremilast (P = .0088). At week 52, after having been switched to deucravacitinib at week 16, patients on placebo achieved comparable responses on the efficacy measures in this study, including PASI75.
Relative to JAK inhibitors commonly used in rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases, the greater specificity of deucravacitinib for TYK2 appears to have meaningful safety advantages, according to Dr. Lebwohl. Targeted mostly on the TYK2 regulatory domain, deucravacitinib largely avoids inhibition of the JAK 1, 2, and 3 subtypes. Dr. Lebwohl said this explains why deucravacitinib labeling does not share the boxed warnings about off-target effects, such as those on the cardiovascular system, that can be found in the labeling of other JAK inhibitors.
In the published 52-week data, the discontinuation rate for adverse events was lower in the group randomized to deucravacitinib arm than in the placebo arm. In the extended follow-up, there were no new signals for adverse events, including those involving the CV system or immune function.
The key message so far from the long-term follow-up, which is ongoing, is that “continuous treatment with deucravacitinib is associated with durable efficacy,” Dr. Lebwohl said. It is this combination of sustained efficacy and safety that led Dr. Lebwohl to suggest it as a reasonable oral competitor to injectable biologics.
“Patients now have a choice,” he said.
Jashin J. Wu, MD, a board member of the National Psoriasis Foundation and an associate professor in the department of dermatology, University of Miami, has been following the development of deucravacitinib. He said that the recent FDA approval validates the clinical evidence of benefit and safety, while the long-term data presented at the EADV congress support its role in expanding treatment options.
“Deucravacitinib is a very effective oral agent for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with strong maintenance of effect through week 112,” he said. Differentiating it from other JAK inhibitors, the FDA approval “confirms the safety of this agent as there is no boxed warning,” he added.
Dr. Lebwohl reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, the manufacturer of deucravacitinib. Dr. Wu has financial relationships with 14 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, but he was not an investigator for the phase 3 trials of deucravacitinib.
MILAN – The day after deucravacitinib became the first TYK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, long-term data were presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, suggesting that a high degree of benefit persists for at least 2 years, making this oral drug a potential competitor for biologics.
,” said Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology and dean of clinical therapeutics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Just 2 months after the 52-week data from the phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, a long-term extension study found essentially no loss of benefit at 112 weeks, according to Dr. Lebwohl.
One of the two co-primary endpoints was a 75% clearance on the Psoriasis and Severity Index (PASI75) score. At 52 weeks, 80.2% of patients on deucravacitinib had met this criterion of benefit. At 112 weeks, the proportion was 84.4%.
The other primary endpoint was a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score of clear or almost clear skin. The proportion of patients meeting this criterion at weeks 52 and 112 weeks were 65.6% and 67.6%, respectively.
When assessed by Treatment Failure Rule (TFR) or modified nonresponder imputation (mNRI), results were similar. For both, the primary endpoints at every time interval were just one or two percentage points lower but not clinically meaningfully different, according to Dr. Lebwohl.
The same type of sustained response out to 112 weeks was observed in multiple analyses. When the researchers isolated the subgroup of patients who had achieved a PASI 75 response at 16 weeks (100%), there was a modest decline in the PASI 75 rate at week 52 (90.2%) but then no additional decline at week 112 (91.3%).
There were essentially no changes in the PASI 90 rates at week 16 (63%), week 52 (65.3%), and week 112 (63.1%), Dr. Lebwohl reported. PASI 100 rates, once achieved, were sustained long term.
The target, TYK2, is one of four Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Until now, almost all JAK inhibitors have had greater relative specificity for JAK 1, JAK 2, and JAK 3, but several inhibitors of TYK2 inhibitors other than deucravacitinib are in development for inflammatory diseases. Deucravacitinib (Sotyktu), approved by the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 9, is the only TYK2 inhibitor with regulatory approval for plaque psoriasis.
In the POETYK PSO-1 trial, 666 patients were initially randomized in a 2:1:1 ratio to 6 mg deucravacitinib (now the approved dose), placebo, or the oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor apremilast. At week 16, patients on placebo were switched over to deucravacitinib. At week 24, patients who did not achieve a PASI 50 on apremilast (which had been titrated to 10 mg daily to 30 mg twice a day over the first 5 days of dosing) were switched to deucravacitinib.
In the previously reported data, deucravacitinib was superior for all efficacy endpoints at week 16, including an analysis of quality of life when compared with placebo (P < .0001) or apremilast (P = .0088). At week 52, after having been switched to deucravacitinib at week 16, patients on placebo achieved comparable responses on the efficacy measures in this study, including PASI75.
Relative to JAK inhibitors commonly used in rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases, the greater specificity of deucravacitinib for TYK2 appears to have meaningful safety advantages, according to Dr. Lebwohl. Targeted mostly on the TYK2 regulatory domain, deucravacitinib largely avoids inhibition of the JAK 1, 2, and 3 subtypes. Dr. Lebwohl said this explains why deucravacitinib labeling does not share the boxed warnings about off-target effects, such as those on the cardiovascular system, that can be found in the labeling of other JAK inhibitors.
In the published 52-week data, the discontinuation rate for adverse events was lower in the group randomized to deucravacitinib arm than in the placebo arm. In the extended follow-up, there were no new signals for adverse events, including those involving the CV system or immune function.
The key message so far from the long-term follow-up, which is ongoing, is that “continuous treatment with deucravacitinib is associated with durable efficacy,” Dr. Lebwohl said. It is this combination of sustained efficacy and safety that led Dr. Lebwohl to suggest it as a reasonable oral competitor to injectable biologics.
“Patients now have a choice,” he said.
Jashin J. Wu, MD, a board member of the National Psoriasis Foundation and an associate professor in the department of dermatology, University of Miami, has been following the development of deucravacitinib. He said that the recent FDA approval validates the clinical evidence of benefit and safety, while the long-term data presented at the EADV congress support its role in expanding treatment options.
“Deucravacitinib is a very effective oral agent for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with strong maintenance of effect through week 112,” he said. Differentiating it from other JAK inhibitors, the FDA approval “confirms the safety of this agent as there is no boxed warning,” he added.
Dr. Lebwohl reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, the manufacturer of deucravacitinib. Dr. Wu has financial relationships with 14 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, but he was not an investigator for the phase 3 trials of deucravacitinib.
MILAN – The day after deucravacitinib became the first TYK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, long-term data were presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, suggesting that a high degree of benefit persists for at least 2 years, making this oral drug a potential competitor for biologics.
,” said Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology and dean of clinical therapeutics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Just 2 months after the 52-week data from the phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, a long-term extension study found essentially no loss of benefit at 112 weeks, according to Dr. Lebwohl.
One of the two co-primary endpoints was a 75% clearance on the Psoriasis and Severity Index (PASI75) score. At 52 weeks, 80.2% of patients on deucravacitinib had met this criterion of benefit. At 112 weeks, the proportion was 84.4%.
The other primary endpoint was a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score of clear or almost clear skin. The proportion of patients meeting this criterion at weeks 52 and 112 weeks were 65.6% and 67.6%, respectively.
When assessed by Treatment Failure Rule (TFR) or modified nonresponder imputation (mNRI), results were similar. For both, the primary endpoints at every time interval were just one or two percentage points lower but not clinically meaningfully different, according to Dr. Lebwohl.
The same type of sustained response out to 112 weeks was observed in multiple analyses. When the researchers isolated the subgroup of patients who had achieved a PASI 75 response at 16 weeks (100%), there was a modest decline in the PASI 75 rate at week 52 (90.2%) but then no additional decline at week 112 (91.3%).
There were essentially no changes in the PASI 90 rates at week 16 (63%), week 52 (65.3%), and week 112 (63.1%), Dr. Lebwohl reported. PASI 100 rates, once achieved, were sustained long term.
The target, TYK2, is one of four Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Until now, almost all JAK inhibitors have had greater relative specificity for JAK 1, JAK 2, and JAK 3, but several inhibitors of TYK2 inhibitors other than deucravacitinib are in development for inflammatory diseases. Deucravacitinib (Sotyktu), approved by the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 9, is the only TYK2 inhibitor with regulatory approval for plaque psoriasis.
In the POETYK PSO-1 trial, 666 patients were initially randomized in a 2:1:1 ratio to 6 mg deucravacitinib (now the approved dose), placebo, or the oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor apremilast. At week 16, patients on placebo were switched over to deucravacitinib. At week 24, patients who did not achieve a PASI 50 on apremilast (which had been titrated to 10 mg daily to 30 mg twice a day over the first 5 days of dosing) were switched to deucravacitinib.
In the previously reported data, deucravacitinib was superior for all efficacy endpoints at week 16, including an analysis of quality of life when compared with placebo (P < .0001) or apremilast (P = .0088). At week 52, after having been switched to deucravacitinib at week 16, patients on placebo achieved comparable responses on the efficacy measures in this study, including PASI75.
Relative to JAK inhibitors commonly used in rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases, the greater specificity of deucravacitinib for TYK2 appears to have meaningful safety advantages, according to Dr. Lebwohl. Targeted mostly on the TYK2 regulatory domain, deucravacitinib largely avoids inhibition of the JAK 1, 2, and 3 subtypes. Dr. Lebwohl said this explains why deucravacitinib labeling does not share the boxed warnings about off-target effects, such as those on the cardiovascular system, that can be found in the labeling of other JAK inhibitors.
In the published 52-week data, the discontinuation rate for adverse events was lower in the group randomized to deucravacitinib arm than in the placebo arm. In the extended follow-up, there were no new signals for adverse events, including those involving the CV system or immune function.
The key message so far from the long-term follow-up, which is ongoing, is that “continuous treatment with deucravacitinib is associated with durable efficacy,” Dr. Lebwohl said. It is this combination of sustained efficacy and safety that led Dr. Lebwohl to suggest it as a reasonable oral competitor to injectable biologics.
“Patients now have a choice,” he said.
Jashin J. Wu, MD, a board member of the National Psoriasis Foundation and an associate professor in the department of dermatology, University of Miami, has been following the development of deucravacitinib. He said that the recent FDA approval validates the clinical evidence of benefit and safety, while the long-term data presented at the EADV congress support its role in expanding treatment options.
“Deucravacitinib is a very effective oral agent for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with strong maintenance of effect through week 112,” he said. Differentiating it from other JAK inhibitors, the FDA approval “confirms the safety of this agent as there is no boxed warning,” he added.
Dr. Lebwohl reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, the manufacturer of deucravacitinib. Dr. Wu has financial relationships with 14 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, but he was not an investigator for the phase 3 trials of deucravacitinib.
AT THE EADV CONGRESS
Targeted anti-IgE therapy found safe and effective for chronic urticaria
MILAN – The therapeutic .
Both doses of ligelizumab evaluated met the primary endpoint of superiority to placebo for a complete response at 16 weeks of therapy, reported Marcus Maurer, MD, director of the Urticaria Center for Reference and Excellence at the Charité Hospital, Berlin.
The data from the two identically designed trials, PEARL 1 and PEARL 2, were presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. The two ligelizumab experimental arms (72 mg or 120 mg administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks) and the active comparative arm of omalizumab (300 mg administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks) demonstrated similar efficacy, all three of which were highly superior to placebo.
The data show that “another anti-IgE therapy – ligelizumab – is effective in CSU,” Dr. Maurer said.
“While the benefit was not different from omalizumab, ligelizumab showed remarkable results in disease activity and by demonstrating just how many patients achieved what we want them to achieve, which is to have no more signs and symptoms,” he added.
Majority of participants with severe urticaria
All of the patients entered into the two trials had severe (about 65%) or moderate (about 35%) symptoms at baseline. The results of the two trials were almost identical. In the randomization arms, a weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) of 0, which was the primary endpoint, was achieved at week 16 by 31.0% of those receiving 72-mg ligelizumab, 38.3% of those receiving 120-mg ligelizumab, and 34.1% of those receiving omalizumab (Xolair). The placebo response was 5.7%.
The UAS7 score is drawn from two components, wheals and itch. The range is 0 (no symptoms) to 42 (most severe). At baseline, the average patients’ scores were about 30, which correlates with a substantial symptom burden, according to Dr. Maurer.
The mean reduction in the UAS7 score in PEARL 2, which differed from PEARL 1 by no more than 0.4 points for any treatment group, was 19.2 points in the 72-mg ligelizumab group, 19.3 points in the 120-mg ligelizumab group, 19.6 points in the omalizumab group, and 9.2 points in the placebo group. There were no significant differences between any active treatment arm.
Complete symptom relief, meaning a UAS7 score of 0, was selected as the primary endpoint, because Dr. Maurer said that this is the goal of treatment. Although he admitted that a UAS7 score of 0 is analogous to a PASI score in psoriasis of 100 (complete clearing), he said, “Chronic urticaria is a debilitating disease, and we want to eliminate the symptoms. Gone is gone.”
Combined, the two phase 3 trials represent “the biggest chronic urticaria program ever,” according to Dr. Maurer. The 1,034 patients enrolled in PEARL 1 and the 1,023 enrolled in PEARL 2 were randomized in a 3:3:3:1 ratio with placebo representing the smaller group.
The planned follow-up is 52 weeks, but the placebo group will be switched to 120 mg ligelizumab every 4 weeks at the end of 24 weeks. The switch is required because “you cannot maintain patients with this disease on placebo over a long period,” Dr. Maurer said.
Ligelizumab associated with low discontinuation rate
Adverse events overall and stratified by severity have been similar across treatment arms, including placebo. The possible exception was a lower rate of moderate events (16.5%) in the placebo arm relative to the 72-mg ligelizumab arm (19.8%), the 120-mg ligelizumab arm (21.6%), and the omalizumab arm (22.3%). Discontinuations because of an adverse event were under 4% in every treatment arm.
Although Dr. Maurer did not present outcomes at 52 weeks, he did note that “only 15% of those who enrolled in these trials have discontinued treatment.” He considered this remarkable in that the study was conducted in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, and it appears that at least some of those left the trial did so because of concern for clinic visits.
Despite the similar benefit provided by ligelizumab and omalizumab, Dr. Maurer said that subgroup analyses will be coming. The possibility that some patients benefit more from one than the another cannot yet be ruled out. There are also, as of yet, no data to determine whether at least some patients respond to one after an inadequate response to the other.
Still, given the efficacy and the safety of ligelizumab, Dr. Maurer indicated that the drug is likely to find a role in routine management of CSU if approved.
“We only have two options for chronic spontaneous urticaria. There are antihistamines, which do not usually work, and omalizumab,” he said. “It is very important we develop more treatment options.”
Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, agreed.
“More therapeutic options, especially for disease states that have a small armament – even if equivalent in efficacy to established therapies – is always a win for patients as it almost always increases access to treatment,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview.
“Furthermore, the heterogeneous nature of inflammatory skin diseases is often not captured in even phase 3 studies. Therefore, having additional options could offer relief where previous therapies have failed,” he added.
Dr. Maurer reports financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis, which is developing ligelizumab. Dr. Friedman has a financial relationship with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies but has no current financial association with Novartis and was not involved in the PEARL 1 and 2 trials.
MILAN – The therapeutic .
Both doses of ligelizumab evaluated met the primary endpoint of superiority to placebo for a complete response at 16 weeks of therapy, reported Marcus Maurer, MD, director of the Urticaria Center for Reference and Excellence at the Charité Hospital, Berlin.
The data from the two identically designed trials, PEARL 1 and PEARL 2, were presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. The two ligelizumab experimental arms (72 mg or 120 mg administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks) and the active comparative arm of omalizumab (300 mg administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks) demonstrated similar efficacy, all three of which were highly superior to placebo.
The data show that “another anti-IgE therapy – ligelizumab – is effective in CSU,” Dr. Maurer said.
“While the benefit was not different from omalizumab, ligelizumab showed remarkable results in disease activity and by demonstrating just how many patients achieved what we want them to achieve, which is to have no more signs and symptoms,” he added.
Majority of participants with severe urticaria
All of the patients entered into the two trials had severe (about 65%) or moderate (about 35%) symptoms at baseline. The results of the two trials were almost identical. In the randomization arms, a weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) of 0, which was the primary endpoint, was achieved at week 16 by 31.0% of those receiving 72-mg ligelizumab, 38.3% of those receiving 120-mg ligelizumab, and 34.1% of those receiving omalizumab (Xolair). The placebo response was 5.7%.
The UAS7 score is drawn from two components, wheals and itch. The range is 0 (no symptoms) to 42 (most severe). At baseline, the average patients’ scores were about 30, which correlates with a substantial symptom burden, according to Dr. Maurer.
The mean reduction in the UAS7 score in PEARL 2, which differed from PEARL 1 by no more than 0.4 points for any treatment group, was 19.2 points in the 72-mg ligelizumab group, 19.3 points in the 120-mg ligelizumab group, 19.6 points in the omalizumab group, and 9.2 points in the placebo group. There were no significant differences between any active treatment arm.
Complete symptom relief, meaning a UAS7 score of 0, was selected as the primary endpoint, because Dr. Maurer said that this is the goal of treatment. Although he admitted that a UAS7 score of 0 is analogous to a PASI score in psoriasis of 100 (complete clearing), he said, “Chronic urticaria is a debilitating disease, and we want to eliminate the symptoms. Gone is gone.”
Combined, the two phase 3 trials represent “the biggest chronic urticaria program ever,” according to Dr. Maurer. The 1,034 patients enrolled in PEARL 1 and the 1,023 enrolled in PEARL 2 were randomized in a 3:3:3:1 ratio with placebo representing the smaller group.
The planned follow-up is 52 weeks, but the placebo group will be switched to 120 mg ligelizumab every 4 weeks at the end of 24 weeks. The switch is required because “you cannot maintain patients with this disease on placebo over a long period,” Dr. Maurer said.
Ligelizumab associated with low discontinuation rate
Adverse events overall and stratified by severity have been similar across treatment arms, including placebo. The possible exception was a lower rate of moderate events (16.5%) in the placebo arm relative to the 72-mg ligelizumab arm (19.8%), the 120-mg ligelizumab arm (21.6%), and the omalizumab arm (22.3%). Discontinuations because of an adverse event were under 4% in every treatment arm.
Although Dr. Maurer did not present outcomes at 52 weeks, he did note that “only 15% of those who enrolled in these trials have discontinued treatment.” He considered this remarkable in that the study was conducted in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, and it appears that at least some of those left the trial did so because of concern for clinic visits.
Despite the similar benefit provided by ligelizumab and omalizumab, Dr. Maurer said that subgroup analyses will be coming. The possibility that some patients benefit more from one than the another cannot yet be ruled out. There are also, as of yet, no data to determine whether at least some patients respond to one after an inadequate response to the other.
Still, given the efficacy and the safety of ligelizumab, Dr. Maurer indicated that the drug is likely to find a role in routine management of CSU if approved.
“We only have two options for chronic spontaneous urticaria. There are antihistamines, which do not usually work, and omalizumab,” he said. “It is very important we develop more treatment options.”
Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, agreed.
“More therapeutic options, especially for disease states that have a small armament – even if equivalent in efficacy to established therapies – is always a win for patients as it almost always increases access to treatment,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview.
“Furthermore, the heterogeneous nature of inflammatory skin diseases is often not captured in even phase 3 studies. Therefore, having additional options could offer relief where previous therapies have failed,” he added.
Dr. Maurer reports financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis, which is developing ligelizumab. Dr. Friedman has a financial relationship with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies but has no current financial association with Novartis and was not involved in the PEARL 1 and 2 trials.
MILAN – The therapeutic .
Both doses of ligelizumab evaluated met the primary endpoint of superiority to placebo for a complete response at 16 weeks of therapy, reported Marcus Maurer, MD, director of the Urticaria Center for Reference and Excellence at the Charité Hospital, Berlin.
The data from the two identically designed trials, PEARL 1 and PEARL 2, were presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. The two ligelizumab experimental arms (72 mg or 120 mg administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks) and the active comparative arm of omalizumab (300 mg administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks) demonstrated similar efficacy, all three of which were highly superior to placebo.
The data show that “another anti-IgE therapy – ligelizumab – is effective in CSU,” Dr. Maurer said.
“While the benefit was not different from omalizumab, ligelizumab showed remarkable results in disease activity and by demonstrating just how many patients achieved what we want them to achieve, which is to have no more signs and symptoms,” he added.
Majority of participants with severe urticaria
All of the patients entered into the two trials had severe (about 65%) or moderate (about 35%) symptoms at baseline. The results of the two trials were almost identical. In the randomization arms, a weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) of 0, which was the primary endpoint, was achieved at week 16 by 31.0% of those receiving 72-mg ligelizumab, 38.3% of those receiving 120-mg ligelizumab, and 34.1% of those receiving omalizumab (Xolair). The placebo response was 5.7%.
The UAS7 score is drawn from two components, wheals and itch. The range is 0 (no symptoms) to 42 (most severe). At baseline, the average patients’ scores were about 30, which correlates with a substantial symptom burden, according to Dr. Maurer.
The mean reduction in the UAS7 score in PEARL 2, which differed from PEARL 1 by no more than 0.4 points for any treatment group, was 19.2 points in the 72-mg ligelizumab group, 19.3 points in the 120-mg ligelizumab group, 19.6 points in the omalizumab group, and 9.2 points in the placebo group. There were no significant differences between any active treatment arm.
Complete symptom relief, meaning a UAS7 score of 0, was selected as the primary endpoint, because Dr. Maurer said that this is the goal of treatment. Although he admitted that a UAS7 score of 0 is analogous to a PASI score in psoriasis of 100 (complete clearing), he said, “Chronic urticaria is a debilitating disease, and we want to eliminate the symptoms. Gone is gone.”
Combined, the two phase 3 trials represent “the biggest chronic urticaria program ever,” according to Dr. Maurer. The 1,034 patients enrolled in PEARL 1 and the 1,023 enrolled in PEARL 2 were randomized in a 3:3:3:1 ratio with placebo representing the smaller group.
The planned follow-up is 52 weeks, but the placebo group will be switched to 120 mg ligelizumab every 4 weeks at the end of 24 weeks. The switch is required because “you cannot maintain patients with this disease on placebo over a long period,” Dr. Maurer said.
Ligelizumab associated with low discontinuation rate
Adverse events overall and stratified by severity have been similar across treatment arms, including placebo. The possible exception was a lower rate of moderate events (16.5%) in the placebo arm relative to the 72-mg ligelizumab arm (19.8%), the 120-mg ligelizumab arm (21.6%), and the omalizumab arm (22.3%). Discontinuations because of an adverse event were under 4% in every treatment arm.
Although Dr. Maurer did not present outcomes at 52 weeks, he did note that “only 15% of those who enrolled in these trials have discontinued treatment.” He considered this remarkable in that the study was conducted in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, and it appears that at least some of those left the trial did so because of concern for clinic visits.
Despite the similar benefit provided by ligelizumab and omalizumab, Dr. Maurer said that subgroup analyses will be coming. The possibility that some patients benefit more from one than the another cannot yet be ruled out. There are also, as of yet, no data to determine whether at least some patients respond to one after an inadequate response to the other.
Still, given the efficacy and the safety of ligelizumab, Dr. Maurer indicated that the drug is likely to find a role in routine management of CSU if approved.
“We only have two options for chronic spontaneous urticaria. There are antihistamines, which do not usually work, and omalizumab,” he said. “It is very important we develop more treatment options.”
Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, agreed.
“More therapeutic options, especially for disease states that have a small armament – even if equivalent in efficacy to established therapies – is always a win for patients as it almost always increases access to treatment,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview.
“Furthermore, the heterogeneous nature of inflammatory skin diseases is often not captured in even phase 3 studies. Therefore, having additional options could offer relief where previous therapies have failed,” he added.
Dr. Maurer reports financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis, which is developing ligelizumab. Dr. Friedman has a financial relationship with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies but has no current financial association with Novartis and was not involved in the PEARL 1 and 2 trials.
AT THE EADV CONGRESS