Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Oral Alitretinoin in Hand Eczema and Palmoplantar Pustulosis in Korean Patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Previous studies have demonstrated efficacy and safety of oral alitretinoin in hand eczema (HE) whereas in palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP), which can be difficult to distinguish from HE, efficacy of alitretinoin is still controversial.

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of oral alitretinoin in HE and PPP and factors that affect the response of these disorders to alitretinoin.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed Korean adult patients with moderate-to-severe HE and PPP treated with oral alitretinoin, 46 patients for efficacy assessment and 55 patients for safety assessment.

Results

Among 46 patients who were treated with alitretinoin for at least 1 month, 29 patients (61.1% in HE and 40.0% in PPP) showed response to alitretinoin in the median 14 weeks after treatment. Hyperkeratotic HE showed higher response rate than either vesicular HE or PPP (p=0.026 and p=0.026, respectively). However, PPP with hyperkeratotic features showed as much response as hyperkeratotic HE (p=0.554). When responders and non-responders in total patients were compared, morphology, not diagnosis or initial severity, was the only significantly different factor between the two groups. After alitretinoin discontinuation in responders, relapse rate was 63.6% (7/11) and median time to relapse was 150 days (range, 76~730 days). Adverse events occurred in 47.3% (26/55); however, there were no serious adverse events.

Conclusion

In HE or PPP, lesions with hyperkeratotic morphology can be predicted to respond well to alitretinoin regardless of diagnosis.

SUBMITTER: Lee JS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7992670 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportancePalmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) causes erythematous, scaly plaques with recurrent sterile pustules refractory to treatment and with few randomized clinical trials conducted. Evidence points to involvement of interleukin 23 in the pathogenesis of PPP.ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy and safety of guselkumab, an anti-IL-23 monoclonal antibody, in Japanese patients with PPP.Design, setting, and participantsA phase 3 randomized clinical trial was conducted from December 15, 2015, to December 12, 2017. A total of 159 enrolled patients (aged ≥20 years) had an inadequate response to conventional therapies, with a diagnosis of PPP for 24 or more weeks before screening. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed.InterventionsSubcutaneous injections of guselkumab, 100 or 200 mg, at weeks 0, 4, and 12, and every 8 weeks thereafter were administered; placebo was given at weeks 0, 4, and 12.Main outcomes and measuresChanges from baseline in PPP Area and Severity Index (PPPASI) score (possible score range, 0-72, with higher scores indicating greater area and severity), PPP severity index (PPSI) score (possible score range, 0-12, with higher scores indicating greater severity), and proportion of PPPASI-50 (≥50% reduction) responders at weeks 16 and 52 were assessed. Safety was monitored through week 52.ResultsA total of 159 patients (mean [SD] age at diagnosis, 46.8 [11.9] years; 126 women [79.2%]) were enrolled. Treatment groups comprised guselkumab, 100 mg (n = 54), guselkumab, 200 mg (n = 52), or placebo (n = 53). Both guselkumab groups demonstrated significant improvement in least-squares mean changes in PPPASI score compared with placebo: -15.3 and -11.7 in the guselkumab 100-mg and 200-mg groups, respectively, and -7.6 in the placebo group (difference [SE] vs placebo: -7.7 [1.7] in the 100-mg group, P < .001; 95% CI, -11.00 to -4.38; and -4.1 [1.7] in the 200-mg group, P < .017; 95% CI, -7.47 to -0.75]). Least-squares mean changes in PPSI score showed significant improvement in both guselkumab groups (100 mg: -2.0 [0.5]; P < .001; 95% CI, -2.96 to -0.95; 200 mg: -1.0 [0.5; P = .04; 95% CI, -2.06 to -0.03). A significantly higher proportion of patients in the guselkumab 100-mg group (31 [57.4%]) achieved a PPPASI-50 response at week 16 vs placebo (18 [34.0%]; P = .02); however, the result was not significant for the guselkumab 200-mg group (19 [36.5%]) vs placebo; P = .78). Each efficacy end point improved consistently through week 52. Health-related quality of life improved significantly as indicated by a reduction in the Dermatology Life Quality Index score (100 mg: -2.6; 95% CI, -4.0 to -1.2; P < .001; 200 mg: -1.6; 95% CI, -3.1 to -0.2; P = .03). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in 8 patients (placebo group, 2 of 53 [3.8%]; combined guselkumab group, 6/157≠10.5%). No serious infections were reported.Conclusions and relevanceTargeting interleukin 23 with guselkumab may be an effective and safe treatment option for a recalcitrant disease such as PPP.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02641730.

Project description:The safety and efficacy of guselkumab for palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) have been established through week (W)52; however, no sufficient information is available beyond 1 year. This study was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of guselkumab through W84, and to explore factors associated with the sustainability of its efficacy in Japanese PPP patients. Patients received guselkumab 100 or 200 mg at W0, W4, W12, and every 8 weeks (q8w) until W60, or placebo at W0, W4, and W12. At W16, patients receiving placebo were re-randomized to receive guselkumab 100/200 mg at W16, W20, and q8w until W60. Efficacy end-points included PPP Area and Severity Index (PPPASI), PPP Severity Index (PPSI), Physician's Global Assessment scores, and patient reported outcomes (PRO) (Dermatology Life Quality Index, EuroQoL-5 Dimensions, and 36-item Short Form Health Survey). Post-hoc comparison of patient characteristics was performed between PPPASI-75/90 responders and non-responders at W60, and sustained responders and non-responders at W84. Safety was evaluated through W84. A total of 45, 43, 21, and 24 patients from the guselkumab 100 mg, guselkumab 200 mg, placebo→guselkumab 100 mg, and placebo→guselkumab 200 mg groups, respectively, completed the study through W84. Overall, the mean improvement in the guselkumab groups from baseline in the PPPASI and PPSI total scores at W84 was ~79% and ~66%, respectively. All PRO improved through W84. The proportion of responders through W60 was higher in patients who had not received prior phototherapy and non-biologic systemic therapy for PPP. Non-smokers and patients with no prior non-biologic systemic treatment tended numerically towards sustained efficacy through W84. The majority of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) were mild to moderate (~88%) with low incidence of serious TEAE (7.6%). Overall, guselkumab showed sustained efficacy and safety with improvement in the health-related quality of life through W84 in Japanese PPP patients.

Project description:ImportancePalmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) is a recalcitrant skin disease with no biologics currently approved for treatment. The involvement of interleukin 23 (IL-23) and cytokines of the type 17 helper T cell lineage in the pathogenesis of PPP has been recently postulated.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of guselkumab, an anti-IL-23 monoclonal antibody, in Japanese patients with PPP.Design, setting, and participantsThis double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 24-week trial was conducted between May 14, 2013, and September 27, 2014, at 11 centers in Japan. Participants were patients with moderate to severe PPP that did not respond adequately to conventional treatments.InterventionsPatients were randomized 1:1 to receive guselkumab, 200 mg, by subcutaneous injection or matching placebo at weeks 0 and 4.Main outcomes and measuresChanges in total scores of skin-related outcomes from baseline at the end of week 16 (primary clinical cutoff) and through week 24 were measured. Serum biomarker analyses were performed at baseline, week 4, and week 16, and safety was monitored through week 24.ResultsOf 49 randomized patients (35 [71%] women; median [range] age, 52 [28-77] years), 41 completed the study at week 24. Mean (SD) PPP severity index total scores (primary end point) improved significantly from baseline in guselkumab-treated patients (-3.3 [2.43]) vs placebo (-1.8 [2.09]) (least squares mean difference, -1.5; 95% CI, -2.9 to -0.2; P = .03). At week 16, PPP area and severity index scores (least squares mean difference, -5.65; 95% CI, -9.80 to -1.50; P = .009) and proportion of patients achieving 50% reduction in these scores (difference in proportion, 39.2; 95% CI, 14.0-64.3; P = .009) improved significantly. A numerically higher proportion of patients had a physician's global assessment score of 1 or less in the guselkumab group vs placebo. Improvement in efficacy scores was maintained through week 24 in the guselkumab group. Significant reductions from baseline in serum IL-17A and IL-17F cytokine levels were observed at weeks 4 and 16. Frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable between the guselkumab group (19 of 25 patients [76%]) and the placebo group (18 of 24 patients [75%]). Frequent adverse effects included nasopharyngitis (14 patients [29%]), headache (3 patients [6%]), contact dermatitis (3 patients [6%]), and injection site erythema (3 patients [6%]). No major safety concerns emerged during the study.Conclusions and relevanceTargeting IL-23 and its associated immune cascade with guselkumab may be a safe and useful therapeutic option for treatment of PPP.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01845987.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Palmoplantar psoriasis (PP) and palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) are diseases affecting the hands and/or feet that can cause marked physical discomfort and functional disability. The tumor necrosis factor-alpha antagonists adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab, the interleukin (IL)-17A inhibitors ixekizumab and secukinumab, and the IL-23 or IL-12/IL-23 inhibitors guselkumab and ustekinumab have been well studied for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Less is known about the efficacy and safety of these agents for the treatment of PP (hyperkeratotic and pustular forms) and PPP. The aim of this review was to investigate the efficacy of biologic therapy for the treatment of hyperkeratotic PP, pustular PP, and PPP. METHODS:A systematic search of the medical electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library) was conducted to identify studies or case reports which both used biologic therapy for the treatment of hyperkeratotic PP, pustular PP, and PPP and reported treatment outcomes. RESULTS:The systematic search identified 579 published articles, of which 44 were included in the analysis. Seven of the articles involved randomized placebo-controlled trials, two were open label trials, and the remaining were cohort studies, case series, or case reports. In the randomized controlled trials on the treatment of hyperkeratotic PP, adalimumab, guselkumab, infliximab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab each demonstrated superiority to placebo at 16, 16, 14, 12, and 12 or 16 weeks, respectively (p < 0.05). For the treatment of pustular PP, ustekinumab 45 mg was not superior to placebo at 12 and 16 weeks, respectively (p > 0.05), although an open label study demonstrated that four of five patients on a therapeutic regimen of ustekinumab 90 mg achieved clinical clearance at 16 weeks. For the treatment of PPP, etanercept and ustekinumab 45 mg were not superior to placebo at 12 and 16 weeks, respectively (p > 0.05). A combined analysis of studies for hyperkeratotic PP demonstrated that 94.7%, 90.0%, 82.5%, 89.1%, and 86.7% of patients experienced an improvement of at least 50% upon treatment with adalimumab, guselkumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and ustekinumab, respectively. In a combined analysis of case reports examining PPP, infliximab showed the greatest efficacy at 100.0% clinical improvement of patients from case reports, followed by ustekinumab at 58.8% clinical improvement. Few serious adverse events were reported, but several were reported in patients treated with infliximab or secukinumab. CONCLUSION:Biologic therapy is effective and well-tolerated for the treatment of hyperkeratotic PP, but less data are available on the treatment of pustular PP or PPP. Adalimumab, guselkumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and ustekinumab all showed > 80% efficacy for the treatment of hyperkeratotic PP, while infliximab and ustekinumab showed moderate efficacy for the treatment of pustular PP, and infliximab was the most efficacious treatment for PPP.

Project description:IntroductionWe evaluated the anti-interleukin-36 receptor antibody spesolimab in patients with moderate-to-severe palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP).MethodsThis phase IIb trial comprised a loading dose period to week (W) 4, then maintenance dosing to W52. Patients were randomised 2:1:1:1:2 to subcutaneous spesolimab 3000 mg to W4 then 600 mg every 4 weeks (q4w), spesolimab 3000 mg to W4 then 300 mg q4w, spesolimab 1500 mg to W4 then 600 mg q4w, spesolimab 1500 mg to W4, 300 mg q4w to W16 then 300 mg every 8 weeks (q8w), or placebo switching to spesolimab 600 mg q4w at W16. The primary efficacy endpoint was percentage change from baseline in Palmoplantar Pustular Area and Severity Index (PPP ASI) at W16. Secondary endpoints included a Palmoplantar Pustular Physician's Global Assessment (PPP PGA) score of 0/1. Safety (including adverse events [AEs], local tolerability) was assessed.Results152 patients were treated. The primary endpoint was not met; mean differences for spesolimab versus placebo ranged from - 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: - 31.5%, 2.2%) to - 5.3% (95% CI: - 19.1%, 8.6%); none reached significance. At W16, 23 (21.1%) and two (4.7%) patients in the combined spesolimab and placebo groups, respectively, achieved PPP PGA 0/1 (mean difference 16.4%; 95% CI: 3.8%, 25.7%), increasing to 59 (54.1%; combined spesolimab) and 12 (27.9%; placebo switch to spesolimab) patients at W52. Non-Asian patients had significant improvements in the primary endpoint (mean difference - 17.7%; nominal P = 0.0394) and PPP PGA 0/1 at W16 with spesolimab versus placebo. Rates of AEs and AE-related discontinuations were similar for spesolimab and placebo. Local tolerability events and injection-site reactions were more frequent with spesolimab than placebo.ConclusionThe primary objective to demonstrate a non-flat dose-response relationship and proof-of-concept was not achieved; improvements with spesolimab occurred in secondary endpoints and in non-Asian patients, indicating potential modest benefits. Spesolimab was generally well tolerated (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04015518).