Explore the vast range of titles available.

Seven patients with pustular psoriasis, three with mutations in IL36RN , were treated with a monoclonal antibody against interleukin-36 receptor and had amelioration of their skin disease.

In a randomized trial involving patients with the rare but disabling disorder generalized pustular psoriasis, the anti–interleukin-36 monoclonal antibody spesolimab greatly curtailed disease activity as compared with placebo over a period of 1 week. Systemic drug reactions and infections occurred with spesolimab.

Drug survival reflects a drug’s effectiveness, safety, and tolerability. We assessed the drug survival of biologics used to treat psoriasis in a prospective national pharmacovigilance cohort (British Association of Dermatologists Biologic Interventions Register (BADBIR)). The survival rates of the first course of biologics for 3,523 biologic-naive patients with chronic plaque psoriasis were compared using survival analysis techniques and predictors of discontinuation analyzed using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. Data for patients on adalimumab (n=1,879), etanercept (n=1,098), infliximab (n=96), and ustekinumab (n=450) were available. The overall survival rate in the first year was 77%, falling to 53% in the third year. Multivariate analysis showed that female gender (hazard ratio (HR) 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09–1.37), being a current smoker (HR 1.19; 95% CI: 1.03–1.38), and a higher baseline dermatology life quality index (HR 1.01; 95% CI: 1.00–1.02) were predictors of discontinuation. Presence of psoriatic arthritis (HR 0.82; 95% CI: 0.71–0.96) was a predictor for drug survival. As compared with adalimumab, patients on etanercept (HR 1.63; 95% CI: 1.45–1.84) or infliximab (HR 1.56; 95% CI: 1.16–2.09) were more likely to discontinue therapy, whereas patients on ustekinumab were more likely to persist (HR 0.48; 95% CI: 0.37–0.62). After accounting for relevant covariates, ustekinumab had the highest first-course drug survival. The results of this study will aid clinical decision making when choosing biologic therapy for psoriasis patients.

People with generalized pustular psoriasis experience underlying skin inflammation, even in the absence of flares. Spesolimab treatment helps control the inflammation and prevent future flares.People with generalized pustular psoriasis experience underlying skin inflammation, even in the absence of flares. Spesolimab treatment helps control the inflammation and prevent future flares.

Driven by advances in molecular genetic technologies and statistical analysis methodologies, there have been huge strides taken in dissecting the complex genetic basis of many inflammatory dermatoses. One example is psoriasis, for which application of classical linkage analysis and genome-wide association investigation has identified genetic loci of major and minor effect. Although most loci independently have modest genetic effects, they identify important biological pathways potentially relevant to disease pathogenesis and therapeutic intervention. In the case of psoriasis, these appear to involve the epidermal barrier, NF-κB mechanisms, and T helper type 17 adaptive immune responses. The advent of next-generation sequencing methods will permit a more detailed and complete map of disease genetic architecture, a key step in developing personalized medicine strategies in the clinical management of the complex inflammatory dermatoses.

[...]Hu et al. rightly point out the potential influence of infections on the symptoms of PPP. [...]the smoking status of patients included in the trial was questioned. [...]Hu et al. emphasise the importance of genetic testing of patients with PPP when evaluating the efficacy of spesolimab. To explore the impact of these mutations on the efficacy of spesolimab treatment, subgroup analysis by gene mutation status was performed on the primary and secondary endpoints; however, due to the low numbers of patients with a genetic mutation, these efficacy analyses were inconclusive.

Caspase recruitment family member 14 (CARD14, also known as CARMA2), is a scaffold protein that mediates NF-κB signal transduction in skin keratinocytes. Gain-of-function CARD14 mutations have been documented in familial forms of psoriasis vulgaris (PV) and pityriasis rubra pilaris (PRP). More recent investigations have also implicated CARD14 in the pathogenesis of pustular psoriasis. Follow-up studies, however, have been limited, so that it is not clear to what extent CARD14 alleles account for the above conditions. Here, we sought to address this question by carrying out a systematic CARD14 analysis in an extended patient cohort (n=416). We observed no disease alleles in subjects with familial PV (n=159), erythrodermic psoriasis (n=23), acral pustular psoriasis (n=100), or sporadic PRP (n=29). Conversely, our analysis of 105 individuals with generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) identified a low-frequency variant (p.Asp176His) that causes constitutive CARD14 oligomerization and shows a significant association with GPP in Asian populations (P=8.4 × 10−5; odds ratio=6.4). These data indicate that the analysis of CARD14 mutations could help stratify pustular psoriasis cohorts but would be mostly uninformative in the context of psoriasis and sporadic PRP.

IntroductionGeneralized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a rare, potentially life-threatening disease characterised by recurrent flares of widespread neutrophilic aseptic skin pustular eruption. Despite the availability of approved biologics for GPP in Japan, Taiwan and Thailand, associated evidence is largely based on uncontrolled studies in which acute flares were not directly assessed. Therefore, there is a high unmet need to investigate new rapid-acting effective treatments that resolve symptoms associated with acute GPP flares. A prior Phase I proof-of-concept study showed rapid improvements in skin and pustule clearance with a single intravenous dose of spesolimab, a novel anti-interleukin-36 receptor antibody, in patients presenting with an acute GPP flare. Here, we present the design and rationale of Effisayil 1, a global, Phase II, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of spesolimab in patients presenting with an acute GPP flare.Methods and analysisAt least 51 patients with an acute GPP flare will be randomised 2:1 to receive a single 900 mg intravenous dose of spesolimab or placebo and followed for up to 28 weeks. The primary endpoint is a Generalized Pustular Psoriasis Physician Global Assessment (GPPGA) pustulation subscore of 0 (pustule clearance) at Week 1. The key secondary endpoint is a GPPGA score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) at Week 1. Safety will be assessed over the study duration by the occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events. Blood and skin biopsies will be collected to assess biomarkers. Superiority of spesolimab over placebo in the proportion of patients achieving the primary and key secondary endpoints will be evaluated.Ethics and disseminationThe study complies with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, the International Council for Harmonisation’s Good Clinical Practice and local regulations. Ethics committee approvals have been obtained for each centre from all participating countries and are listed in online supplementary file 1. Primary results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration detailsClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03782792; Pre-results.

Introduction We evaluated the anti-interleukin-36 receptor antibody spesolimab in patients with moderate-to-severe palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP). Methods This 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. Results 152 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. Conclusion The 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). Plain Language Summary A clinical trial of spesolimab for patients with palmoplantar pustulosis . Palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) is a painful, difficult-to-treat skin disease that is found on patients’ palms and the soles of their feet. In this clinical trial, we studied an injected medicine called spesolimab for treating patients with PPP. Patients were split into five groups; four groups received different doses of spesolimab and one received placebo (an injection without spesolimab). After 16 weeks, patients receiving placebo switched to spesolimab. We measured the body area affected by PPP and how severe PPP was at week 16. Patients’ doctors also assessed skin affected by PPP. At 16 weeks of treatment, there was no significant difference between spesolimab and placebo in terms of the PPP-affected area and severity. However, more patients had clear or almost clear skin with spesolimab than placebo. Among non-Asian patients, more showed an improvement in their PPP with spesolimab than with placebo; this was not the case with Asian patients. Patients taking spesolimab or placebo reported side effects, of which the most common were colds, aches and headaches. More patients receiving spesolimab reported a reaction at the injection site compared with placebo. We monitored patients for up to 1 year, and results remained similar. We showed that spesolimab may have a modest effect on the body area affected by PPP, as well as the severity of PPP, and did not seem to cause more side effects than placebo, except for reactions at the injection site.