Drug survival of adalimumab, ustekinumab and secukinumab in patients with psoriasis: a prospective cohort study from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR).

BACKGROUND: Real-world biologic drug survival is an important proxy measure for effectiveness. Predictors of drug survival may help patients with psoriasis choose between biologic therapies. OBJECTIVES: (i) To assess the relative drug survival of adalimumab, ustekinumab and secukinumab in patients with psoriasis. (ii) To investigate predictors of biologic drug survival. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed in the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) between November 2007 and August 2019. We performed survival analysis and fitted a flexible parametric survival model for biologic discontinuation due to ineffectiveness. RESULTS: In total 9652 patients were included: 5543 starting on adalimumab (57·4%), 991 on secukinumab (10·3%) and 3118 on ustekinumab (32·3%). The overall drug survivals of adalimumab, secukinumab and ustekinumab in year 1 were 0·78 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0·77-0·79], 0·88 (95% CI 0·86-0·91) and 0·88 (95% CI 0·87-0·89), respectively. The adjusted hazard ratios (adjHRs) for discontinuation of adalimumab and secukinumab compared with ustekinumab were 2·11 (95% CI 1·76-2·54) and 0·67 (95% CI 0·40-1·11), respectively. The presence of psoriatic arthritis predicted for survival in the adalimumab and secukinumab cohorts (adjHR 0·67, 95% CI 0·51-0·88 and 0·70, 95% CI 0·40-1·24, respectively), but for discontinuation in the ustekinumab cohort (adjHR 1·42, 95% CI 1·12-1·81). Previous exposure to biologic therapies predicted for discontinuation in the ustekinumab and secukinumab cohorts (adjHR 1·54, 95% CI 1·26-1·89 and 1·49, 95% CI 0·91-2·45, respectively) and for survival in the adalimumab cohort (adjHR 0·71, 95% CI 0·55-0·92). CONCLUSIONS: Secukinumab and ustekinumab have similar sustained drug survival, while adalimumab has a lower drug survival in patients with psoriasis. Psoriatic arthritis and previous biologic experience were predictors with differential effects between the biologic therapies. What is already known about this topic? There is conflicting evidence over the real-world drug survival of secukinumab in patients with psoriasis. Data from registries to date suggest that secukinumab has a lower drug survival than that reported from clinical trials. What does this study add? This study found that secukinumab and ustekinumab had similar sustained drug survival in the real world, while the drug survival of adalimumab was lower, suggesting that the real-world drug survival of secukinumab is higher than previously reported. We found that psoriatic arthritis and previous biologic experience had differential effects on drug discontinuation in the three biologic cohorts. These predictors may help patients and clinicians choose the most appropriate biologic therapy

A standardization approach to compare treatment safety and effectiveness outcomes between clinical trials and real‐world populations in psoriasis

Background: Patients recruited in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for biologic therapies in psoriasis are not fully representative of the real‐world psoriasis population. Objectives: Firstly, to investigate whether patient characteristics are associated with being included in a psoriasis RCT. Secondly, to estimate the differences in the incidence of severe adverse events (SAEs) and the response rate between RCT and real‐world populations of patients on biologic therapies for psoriasis using a standardization method. Methods: Data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) were appended to individual participant‐level data from two RCTs assessing ustekinumab in patients with psoriasis. Baseline variables were assessed for association of being in an RCT using a multivariable logistic regression model. Propensity score weights were derived to reweigh the registry population so that variables had the distribution of the trial population. We measured the C‐statistic of the model with trial status as the dependent variable, and the risk differences in the incidence rate of SAEs in the first year and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) after 6 months in the BADBIR cohort before and after weighting. Results: In total 6790 registry and 2021 RCT participants were included. The multivariable logistic regression model had a C‐statistic of 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81–0.83]. The risk differences for the incidence rate of SAEs and the proportion of patients with PASI < 1.5 were 9.27 (95% CI −3.91–22.5) per 1000 person‐years and 0.95 (95% CI −1.98–4.15), respectively. Conclusions: Our results suggest that RCTs of biologic therapies in patients with psoriasis are not fully representative of the real‐world population, but this lack of external validity does not account for the efficacy–effectiveness gap

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

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

Risks of basal cell and squamous cell carcinoma in psoriasis patients after treatment with biologic vs non‐biologic systemic therapies

'No abstract