Direct comparison of risankizumab and fumaric acid esters in systemic therapy-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: a randomized controlled trial.
Journal
The British journal of dermatology
ISSN: 1365-2133
Titre abrégé: Br J Dermatol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0004041
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2022
01 2022
Historique:
accepted:
13
05
2021
pubmed:
16
5
2021
medline:
4
3
2022
entrez:
15
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Fumaric acid esters (FAEs; Fumaderm To compare risankizumab treatment to FAEs in patients with psoriasis. This phase III randomized, active-controlled, open-label study with blinded assessment of efficacy was conducted in Germany. Patients were randomized (1 : 1) to subcutaneous risankizumab 150 mg (weeks 0, 4 and 16) or oral FAEs at increasing doses from 30 mg daily (week 0) up to 720 mg daily (weeks 8-24). Enrolled patients were adults naïve to and candidates for systemic therapy, with chronic moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Phototherapy was not allowed within 14 days before or during the study. Key efficacy endpoints were met at week 24 for risankizumab (n = 60) vs. FAEs (n = 60) (P < 0·001): achievement of a ≥ 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI; primary endpoint 83·3% vs. 10·0%), ≥ 100% improvement in PASI (50·0% vs. 5·0%), ≥ 75% improvement in PASI (98·3% vs. 33·3%), ≥ 50% improvement in PASI (100% vs. 53·3%) and a Static Physician's Global Assessment of clear/almost clear (93·3% vs. 38·3%). The rates of gastrointestinal disorders, flushing, lymphopenia and headache were higher in the FAE group. One patient receiving risankizumab reported a serious infection (influenza, which required hospitalization). There were no malignancies, tuberculosis or opportunistic infections in either treatment arm. Risankizumab was found to be superior to FAEs, providing earlier and greater improvement in psoriasis outcomes that persisted with continued treatment, and more favourable safety results, which is consistent with the known safety profile. No new safety signals for risankizumab or FAEs were observed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Fumaric acid esters (FAEs; Fumaderm
OBJECTIVES
To compare risankizumab treatment to FAEs in patients with psoriasis.
METHODS
This phase III randomized, active-controlled, open-label study with blinded assessment of efficacy was conducted in Germany. Patients were randomized (1 : 1) to subcutaneous risankizumab 150 mg (weeks 0, 4 and 16) or oral FAEs at increasing doses from 30 mg daily (week 0) up to 720 mg daily (weeks 8-24). Enrolled patients were adults naïve to and candidates for systemic therapy, with chronic moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Phototherapy was not allowed within 14 days before or during the study.
RESULTS
Key efficacy endpoints were met at week 24 for risankizumab (n = 60) vs. FAEs (n = 60) (P < 0·001): achievement of a ≥ 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI; primary endpoint 83·3% vs. 10·0%), ≥ 100% improvement in PASI (50·0% vs. 5·0%), ≥ 75% improvement in PASI (98·3% vs. 33·3%), ≥ 50% improvement in PASI (100% vs. 53·3%) and a Static Physician's Global Assessment of clear/almost clear (93·3% vs. 38·3%). The rates of gastrointestinal disorders, flushing, lymphopenia and headache were higher in the FAE group. One patient receiving risankizumab reported a serious infection (influenza, which required hospitalization). There were no malignancies, tuberculosis or opportunistic infections in either treatment arm.
CONCLUSIONS
Risankizumab was found to be superior to FAEs, providing earlier and greater improvement in psoriasis outcomes that persisted with continued treatment, and more favourable safety results, which is consistent with the known safety profile. No new safety signals for risankizumab or FAEs were observed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33991341
doi: 10.1111/bjd.20481
pmc: PMC9291944
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Monoclonal
0
Fumarates
0
risankizumab
90ZX3Q3FR7
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
30-39Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.
Références
Ther Drug Monit. 2019 Oct;41(5):634-639
pubmed: 31107404
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015 Dec;29(12):2277-94
pubmed: 26481193
JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Jun 1;156(6):649-658
pubmed: 32267471
J Dermatol. 2019 Aug;46(8):686-694
pubmed: 31237727
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016 Jul;75(1):77-82.e7
pubmed: 27206759
J Dermatolog Treat. 2020 Aug;31(5):476-483
pubmed: 31557063
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015 Jul;73(1):27-36.e1
pubmed: 25982539
Lancet. 2008 May 17;371(9625):1665-74
pubmed: 18486739
Lancet. 2018 Aug 25;392(10148):650-661
pubmed: 30097359
Br J Dermatol. 2017 Oct;177(4):1024-1032
pubmed: 28580646
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 Nov;69(5):729-735
pubmed: 23981683
Br J Dermatol. 2020 May;182(5):1158-1166
pubmed: 31286471
Lancet. 2017 Jul 15;390(10091):276-288
pubmed: 28596043
Br J Dermatol. 2017 Mar;176(3):615-623
pubmed: 27515097
N Engl J Med. 2003 Nov 20;349(21):2014-22
pubmed: 14627786
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2021 Aug;35(8):1686-1691
pubmed: 33428281
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018 Oct;32 Suppl 3:3-14
pubmed: 30238510
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jul 30;361(5):496-509
pubmed: 19641206
Lancet. 2015 Aug 8;386(9993):541-51
pubmed: 26072109
J Invest Dermatol. 2008 May;128(5):1325-7
pubmed: 18034172
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Aug;79(2):266-276.e5
pubmed: 29660425
JAAD Case Rep. 2019 May 25;5(6):484-487
pubmed: 31193589
Ann Rheum Dis. 2013 May;72(5):736-40
pubmed: 22730367
Br J Dermatol. 2015 Jun;172(6):1665-1668
pubmed: 25645671
J Dermatolog Treat. 2018 Jun;29(4):334-346
pubmed: 29099667
N Engl J Med. 2017 Apr 20;376(16):1551-1560
pubmed: 28423301
Lancet. 2007 Jul 21;370(9583):272-284
pubmed: 17658398
Br J Dermatol. 2014 Feb;170(2):435-44
pubmed: 24116868
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008 Jan;58(1):106-15
pubmed: 17936411
Br J Dermatol. 2013 Jun;168(6):1325-34
pubmed: 23621698
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017 Mar;76(3):377-390
pubmed: 28212759
Br J Dermatol. 2017 Mar;176(3):576
pubmed: 28300303
Br J Dermatol. 2020 Apr;182(4):869-879
pubmed: 31376153
Br J Dermatol. 2016 Aug;175(2):273-86
pubmed: 26914406
Acta Derm Venereol. 2019 Oct 1;99(11):971-977
pubmed: 31240322
J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2007 Aug;5(8):716-7
pubmed: 17659047
J Invest Dermatol. 2013 Feb;133(2):377-85
pubmed: 23014338
JAMA Dermatol. 2013 Oct;149(10):1173-9
pubmed: 23925466
N Engl J Med. 2016 Jul 28;375(4):345-56
pubmed: 27299809
Lancet. 2008 May 17;371(9625):1675-84
pubmed: 18486740
Nature. 2007 Feb 22;445(7130):866-73
pubmed: 17314973
Br J Dermatol. 2020 Aug;183(2):265-275
pubmed: 31705526
Br J Dermatol. 2017 Mar;176(3):786-793
pubmed: 27454758
J Invest Dermatol. 2010 Jul;130(7):1785-96
pubmed: 20445552
N Engl J Med. 2014 Jul 24;371(4):326-38
pubmed: 25007392
Br J Dermatol. 2021 Jan;184(1):50-59
pubmed: 32594522
Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2019 Jun - Jul;146(6-7):497-502
pubmed: 31208737
Lancet. 2019 Aug 17;394(10198):576-586
pubmed: 31280967
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022 Jun;36(6):855-865
pubmed: 35174556