Disease activity and treatment efficacy using patient-level Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores from tildrakizumab phase 3 clinical trials

Abstract Background It is unclear whether primary efficacy outcomes in plaque psoriasis clinical trials represent residual disease during treatment. Objectives To evaluate supplementing dichotomous efficacy with residual disease activity. Methods This post hoc analysis used pooled, patient-level data after tildrakizumab 100 mg (N = 616) or placebo (N = 309) treatment from reSURFACE 1/2 (NCT01722331/NCT01729754) phase 3 clinical trials of patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Results Median baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) was 17.9 for patients receiving tildrakizumab 100 mg. At Week 12, median PASI was 2.9, whereas dichotomous PASI 90 response rate was 36.9%, and absolute PASI <5.0, <3.0, and <1.0 were 64.0%, 50.8%, and 23.3%, respectively. At Week 28, median PASI was 1.7, whereas PASI 90 response rate was 51.9%, and absolute PASI <5.0, <3.0, and <1.0 were 75.3%, 62.8%, and 38.0%, respectively. Dermatology Life Quality Index and PASI scores were correlated through Week 28 (r = 0.51, p ≤ .0001). Conclusions Disease activity was more reliably estimated by PASI scores than percentage PASI improvement; this may partially explain efficacy disparities between clinical trials and practice. These results suggest supplementing dichotomous PASI improvement with PASI scores and consideration of patient treatment goals could facilitate clinical decisions.

[1]  M. Tauber,et al.  French guidelines on the use of systemic treatments for moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis in adults , 2019, Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV.

[2]  H. Haenssle,et al.  Precision and reproducibility of automated computer‐guided Psoriasis Area and Severity Index measurements in comparison with trained physicians , 2018, The British journal of dermatology.

[3]  E. H. Thompson,et al.  Efficacy and safety of risankizumab in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (UltIMMa-1 and UltIMMa-2): results from two double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled and ustekinumab-controlled phase 3 trials , 2018, The Lancet.

[4]  H. Haenssle,et al.  Intra‐ and interobserver variability of image‐based PASI assessments in 120 patients suffering from plaque‐type psoriasis , 2018, Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV.

[5]  L. Coates,et al.  British Association of Dermatologists guidelines for biologic therapy for psoriasis 2017 , 2017, The British journal of dermatology.

[6]  A. Reich,et al.  The reliability of three psoriasis assessment tools: Psoriasis area and severity index, body surface area and physician global assessment. , 2017, Advances in clinical and experimental medicine : official organ Wroclaw Medical University.

[7]  A. Kimball,et al.  Tildrakizumab versus placebo or etanercept for chronic plaque psoriasis (reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2): results from two randomised controlled, phase 3 trials , 2017, The Lancet.

[8]  L. Naldi,et al.  Italian guidelines on the systemic treatments of moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis , 2017, Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV.

[9]  A. Kimball,et al.  Efficacy and safety of guselkumab, an anti‐interleukin‐23 monoclonal antibody, compared with adalimumab for the continuous treatment of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis: Results from the phase III, double‐blinded, placebo‐ and active comparator–controlled VOYAGE 1 trial , 2017, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[10]  A. Gottlieb,et al.  From the Medical Board of the National Psoriasis Foundation: Treatment targets for plaque psoriasis , 2017, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[11]  Stanley B. Cohen,et al.  Long-term safety of tofacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis up to 8.5 years: integrated analysis of data from the global clinical trials , 2017, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[12]  L. Puig,et al.  Consensus document on the evaluation and treatment of moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis: Psoriasis Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology , 2016, Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV.

[13]  M. Lebwohl,et al.  Comparison of ixekizumab with etanercept or placebo in moderate-to-severe psoriasis (UNCOVER-2 and UNCOVER-3): results from two phase 3 randomised trials , 2015, The Lancet.

[14]  T. Luger,et al.  Comparison of three methods for measuring psoriasis severity in clinical studies (Part 1 of 2): change during therapy in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, Static Physician's Global Assessment and Lattice System Physician's Global Assessment , 2015, Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV.

[15]  C. Paul,et al.  Efficacy, safety and usability of secukinumab administration by autoinjector/pen in psoriasis: a randomized, controlled trial (JUNCTURE) , 2015, Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV.

[16]  L. Puig,et al.  PASI90 response: the new standard in therapeutic efficacy for psoriasis , 2015, Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV.

[17]  S. Feldman,et al.  The 5-point Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) Scale: A modified tool for evaluating plaque psoriasis severity in clinical trials , 2015, The Journal of dermatological treatment.

[18]  B. Elewski,et al.  Secukinumab in plaque psoriasis--results of two phase 3 trials. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  A. Kimball,et al.  Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI): the correlation between disease severity and psychological burden in patients treated with biological therapies , 2014, Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV.

[20]  J. M. Carrascosa,et al.  Directrices españolas basadas en la evidencia para el tratamiento de la psoriasis con agentes biológicos, 2013. I . Consideraciones de eficacia y selección del tratamiento , 2013 .

[21]  S. Marron,et al.  Spanish evidence-based guidelines on the treatment of psoriasis with biologic agents, 2013. Part 1: on efficacy and choice of treatment. Spanish Psoriasis Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. , 2013, Actas dermo-sifiliograficas.

[22]  C. Griffiths,et al.  Definition of treatment goals for moderate to severe psoriasis: a European consensus , 2010, Archives of Dermatological Research.

[23]  Jan D Bos,et al.  How good are clinical severity and outcome measures for psoriasis?: quantitative evaluation in a systematic review. , 2010, The Journal of investigative dermatology.

[24]  K. Reich,et al.  The relationship between quality of life and skin clearance in moderate-to-severe psoriasis: lessons learnt from clinical trials with infliximab , 2008, Archives of Dermatological Research.

[25]  M. Herdman,et al.  A study examining inter‐ and intrarater reliability of three scales for measuring severity of psoriasis: Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, Physician's Global Assessment and Lattice System Physician's Global Assessment , 2006, The British journal of dermatology.

[26]  A. Nakanishi,et al.  A global phase III randomized controlled trial of etanercept in psoriasis: safety, efficacy, and effect of dose reduction , 2005, The British journal of dermatology.

[27]  R. Langley,et al.  Evaluating psoriasis with Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, Psoriasis Global Assessment, and Lattice System Physician's Global Assessment. , 2004, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[28]  A. Finlay,et al.  Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI)—a simple practical measure for routine clinical use , 1994, Clinical and experimental dermatology.

[29]  Wellbutrin,et al.  Prescribing Information , 2015, European journal of haematology.

[30]  T Fredriksson,et al.  Severe psoriasis--oral therapy with a new retinoid. , 1978, Dermatologica.