Search

Risankizumab is approved for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Availability of a patient-controlled single self-injection of risankizumab may improve adherence and long-term management of psoriasis.To investigate efficacy, safety, and usability of a new risankizumab 150 mg/mL formulation administered as a single subcutaneous injection via prefilled syringe (PFS) or autoinjector (AI).Efficacy, safety, usability, and acceptability of risankizumab 150 mg/mL PFS or AI were investigated in adults with moderate to severe psoriasis in two phase 3 studies. Study 1 was a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study that investigated 150 mg/mL risankizumab PFS; study 2 was a multicenter, single-arm, open-label study that investigated 150 mg/mL risankizumab AI.At week 16, risankizumab 150 mg/mL demonstrated efficacy vs. placebo (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index ≥90% improvement (PASI 90), 62.9% vs. 3.8%; static Physician Global Assessment (sPGA) 0/1, 78.1% vs. 9.6%; bothThe efficacy, safety, and usability of 150 mg/mL risankizumab delivered as a single PFS or AI injection support use of this new formulation in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.NCT03875482 and NCT0387508.

In a drug development program, the efficacy and safety of multiple doses can be evaluated in patients through a phase 2b dose ranging study. With a demonstrated dose response in the trial, promising doses are identified. Their effectiveness then is further investigated and confirmed in phase 3 studies. Although this two-step approach serves the purpose of the program, in general, it is inefficient because of its prolonged development duration and the exclusion of the phase 2b data in the final efficacy evaluation and confirmation which are only based on phase 3 data. To address the issue, we propose a new adaptive design, which seamlessly integrates the dose finding and confirmation steps under one pivotal study. Unlike existing adaptive seamless phase 2b/3 designs, the proposed design combines the response adaptive randomization, sample size modification, and multiple testing techniques to achieve better efficiency. The design can be easily implemented through an automated randomization process. At the end, a number of targeted doses are selected and their effectiveness is confirmed with guaranteed control of family-wise error rate.

Summary Background Patients with plaque psoriasis treated with biologic therapies need more efficacious, safe and convenient treatments to improve quality of life. Risankizumab and secukinumab inhibit interleukin‐23 and interleukin‐17A, respectively, and are effective in adult patients with moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis but have different dosing regimens. Objectives To compare directly the efficacy and safety of risankizumab vs. secukinumab over 52 weeks. Methods IMMerge was an international, phase III, multicentre, open‐label, efficacy–assessor‐blinded, active‐comparator study, in which adult patients with chronic, moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis were randomized in a 1 : 1 ratio to treatment with risankizumab 150 mg or secukinumab 300 mg. Primary efficacy endpoints were the proportions of patients achieving ≥ 90% improvement from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 90) at week 16 (noninferiority comparison with margin of 12%) and week 52 (superiority comparison). Results In total 327 patients from nine countries were treated with risankizumab (n = 164) or secukinumab (n = 163). Risankizumab was noninferior to secukinumab in the proportion of patients achieving PASI 90 at week 16 [73·8% vs. 65·6%; difference of 8·2%, 96·25% confidence interval (CI)−2·2 to 18·6; within the 12% noninferiority margin] and superior to secukinumab at week 52 (86·6% vs. 57·1%; difference of 29·8%, 95% CI 20·8–38·8; P < 0·001), thus meeting both primary endpoints. All secondary endpoints (PASI 100, static Physician's Global Assessment 0 or 1, and PASI 75) at week 52 demonstrated superiority for risankizumab vs. secukinumab (P < 0·001). No new safety concerns were identified. Conclusions At week 52, risankizumab demonstrated superior efficacy and similar safety with less frequent dosing compared with secukinumab., What is already known about this topic? The need remains for treatments with sustained efficacy and a more convenient dosing schedule in moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis.Risankizumab and secukinumab are indicated for the treatment of adults with moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis and target interleukin‐23 and interleukin‐17, respectively.To date, risankizumab and secukinumab have not been directly compared. What does this study add? IMMerge directly compared the safety and efficacy of risankizumab and secukinumab in patients with moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis using ≥ 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index at weeks 16 (noninferiority) and 52 (superiority) as primary endpoints.In terms of efficacy risankizumab was noninferior to secukinumab at week 16 and superior to secukinumab at week 52 of treatment based on primary endpoint analyses. The two medications had a similar safety profile. Linked Comment: Schmitt-Egenolf. Br J Dermatol 2021; 184: 3–4. Plain language summary available online

Importance: Surgery is a mainstay in the management of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). Adalimumab is the first drug approved for HS. Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in combination with wide-excision surgery followed by secondary intention healing. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Safety and Efficacy of Adalimumab for Hidradenitis Suppurativa Peri-Surgically (SHARPS) trial was a phase 4, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of adalimumab in conjunction with surgery. Patients were enrolled in 45 sites across 20 countries from July 18, 2016, to February 2, 2019, with the last patient visit on October 16, 2019. Eligible patients (aged 18-65 years) had moderate to severe HS that required radical surgery in an axillary or inguinal region and had 2 other anatomical regions affected, with 1 or more regions at Hurley stage II or III. Analysis was conducted in November 2019. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive continuous adalimumab, 40 mg, or placebo during presurgery (12 weeks), perioperative (2 weeks), and postoperative (10 weeks) periods. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving HS clinical response across all body regions at week 12. Results: Overall, 103 patients were randomized to adalimumab and 103 to matching placebo. Among all patients, 51% (n = 106) were women, 94% (n = 193) were White, and the mean (SD) age was 37.6 (11.3) years. At week 12, significantly more patients receiving adalimumab (49 of 103 [48%]) vs placebo (35 of 103 [34%]; P =.049) achieved HS clinical response across all body regions (treatment difference, 14% [95% CI, 0%-27%]). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 74 of 103 patients (72%) and 69 of 103 patients (67%) in the adalimumab and placebo groups, respectively. No increased risk of postoperative wound infection, complication, or hemorrhage was observed with adalimumab vs placebo. Two deaths occurred in the adalimumab group; neither was considered as having a reasonable possibility of relationship to study drug. Conclusions and Relevance: Adalimumab was efficacious in conjunction with wide-excision surgery followed by secondary intention healing, with no need to interrupt treatment prior to surgery. These data support further investigation of adalimumab as an adjuvant therapy to surgery in patients with moderate to severe HS. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02808975.

In current clinical trial development, historical information is receiving more attention as it provides utility beyond sample size calculation. Meta-analytic-predictive (MAP) priors and robust MAP priors have been proposed for prospectively borrowing historical data on a single endpoint. To simultaneously synthesize control information from multiple endpoints in confirmatory clinical trials, we propose to approximate posterior probabilities from a Bayesian hierarchical model and estimate critical values by deep learning to construct pre-specified strategies for hypothesis testing. This feature is important to ensure study integrity by establishing prospective decision functions before the trial conduct. Simulations are performed to show that our method properly controls family-wise error rate (FWER) and preserves power as compared with a typical practice of choosing constant critical values given a subset of null space. Satisfactory performance under prior-data conflict is also demonstrated. We further illustrate our method using a case study in Immunology.

Background Few clinical trials have evaluated long‐term treatment of nail psoriasis with biologics. Objective Safety and efficacy of adalimumab [ADA; Humira AbbVie Inc, North Chicago, IL, USA)] long‐term treatment (52 weeks) was evaluated in a phase‐3, randomized trial in patients with moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis and concomitant moderate‐to‐severe fingernail psoriasis. Results from the first 26 weeks (Period A) have been reported. Methods Patients receiving 40 mg ADA every other week or placebo in Period A, continued with or switched to 40 mg ADA every‐other‐week treatment in the subsequent 26‐week open‐label extension (OLE) period. Main efficacy evaluations were ≥75% improvement in total‐fingernail modified Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (mNAPSI 75) and achievement of Physician's Global Assessment for Fingernail Psoriasis of clear or minimal disease (PGA‐F 0/1) with a ≥2‐grade improvement from baseline, across the trial for patients who continued ADA from Period A through the OLE (Continuous‐ADA Population). Safety was evaluated during the OLE and for patients receiving ADA at any time during the study (All‐ADA Population). Results Of the 217 patients initially randomized in Period A, 188 (86.6%; 94 in each treatment group) entered the OLE after completion of or early escape from Period A. For the Continuous‐ADA Population (N = 109), endpoint achievement rates improved from OLE entry (Week 26) to Week 52, including total‐fingernail mNAPSI 75 (47.4–54.5%); PGA‐F 0/1 (51.1–55.6%) and total‐fingernail mNAPSI = 0 (6.6–17.9%). Serious adverse event and serious infection rates for the All‐ADA Population (N = 203) were 6.9% and 3.4%, respectively. Conclusions In this population of psoriasis patients with concomitant, moderate‐to‐severe nail psoriasis, long‐term efficacy and improvement in signs and symptoms of nail disease were demonstrated after every‐other‐week ADA treatment, including incremental improvements in rate of total clearance of nail disease. No new safety risks were identified for patients receiving at least one ADA dose across 52 weeks., Linked Commentary: D. Rigopoulos. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2019; 33: 2014–2015. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.15988.

Several clinician-rated scoring systems are available to assess nail psoriasis severity, but only one has been partially validated.To develop and validate the Physician's Global Assessment of Fingernail Psoriasis (PGA-F), a new clinician-rated severity scale.A literature review, concept elicitation, pilot cognitive debriefing and clinical expert consultations informed the development of the PGA-F. A multistage mixed-methods analysis consisted of practising dermatologist cognitive interviews (n = 10) for instrument clarity, relevance and comprehensiveness. Inter-rater reliability (IRR) of ratings from dermatologists (n = 22) and clinical trial investigators (n = 8) was tested using many-facet Rasch analysis. Concurrent validity between the PGA-F and modified Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (mNAPSI) at screening and baseline was assessed along with the degree of discrimination. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for single raters at multiple assessments determined IRR.The PGA-F synthesizes severity ratings across multiple disease features that classify individuals into 1 of 5 levels (clear to severe). Cognitive interviews confirmed content validity: all (n = 10, 100%) participants who agreed clinical criteria were consistent with nail psoriasis; no mismatched severity levels; and training photographs were realistic representations. All PGA-F items were locally independent and targeted patients along the severity continuum with complementary precision (item fit statistics:the 1.5 acceptability threshold; exact agreements among the dermatologists [44%] and trial investigators [61.5%] exceeded 40% of acceptability threshold). Clinician reliability exceeded the threshold of acceptability for dermatologists and clinical trial investigators: 0.85 and 0.73, respectively. There was adequate correlation (0.30) between mNAPSI and PGA-F at baseline and Week 26 with significant discrimination of severity and monotonic increases in the mNAPSI for each level of categorical severity on the PGA-F. ICC results for each type of IRR indicate that clinicians were consistent in individual patient ratings.The PGA-F is a rapid, valid and reliable clinician-rated severity scale for use in clinical practice and research.

Response adaptive randomization (RAR) is appealing from methodological, ethical, and pragmatic perspectives in the sense that subjects are more likely to be randomized to better performing treatment groups based on accumulating data. However, applications of RAR in confirmatory drug clinical trials with multiple active arms are limited largely due to its complexity, and lack of control of randomization ratios to different treatment groups. To address the aforementioned issues, we propose a Response Adaptive Block Randomization (RABR) design allowing arbitrarily pre-specified randomization ratios for the control and high-performing groups to meet clinical trial objectives. We show the validity of the conventional unweighted test in RABR with a controlled type I error rate based on the weighted combination test for sample size adaptive design invoking no large sample approximation. The advantages of the proposed RABR in terms of robustly reaching target final sample size to meet regulatory requirements and increasing statistical power as compared with the popular Doubly Adaptive Biased Coin Design (DBCD) are demonstrated by statistical simulations and a practical clinical trial design example.

Risankizumab selectively inhibits interleukin 23, a cytokine that contributes to psoriatic inflammation.To evaluate the efficacy and safety of risankizumab vs placebo and continuous treatment vs withdrawal in adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.Multinational, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from March 6, 2016, to July 26, 2018. A total of 507 eligible patients had stable moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis for 6 months or longer, body surface area involvement greater than or equal to 10%, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) greater than or equal to 12, and a static Physician's Global Assessment (sPGA) score greater than or equal to 3. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted.Patients were randomized (4:1, interactive response technology) to risankizumab, 150 mg, subcutaneously, or placebo at weeks 0 and 4 (part A1). All patients received risankizumab at week 16. At week 28, patients randomized to risankizumab who achieved an sPGA score of 0/1 were rerandomized 1:2 to risankizumab or placebo every 12 weeks (part B).Co-primary end points for the part A1 phase included proportions of patients achieving greater than or equal to 90% improvement in PASI (PASI 90) and sPGA score of 0/1 at week 16. The PASI measures severity of erythema, infiltration, and desquamation weighted by area of skin involvement over the head, trunk, upper extremities, and lower extremities; scores range from 0 (no disease) to 72 (maximal disease activity). The sPGA assesses average thickness, erythema, and scaling of all psoriatic lesions; scores range from 0 (clear) to 4 (severe), with 0/1 indicating clear or almost clear. Primary and secondary end points in part B included proportion of rerandomized patients achieving an sPGA score of 0/1 at week 52 (primary) and week 104 (secondary).Of 563 patients screened, 507 were randomized to risankizumab (n = 407) or placebo (n = 100). Most patients were men (356 [70.2%]); median age was 51 years (interquartile range, 38-60 years). At week 16, 298 patients (73.2%) in the treatment group vs 2 patients (2.0%) receiving placebo achieved a PASI 90 response, and 340 patients (83.5%) receiving risankizumab vs 7 patients (7.0%) receiving placebo achieved sPGA 0/1 scores (placebo-adjusted differences: PASI 90: 70.8%; 95% CI, 65.7%-76.0%; sPGA 0/1: 76.5%; 95% CI, 70.4%-82.5%; P .001 for both). At week 28, 336 responders were rerandomized to risankizumab (n = 111) or treatment withdrawal (n = 225). At week 52, the sPGA 0/1 score was achieved by 97 patients (87.4%) receiving risankizumab vs 138 patients (61.3%) receiving placebo. At week 104, the sPGA 0/1 score was achieved by 90 patients (81.1%) receiving risankizumab vs 16 patients (7.1%) receiving placebo (placebo-adjusted differences: week 52: 25.9%; 95% CI, 17.3%-34.6%; week 104: 73.9%; 95% CI, 66.0%-81.9%; P .001 for both). Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between risankizumab (186 [45.7%]) and placebo (49 [49.0%]) in part A1 and remained stable over time.Risankizumab showed superior efficacy compared with placebo through 16 weeks and treatment withdrawal through 2 years. Risankizumab was well tolerated, with no unexpected safety findings during the 2-year trial.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02672852.

IMPORTANCE: Demonstrating the value of therapies from a patient’s perspective is increasingly important for patient-centered care. OBJECTIVE: To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with risankizumab vs ustekinumab and placebo in psoriasis symptoms, health-related quality of life (HRQL), and mental health among patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The UltIMMa-1 and UltIMMa-2 studies were replicate 52-week phase 3, randomized, multisite, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active comparator-controlled trials conducted in 139 sites (including hospitals, academic medical centers, clinical research units, and private practices) globally in Asia-Pacific, Japan, Europe, and North America. Adults (≥18 years) with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis with body surface area (BSA) involvement of 10% or more, Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) scores of 12 or higher, and static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) scores of 3 or higher were included. INTERVENTIONS: In each trial, patients were randomly assigned (3:1:1) to 150 mg of risankizumab, 45 mg or 90 mg of ustekinumab (weight-based per label) for 52 weeks, or matching placebo for 16 weeks followed by risankizumab. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Integrated data from 2 trials were used to compare Psoriasis Symptom Scale (PSS) (total score and item scores for pain, redness, itchiness, and burning), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), 5-level EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D-5L), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), at baseline, week 16, and week 52. RESULTS: A total of 997 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis were analyzed. Across all arms, the mean age was 47.2 to 47.8 years and 68.3% (136/199 for ustekinumab) to 73.0% (146/200 for placebo) were men. Patients’ characteristics and PROs were comparable across all treatment arms at baseline (n = 598, 199, 200 for risankizumab, ustekinumab, and placebo, respectively). At week 16, a significantly greater proportion of patients treated with risankizumab than those treated with ustekinumab or placebo achieved PSS = 0, indicating no psoriasis symptoms (30.3% [181/598], 15.1% [30/199], 1.0% [2/200], both P

Background Risankizumab is a humanised IgG1 monoclonal antibody that binds to the p19 subunit of interleukin-23, inhibiting this key cytokine and its role in psoriatic inflammation. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of risankizumab compared with placebo or ustekinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis. Methods UltIMMa-1 and UltIMMa-2 were replicate phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active comparator-controlled trials done at 139 sites in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Portugal, South Korea, Spain, and the USA. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis. In each study, patients were stratified by weight and previous exposure to tumour necrosis factor inhibitor and randomly assigned (3:1:1) by use of interactive response technology to receive 150 mg risankizumab, 45 mg or 90 mg ustekinumab (weight-based per label), or placebo. Following the 16-week double-blind treatment period (part A), patients initially assigned to placebo switched to 150 mg risankizumab at week 16; other patients continued their originally randomised treatment (part B, double-blind, weeks 16-52). Study drug was administered subcutaneously at weeks 0 and 4 during part A and at weeks 16, 28, and 40 during part B. Co-primary endpoints were proportions of patients achieving a 90% improvement in the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI 90) and a static Physician's Global Assessment (sPGA) score of 0 or 1 at week 16 (non-responder imputation). All efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT02684370 (UltIMMa-1) and NCT02684357 (UltIMMa-2), and have been completed. Findings Between Feb 24, 2016, and Aug 31, 2016, 506 patients in UltIMMa-1 were randomly assigned to receive 150 mg risankizumab (n= 304), 45 mg or 90 mg ustekinumab (n= 100), or placebo (n= 102). Between March 1, 2016, and Aug 30, 2016, 491 patients in UltIMMa-2 were randomly assigned to receive 150 mg risankizumab (n= 294), 45 mg or 90 mg ustekinumab (n= 99), or placebo (n= 98). Co-primary endpoints were met for both studies. At week 16 of UltIMMa-1, PASI 90 was achieved by 229 (75.3%) patients receiving risankizumab versus five (4.9%) receiving placebo (placebo-adjusted difference 70.3% [95% CI 64.0-76.7]) and 42 (42.0%) receiving ustekinumab (ustekinumab-adjusted difference 33.5% [22.7-44.3]; p

BACKGROUND The recently updated dosing recommendation for adalimumab for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis states that patients with inadequate response to adalimumab every other week (EOW) after 16 weeks may benefit from an increase in dosing frequency to 40 mg every week (EW). OBJECTIVE To determine the long-term efficacy of adalimumab in patients with psoriasis with flexibility to escalate and de-escalate between EOW and EW dosing. METHODS Data from an open-label study in patients with psoriasis who had received adalimumab in phase 2/3 studies and their extensions were included. Patients initially received 40 mg adalimumab EOW for 24 weeks. From weeks 24-252, patients whose Psoriasis Area and Severity Index response was

Source at https://doi.org/10.2340/00015555-3012. Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR), is a validated tool that has been used to assess the efficacy of adalimumab among patients with hidradenitis suppurativa. We evaluated the clinical meaning of HiSCR by relating it to patient-reported outcomes to give further context to its achievement in a post hoc analysis of integrated data from two phase 3 clinical trials (PIONEER I and II). Pooling placebo and active treatment arms, 39% of patients (245/629) achieved HiSCR at week 12. Irrespective of treatment, significantly (p

textabstractBackground: Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic skin disease characterized by inflammatory lesions that flare unpredictably. The impact of weekly adalimumab (ADAew) on HS flare is not well-characterized. Objective: To evaluate the impact of disease flare on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in moderate-to-severe HS patients and to determine the effect of ADAew on disease flare using integrated data from two phase 3 trials over 36 weeks. Methods: In period A (12 weeks), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score change from baseline was compared in patients who flared and those who did not, regardless of treatment. The proportion of patients experiencing flare, duration of flare and time to flare was evaluated for ADAew vs. placebo (PBO). In period B (24 weeks), proportion of patients experiencing flare who received continuous ADAew treatment through 36 weeks was assessed. Results: HRQOL was markedly improved among those who did not experience flare. In period A, the proportion of patients who experienced flare was significantly lower with ADAew vs. PBO (12.3% vs. 35.3%, P

Summary Background Weekly adalimumab (Humira®) is approved for the treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) based on the 12‐week placebo‐controlled periods of the two phase III PIONEER trials. Objectives Using PIONEER integrated trial results, we aimed to evaluate the optimal medium‐term adalimumab maintenance dosing strategy for moderate‐to‐severe HS. Methods Each trial had two double‐blind periods; 12‐week Period A and 24‐week Period B. Patients randomized to adalimumab 40 mg every week (ADAew) (Period A), were rerandomized in Period B to ADAew (ADAew/ew), ADA every other week (ADAew/eow), or placebo (ADAew/pbo). Placebo‐randomized patients were reassigned in Period B to ADAew (PIONEER I) or placebo (PIONEER II). The primary outcome was HS Clinical Response (HiSCR). Patients who lost response during Period B were discontinued from the study and offered an option to enter the open‐label extension (OLE) to receive ADAew. Results are reported across the two study periods, and data were combined from the two study periods and the OLE. Results For week‐12 HiSCR achievers, the HiSCR week‐36 rate was 48·1% (ADAew/ew) vs. 46·2% (ADAew/eow) and 32·1% (ADAew/pbo). Combining (post hoc) these patients with week‐12 partial responders further differentiated outcomes in Period B (ADAew/ew 55·7% vs. ADAew/eow 40·0% and ADAew/pbo 30·1%). Period‐B adverse‐event rates were ADAew/ew 59·6% vs. ADAew/eow 57·4% and ADAew/pbo 65·0%. One patient (ADAew/ew) reported a serious infection. Conclusions Weekly adalimumab treatment, effective throughout 36 weeks, was the optimal maintenance medium‐term dosing regimen for this population. At least partial response after 12 weeks with continued weekly dosing had better outcomes than dose reduction or interruption. Patients who do not show at least a partial response to weekly adalimumab by week 12 are unlikely to benefit from continued therapy. No new safety risks were identified. What's already known about this topic? Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory disease, commonly misinterpreted as an infection and treated with long‐term antibiotic regimens or surgical incisions.Based on the chronicity of HS and the lack of evidence for efficacious and safe long‐term HS treatments, it is important to evaluate medium‐ to long‐term therapies for HS.Weekly adalimumab (Humira®) is approved for the treatment of moderate‐to‐severe HS based on the two phase III PIONEER trials. What does this study add? This study pooled data from the two PIONEER trials, providing a more robust assessment of outcomes.After at least partial treatment success with weekly adalimumab short‐term therapy (12 weeks), continuing weekly dosing during the subsequent 24 weeks had better outcomes than dose reduction or treatment interruption.Patients who do not show at least a partial response to weekly adalimumab by week 12 are unlikely to benefit from continued therapy., Linked Comment: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.18437. https://www.bjdonline.com/article/adalimumab-medium-term-dosing-strategy-in-moderate-to-severe-hidradenitis-suppurativa-integrated-results-from-the-phase-iii-randomized-placebo-controlled-pioneer-t/

The objective of this study is to assess the rates of infection-free achievement of hidradenitis suppurativa clinical response (HiSCR) using integrated data from 2 phase 3, placebo-controlled trials, PIONEER I and II.Analyses from the first 12 weeks of both studies were examined. Patients were randomized to receive adalimumab (ADA) or placebo, and they then were assessed in the clinic at weeks 0, 2, 4, 8, and 12. All reports of an adverse or serious adverse event and infection were classified as treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). The HiSCR was evaluated as the primary endpoint; infection-free HiSCR was also evaluated.Treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in 55.4% of the ADA group and 64.4% of the placebo (P.023). The rates of serious TEAEs and infection-related TEAEs were slightly less in the ADA group compared with the placebo group. A significantly higher percentage of ADA-treated patients achieved HiSCR at week 12 compared with placebo (P.001). At each visit during the study's 12 weeks, a greater proportion of ADA-treated patients achieved infection-free HiSCR compared with patients treated with placebo (P.001). Mean durations of HiSCR and infection-free HiSCR were significantly longer in ADA-treated patients when compared with placebo-treated patients (P.001).Results of this integrated analysis indicate that patients with hidradenitis suppurativa who received a short duration of ADA treatment experienced better combined efficacy and similar safety compared with placebo. Further studies investigating longer ADA treatment may demonstrate further improvements in duration of infection-free clinical response.

Background Psoriasis (Ps) disease burden for patients (pts) with psoriasis (Ps) and concomitant fingernail Ps plus psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is higher compared with pts with Ps alone. Objectives We report safety and efficacy of originator adalimumab (ADA) in pts with fingernail Ps, and also for pts with or without concomitant PsA. Methods Results are reported from the double-blind PBO-controlled, Period A in which 217 pts with moderate to severe plaque Ps and fingernail Ps were included and randomized 1:1 to receive 40 mg ADA every other week (eow) from wk 1 (initial 80 mg dose at wk 0), or matching PBO, for 26 wks. The primary endpoints were the proportion of pts with ≥75% improvement in modified Nail Ps Severity Index (mNAPSI 75) and the proportion of pts with Physician9s Global Assessment of Fingernail Psoriasis (PGA-F) of clear (0) or minimal (1) with ≥2-grade reduction from baseline (primary in US only; for regulatory purposes). Missing data were handled by multiple imputation. Safety was assessed using treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs). Results Of the 217 randomized pts (108 PBO, 109 ADA), 84.3% were male; mean age was 46.7 years; 188 (86.6%) completed 26 wks of treatment or early escaped to Period B according to protocol. Both primary endpoints were met: total fingernail mNAPSI 75 was achieved by 3.4% PBO vs 46.6% ADA (p Conclusions The primary results demonstrated that in this population, ADA was more effective than PBO for the treatment of fingernail Ps, and significantly improved signs and symptoms, both overall and regardless of the presence or abscense of PsA; no new safety risks were identified with ADA eow treatment for 26 wks. Acknowledgements AbbVie Inc. funded this study and participated in the study design; study research; collection, analysis and interpretation of data; and writing, reviewing and approving of this publication. All authors had access to the data, and participated in the development, review, and approval, and in the decision to submit this publication. The authors would like to acknowledge Yihua Gu for statistical support, and Jody Bennett, for medical writing support in the production of this abstract; both are employed by AbbVie. Disclosure of Interest B. E. Elewski Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Incyte, Lilly, Merck, Novan, Novartis, Pfizer, Valeant, and Viamet, Consultant for: Anacor, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Valeant, P. A. Rich Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Anacor, Cassiopea, Dusa, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, Leo, Meiji, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Psolar, Ranbaxy,Sandoz, and Viamet, Consultant for: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Sandoz, Polichem and Valeant, F. Behrens Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Sanofi, Consultant for: Abbvie, Chugai, Celgene, Genzyme, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi, G. Guillet Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Z. Geng Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, O. Reyes Servin Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie

Background Previous clinical trials have not evaluated improvement in nail psoriasis as a primary end point. Objective This phase 3 trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of adalimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe fingernail psoriasis and moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Methods Patients were randomized 1:1 to 40 mg adalimumab every other week or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was at least 75% improvement in total-fingernail modified Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI75) response rate at week 26. Ranked secondary end point scores evaluated at week 26 were total-fingernail NAPSI and modified NAPSI, nail pain, Nail Psoriasis Physical Functioning Severity, Brigham Scalp Nail Inverse Palmo-Plantar Psoriasis Index, and Physician's Global Assessment (fingernail psoriasis). Results Of the 217 randomized patients (108 received placebo and 109 received adalimumab), 188 (86.6%) completed 26 weeks of treatment (period A) or escaped early to the open-label period. The study met the primary end point (response rate of 3.4% with placebo vs 46.6% with adalimumab [ P .001]) and all ranked secondary end points. The serious adverse event rates (placebo vs adalimumab) in period A were 4.6% versus 7.3%; the serious infections rates were 1.9% versus 3.7%. Limitations Patients with less than 5% BSA involvement were not eligible for enrollment. Conclusions After 26 weeks of adalimumab treatment, significant improvements were seen in the primary and all ranked secondary end points and in signs and symptoms of moderate-to-severe nail psoriasis versus with placebo and no new safety risks were identified.

Not AvailableDisclosures: Study supported by AbbVie.

Not Available Disclosures: Study supported by AbbVie.