Using Real-World Data to Guide Ustekinumab Dosing Strategies for Psoriasis: A Prospective Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Study.

Variation in response to biologic therapy for inflammatory diseases, such as psoriasis, is partly driven by variation in drug exposure. Real-world psoriasis data were used to develop a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) model for the first-line therapeutic antibody ustekinumab. The impact of differing dosing strategies on response was explored. Data were collected from a UK prospective multicenter observational cohort (491 patients on ustekinumab monotherapy, drug levels, and anti-drug antibody measurements on 797 serum samples, 1,590 measurements of Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI)). Ustekinumab PKs were described with a linear one-compartment model. A maximum effect (Emax ) model inhibited progression of psoriatic skin lesions in the turnover PD mechanism describing PASI evolution while on treatment. A mixture model on half-maximal effective concentration identified a potential nonresponder group, with simulations suggesting that, in future, the model could be incorporated into a Bayesian therapeutic drug monitoring "dashboard" to individualize dosing and improve treatment outcomes

Risk of major cardiovascular events in patients with psoriasis receiving biologic therapies: a prospective cohort study

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

Development and validation of a multivariable risk prediction model for serious infection in patients with psoriasis receiving systemic therapy

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

Intentional and unintentional medication non-adherence in psoriasis: The role of patients’ medication beliefs and habit strength

Medication non-adherence is a missed opportunity for therapeutic benefit. We assessed “real-world” levels of self-reported non-adherence to conventional and biologic systemic therapies used for psoriasis and evaluated psychological and biomedical factors associated with non-adherence using multivariable analyses. Latent profile analysis was used to investigate whether patients can be categorized into groups with similar medication beliefs. Latent profile analysis categorizes individuals with similar profiles on a set of continuous variables into discrete groups represented by a categorical latent variable. Eight hundred and eleven patients enrolled in the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic Interventions Register were included. Six hundred and seventeen patients were using a self-administered systemic therapy; 22.4% were classified as “non-adherent” (12% intentionally and 10.9% unintentionally). Patients using an oral conventional systemic agent were more likely to be non-adherent compared to those using etanercept or adalimumab (29.2% vs. 16.4%; P ≤ 0.001). Latent profile analysis supported a three-group model; all groups held strong beliefs about their need for systemic therapy but differed in levels of medication concerns. Group 1 (26.4% of the sample) reported the strongest concerns, followed by Group 2 (61%), with Group 3 (12.6%) reporting the weakest concerns. Group 1 membership was associated with intentional non-adherence (odds ratio = 2.27, 95% confidence interval = 1.16−4.47) and weaker medication-taking routine or habit strength was associated with unintentional non-adherence (odds ratio = 0.92, 95% confidence interval = 0.89−0.96). Medication beliefs and habit strength are modifiable targets for strategies to improve adherence in psoriasis

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication

McMurry Totem, McMurry College, Abilene, Texas

Yearbook for McMurry College in Abilene, Texas includes photos of and information about the college, student body, professors, and organizations. Name indexes start on page 199