Dataset Information

Spesolimab, an Anti-Interleukin-36 Receptor Antibody, in Patients with Palmoplantar Pustulosis: Results of a Phase IIa, Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) is a chronic, inflammatory skin disease, with high disease burden, that is often refractory to treatment. There is a high unmet clinical need for the treatment of patients with PPP. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the safety and efficacy of spesolimab, a novel anti-interleukin-36 receptor antibody, in patients with PPP.

Methods

This was a phase IIa, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study comparing 900 mg spesolimab (n = 19), 300 mg spesolimab (n = 19), and placebo (n = 21) administered intravenously every 4 weeks until week 12 in patients with PPP. The primary efficacy endpoint was the achievement of Palmoplantar Pustulosis Area and Severity Index 50 (PPP ASI50) at week 16, defined as achieving an ≥ 50% decrease from baseline PPP ASI.

Results

At week 16, 31.6% of patients in both spesolimab dose groups achieved PPP ASI50 versus 23.8% receiving placebo (risk difference 0.078; 95% confidence interval -0.190, 0.338). Thus, the primary endpoint was not met. Spesolimab was well tolerated with no clinically relevant treatment-emergent safety signals observed.

Conclusions

PPP severity declined over time in all treatment groups after the start of treatment, with a faster decline in the spesolimab arms than in the placebo arm, indicating a potential treatment effect for spesolimab. Limitations to the study included a small sample size and lower overall disease severity than expected at baseline. It is possible that the primary efficacy endpoint may have coincided with natural disease resolution in some patients. Further effects of the efficacy of spesolimab in PPP are being explored in a phase IIb trial.

SUBMITTER: Mrowietz U

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8019016 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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).

Project description:BackgroundThis review's goals were to investigate apremilast's efficacy versus placebo in palmoplantar psoriasis (PP) and palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP), and apremilast's efficacy versus methotrexate in PP.MethodsA literature search was conducted in PubMed, clinicaltrials.gov, and Embase in July 2022. Publications investigating subjects with PP or PPP, treated with apremilast, which reported palmoplantar-specific outcomes were used. Exclusion criteria included cases of drug-induced PP/PPP, case studies, non-English texts, omission of palmoplantar-specific outcomes, and incomplete publications. Studies were assessed for risk of bias using Cochrane Review Manager application and CASP checklist. Primary endpoints were a 50% improvement of the Palmoplantar Psoriasis/Pustulosis Area and Severity Index (PPPASI 50) and improvement of the Palmoplantar Physician Global Assessment (PPPGA) to 0 or 1 in patients with baseline PPPGA ≥ 3.ResultsSeventeen original studies including five placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs), one phase II clinical trial, two randomized methotrexate comparative trials, six cohort studies, and three case series were analyzed, totaling 1117 participants. Meta-analysis of four placebo-controlled RCTs investigating PP found apremilast treatment to be superior to placebo in achieving a PPPGA of 0/1 (baseline PPPGA of ≥ 3) after 16 weeks of treatment (n = 244; OR = 2.69 [1.39-5.22]). Apremilast was superior to placebo in achieving PPPASI 50 at week 16 in the only placebo-controlled RCT of PPP (78.3 vs. 40.9%) [P = 0.0003]. Apremilast was comparable to methotrexate in achieving PPPASI 50 at week 16 in PP (59.5 vs. 64.3%; n = 84; [P = 0.65]). Non-randomized studies generally showed marked improvement in PPPASI, PPPGA, and DLQI scores following apremilast treatment.DiscussionApremilast treatment in PP and PPP resulted in significant improvement in objective, palmoplantar-specific clinical parameters versus placebo, and comparable efficacy with methotrexate in PP. Limitations in interpreting these results include variations in palmoplantar-specific metrics used and risk of bias of included studies.

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.