Abstract
With the emergence of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) viral pandemic, there is uncertainty whether biologic agents for psoriasis may place patients at a higher risk for infection or more severe disease course. This commentary offers patient counseling recommendations based on the current available evidence. While there are currently no specific data for psoriasis biologics and COVID-19, data are presented here from phase III clinical trials of psoriasis biologics on rates of upper respiratory infection, influenza, and serious infection. Overall these data reveal that on the whole, psoriasis biologics do not show major increases in infection risk compared to placebo during the course of these trials. However, as the COVID-19 virus is a novel pathogen that is associated with mortality in a subset of patients, a cautious approach is warranted. We discuss factors that may alter the benefit–risk ratio of biologic use during this time of COVID-19 outbreak. Ultimately, treatment decisions should be made on the basis of dialogue between patient and provider, considering each patient’s individualized situation. Once this pandemic has passed, it is only a matter of time before a new viral disease reignites the same issues discussed here.
Keywords: Biologics, Coronavirus, COVID-19, Infection, Pandemic, Psoriasis, SARS-CoV-2
Key Summary Points
| With the emergence of the COVID-19 viral pandemic, there is uncertainty whether biologic agents for psoriasis may place patients at a higher risk for infection or worsened disease course. |
| While there are currently no specific data for psoriasis biologics and COVID-19, data are presented here from phase III clinical trials of psoriasis biologics on rates of upper respiratory infection, influenza, and serious infection. |
| Factors that should be considered when deciding whether to start or continue biologics include severity of underlying psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis; COVID-19 risk factors such as older age, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, lung disease, diabetes, or cancer; concomitant immunosuppressive medications or conditions; and risk of exposure to the COVID-19 virus based on geography, occupation, and living situation. |
| Ultimately, treatment decisions should be made on an individualized basis based on dialogue between patient and provider. |
Commentary
In late December 2019, the world was introduced to the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). As of March 2020, there were over 920,000 cases and 46,000 deaths worldwide, with these numbers expected to rise sharply. Upon review of 55,924 patients with COVID-19 [1], the clinical presentation generally involved fever in 87.9%, dry cough in 67.7%, fatigue in 38.1%, sputum production in 33.4%, shortness of breath in 18.6%, and sore throat in 13.9%. Gastrointestinal symptoms have also been reported with diarrhea in 3.7% of patients and nausea or vomiting in 5% of patients. Patients with COVID-19 generally develop signs and symptoms on average 5–6 days after infection (range 1–14 days) [1]. The goal of this article is to review the known clinical trial data on infection risk with biologic therapy for psoriasis and offer patient counseling recommendations based on the current available evidence.
There are currently 11 biologic therapies approved for psoriasis. These medications are engineered to target individual mediators of inflammation including tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFα), interleukin-17 (IL-17), and IL-23. Although the safety profiles of these biologic agents are generally preferable to those of traditional immunosuppressive therapies, there is concern that treatment with these agents may reduce resistance to infection. This concern is heightened during novel disease outbreaks and the resulting increased media coverage. As a result, patients are increasingly turning to healthcare providers for guidance regarding the use of biologic agents during disease outbreaks.
Given the novel nature and rapidly evolving knowledge of COVID-19, there are currently no specific data for how biologic therapy affects patients’ risk of acquiring this coronavirus infection or COVID-19 outcomes. However, more general data on infection risk are available for psoriasis biologic agents from phase III clinical trial data. Infections typically reported in these studies include upper respiratory infections, influenza, sinusitis, urinary tract infection, opportunistic infections, and serious infections. Serious infections are defined as infections involving various organ systems that may lead to hospitalization or death including pneumonia, septic arthritis, erysipelas, cellulitis, diverticulitis, pyelonephritis, and prosthetic or post-surgical infection. Table 1 summarizes the rates of upper respiratory infections, rates of influenza, and risks of serious infections for all 11 currently approved biologic agents for psoriasis, as observed in phase III clinical trials. Overall these data reveal that on the whole, psoriasis biologics do not show substantial increases in infection risk compared to placebo, which is also consistent with long-term registry data [2]. The safety signal appears especially clean for etanercept, ustekinumab, tildrakizumab, guselkumab, and risankizumab, although it is important to note that the data from these trials were derived from a relatively short period and do not fully reflect real-world settings.
Table 1.
Rates of upper respiratory infection, influenza, and serious infection in the phase III clinical trials of US FDA-approved biologics for psoriasis
| Medication, year of FDA approval, mechanism of action | Rates of URI (vs. placebo) | Rates of influenza (vs. placebo) | Rates of serious infections (vs. placebo) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adalimumab, 2002, TNFα inhibitor | REVEAL [7] | REVEAL | REVEAL |
| 7.2% (40 mg) vs. 3.5% (placebo) at week 16 | NR | 0.6% (40 mg) vs. 1% (placebo) at week 16 | |
| CHAMPION [8] | CHAMPION | CHAMPION | |
| 28% (40 mg) vs. 20.8% (placebo) at week 16 for nasopharyngitis | 0% (40 mg) vs. 1.9% (placebo) at week 16 for viral infection | 0% (40 mg) vs. 0% (placebo) at week 16 | |
| Etanercept, 2004 TNFα inhibitor | Tyring et. al. [9] | Tyring et. al. [9] | Tyring et. al. [9] |
| 20.2/100 PY (50 mg) vs. 24.3/100 PY (placebo) through week 96 | NR | 1.2/100 PY (50 mg) vs. 1.5/100 PY (placebo) through week 96 | |
| Papp et al. [10] | Papp et al. [10] | Papp et al. [10] | |
| 13% (50 mg) vs. 13% (25 mg) vs. 13% (placebo) at week 12 | 4% (50 mg) vs. 5% (25 mg) vs. 2% (placebo) at week 12 for “flu syndrome” | NR (< 5% reported in study) | |
| Leonardi et. al. [11] | Leonardi et. al. [11] | Leonardi et. al. [11] | |
| 5% (50 mg BIW) vs. 9% (25 mg BIW) vs. 10% (25 mg QWK) vs. 11% (placebo) at week 12 | NR (< 5% reported in study) | NR (< 5% reported in study) | |
| Infliximab, 2006, TNFα inhibitor | EXPRESS 1 [12] | EXPRESS 1 | EXPRESS 1 |
| 15% (5 mg/kg) vs. 16% (placebo) at week 24 | NR | NR | |
| EXPRESS 2 [13] | EXPRESS 2 | EXPRESS 2 | |
| 16% (3 mg/kg) vs. 13.4% (5 mg/kg) vs. 14% (placebo) at week 14 | NR | NR | |
| Certolizumab, 2018, PEGylated TNFα inhibitor | CIMPASI 1 [14] | CIMPASI 1 | CIMPASI 1 |
| 9.1% (400 mg) vs. 7.4% (200 mg) vs. 5.9% (placebo) at week 16 | NR | 0% (400 mg) vs. 0% (200 mg) vs. 0% (placebo) at week 16 | |
| CIMPASI 2 [14] | CIMPASI 2 | CIMPASI 2 | |
| 5.7% (400 mg) vs. 4.4% (200 mg) vs. 4.1% (placebo) at week 16 | NR | 1.1% (400 mg) vs. 0% (200 mg) vs. 0% (placebo) at week 16 | |
| CIMPACT [28] | CIMPACT | CIMPACT | |
| 3.6% (200 mg) vs. 10.5% (placebo) at week 12 | NR | 0% vs. 0% at week 12 | |
| Ustekinumab, 2009, anti-IL-12/23 | PHOENIX 1 [15] | PHOENIX 1 | PHOENIX 1 |
| 7.1% (45 mg) vs. 6.3% (90 mg) vs. 6.3% (placebo) at week 12 | NR | 0% (45 mg) vs. 0.8% (90 mg) vs. 0.4% (placebo) at week 12 | |
| PHOENIX 2 [16] | PHOENIX 2 | PHOENIX 2 | |
| 4.4% (45 mg) vs. 2.9% (90 mg) vs. 3.4% (placebo) at week 12 | NR | 0% (45 mg) vs. 0.2% (90 mg) vs. 0.5% (placebo) at week 12 | |
| Secukinumab, 2015, anti-IL-17A | ERASURE [17] | ERASURE | ERASURE |
| 3.7% (300 mg) vs. 4.1% (150 mg) 0% (placebo) at week 12 | 2% (300 mg) vs. 1.2% (150 mg) vs. 1.2% (placebo) at week 12 | 1% (300 mg) vs. 0.7% (150 mg) vs. 1.5% (placebo) at week 52 | |
| FIXTURE [17] | FIXTURE | ||
| 2.1% (300 mg) vs. 3.1% (150 mg) vs. 0.9% (placebo) at week 12 | 1.1% (300 mg) vs. 0.6% (150 mg) vs. 0.3% (placebo) at week 52 | ||
| FEATURE [18] | |||
| 5.1% (300 mg) vs. 5.1% (150 mg) vs. 8.5% (placebo) at week 12 for nasopharyngitis | |||
| JUNCTURE [19] | |||
| Sinusitis: 5% (300 mg) vs. 1.6% (150 mg) vs. 0% (placebo); Nasopharyngitis: 31.7% (300 mg) vs. 23% (150 mg) vs. 16.4% (placebo) at week 12 | |||
| Brodalumab, 2017, anti-IL-17 | AMAGINE 1 [20] | AMAGINE 1 | AMAGINE 1 |
| 8.2% (140 mg Q2W) vs. 8.1% (210 mg Q2W) vs. 6.4% (placebo) | NR | 0.9% (140 mg Q2W) vs. 0.5% (210 mg Q2W) vs. 0% (placebo) at week 12 | |
| 4.5% (140 mg Q2W) vs. 1.2% (210 mg Q2W) at week 52 | |||
| AMAGINE 2 [21] | AMAGINE 2 | AMAGINE 2 | |
| NR | NR | NR | |
| AMAGINE 3 [21] | AMAGINE 3 | AMAGINE 3 | |
| NR | NR | NR | |
| Ixekizumab, 2017, anti-IL-17A | UNCOVER 1, 2, 3 (pooled) [22] | UNCOVER 1, 2, 3 (pooled) | UNCOVER 1, 2, 3 (pooled) |
| 3.9% (Q4W) vs. 4.4% (Q2W) vs. 3.5% (placebo) at week 12 | NR | 0.7% (Q4W) vs. 0.4% (Q2W) vs. 0.4% (placebo) at week 12 | |
| 10% (IXE all exposure) at week 60 | 1.4% (IXE all exposure) at week 60 | ||
| Guselkumab, 2017, anti-IL-23 | VOYAGE 1 [23] | VOYAGE 1 | VOYAGE 1 |
| 7.6% (100 mg) vs. 5.2% (placebo) at week 16 | NR | 0% (100 mg) vs. 0% (placebo) at week 16 | |
| VOYAGE 2 [24] | VOYAGE 2 | VOYAGE 2 | |
| 3.2% (100 mg) vs. 4.0% (placebo) at week 16 | NR | 0.2% (100 mg) vs. 0.4% (placebo) at week 16 | |
| Tildrakizumab, 2018, anti-IL-23 | RESURFACE 1 [25] | RESURFACE 1 | RESURFACE 1 |
| 3% (100 mg) vs. 5% (200 mg) vs. 6% (placebo) at week 12 | NR | < 1% (100 mg) vs. < 1% (200 mg) vs. 0% (placebo) at week 12 | |
| RESURFACE 2 [25] | RESURFACE 2 | RESURFACE 2 | |
| 0% (100 mg) vs. 0% (200 mg) vs. 0% (placebo) at week 12 | NR | 0% (100 mg) vs. < 1% (200 mg) vs. 1% (placebo) at week 12 | |
| Risankizumab, 2019, anti-IL-23 | ULTIMMA-1 [26] | ULTIMMA-1 | ULTIMMA-1 |
| Part A: 5.59% (150 mg) vs. 1.96% (placebo) at week 16 | Part A: 6.58% (150 mg) vs. 5.88% (placebo) at week 16 viral upper respiratory infection | Part A: 0.3% (150 mg) vs. 0% (placebo) at week 16 | |
| Part B: 10.10% (150 mg) vs. 8.25% (placebo) at weeks 16–52 | Part B: 13.47% (150 mg) vs. 15.46% (placebo) at weeks 16–52 for viral upper respiratory infection | Part B: 0.7% (150 mg) vs. 1% (placebo) at weeks 16–52 | |
| ULTIMMA-2 [26] | ULTIMMA-2 | ULTIMMA-2 | |
| Part A: 3.74% (150 mg) vs. 2.04% (placebo) at week 16 | Part A: 2.04% (150 mg) 1.02% (placebo) at week 16 for influenza | Part A: 1% (150 mg) vs. 0% (placebo) at week 16 | |
| Part B: 8.25% (150 mg) vs. 9.57% (placebo) at weeks 16–52 | Part B: 1.37% (150 mg) vs. 2.13% (placebo) at weeks 16–52 for influenza | Part B: 0.7% (150 mg) vs. 0% (placebo) at weeks 16–52 | |
| IMMHANCE [27] | IMMHANCE | IMMHANCE | |
| Part A1: 1.47% (150 mg) vs. 5% (placebo) at week 16 | Part A1: 0.74% (150 mg) vs. 1% (placebo) at week 16 | 0% (150 mg) vs. 0% (placebo) at week 16 for viral infection, bronchitis, and bacterial meningitis |
NR not reported, NS not significant, PY patient year
Biologic medications for psoriasis are meant to be taken continuously. There are risks to stopping biologic therapy since psoriasis flares and erythroderma may lead to poor quality of life and hospitalization. Also, stopping and restarting some biologic agents may result in reduced efficacy [3, 4]. On the other hand, given the absence of specific data on psoriasis biologics and COVID-19, which can potentially be fatal, a cautious approach is warranted. In particular, the presence of risk factors for COVID-19 mortality such as age > 60, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, lung disease, diabetes, or cancer may alter the benefit–risk ratio for biologic therapy, particularly in the short term whereby biologic reduction or discontinuation may not lead to immediate disease flare [5] (Table 2).
Table 2.
Considerations for use of psoriasis biologic medications during the COVID-19 pandemic
| Factors favoring biologic discontinuation or reduction in immunomodulatory regimen | Factors favoring biologic continuation |
|---|---|
| Any active infection, including COVID-19 | Young age |
| COVID-19 risk factors including: age > 60, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, lung disease, diabetes, or cancer | No COVID-19 high risk co-morbidities |
| Concomitant immunosuppression (e.g., methotrexate, prednisone, cyclosporine) | Biologic monotherapy |
| Immunosuppressive condition (e.g., HIV) | Severe underlying psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis, with history of rapid flares or unstable subtypes (pustular, erythrodermic) |
| History of infections while on biologic | No concomitant immunosuppressive conditions |
| Mild-to-moderate underlying psoriasis | Low risk of exposure to COVID-19 virus |
| High risk of exposure to COVID-19 virus (e.g., endemic area, healthcare worker, nursing home resident, household member or co-worker with COVID-19 infection) | Long duration of COVID-19 pandemic |
| Short duration of COVID-19 pandemic |
Therefore, at the current time, the following guidance may be given to patients with psoriasis:
All patients should be reminded to practice good infection prevention measures such as frequent hand washing, social distancing, and the use of telehealth resources when available.
- There is no evidence to recommend prophylactically stopping or postponing biologic therapy in all patients with psoriasis; however, patients should have individualized discussions with their medical providers taking into account the following factors:
- COVID-19 risk factors such as older age, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, lung disease, diabetes, or cancer
- Severity of underlying psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis
- Concomitant immunosuppressive medications or conditions
- Risk of exposure to COVID-19 based on occupation or living situation
- If a reduction in immunosuppressive treatment is desired, options include:
- Temporary discontinuation of the biologic
- Reduction in biologic dose frequency
- Transition to an alternative biologic
- Reduction or discontinuation of concomitant immunosuppressants (e.g., methotrexate)
- Increase in use of topical agents, home phototherapy, or other non-immunosuppressive medications
Patients who test positive for COVID-19 infection should be advised to hold their biologic dose until their infection clears. This requires resolution of fever without the use of fever-reducing medications, improvement in respiratory symptoms (e.g., cough, shortness of breath), and two negative COVID-19 test performed 24 h apart. However, if COVID-19 retesting is not available, then a conservative approach would be to avoid restarting biologic therapy until 30 days after resolution of fever and respiratory symptoms. This estimate is based on a mean duration of COVID-19 viral shedding from illness onset of 20 days (range 8–37 days) in hospitalized patients [6].
The risks and benefits of initiating biologic therapy should be considered on an individual patient basis, according to the factors listed above.
It is important to remember that this is a novel, rapidly changing situation, and recommendations may change as more data become available. This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. This worldwide pandemic of substantial human disease caused by a type of virus previously thought to be relatively benign highlights the perpetual challenge of emerging infectious diseases, the importance of long-term monitoring of patients on biologic therapy, and shared decision-making with patients on biologic therapy. Once this pandemic has passed, it is only a matter of time before a new viral disease reignites the same issues discussed here.
Acknowledgements
Funding
No funding or sponsorship was received for this study or publication of this article.
Authorship
All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.
Disclosures
Nicholas Brownstone, Quinn Thibodeaux, Vidhatha Reddy, Bridget Myers, and Stephanie Chan have nothing to disclose. Wilson Liao is editorial board member of the journal and is funded in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health (5U01AI119125) and Abbvie, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, and TRex Bio. Tina Bhutani is currently an investigator for Celgene, Janssen, Merck, and Regeneron. She has served as an advisor for Abbvie, Lilly, and Pfizer.
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Data Availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
Footnotes
Digital Features
To view digital features for this article go to 10.6084/m9.figshare.12063624.
References
- 1.World Health Organization. Report of the WHO–China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf. Accessed Mar 21, 2020.
- 2.Gooderham M, Papp K. Clinical trial and registry data. Adverse React Biol. 2018;53:15–27. doi: 10.1159/000478074. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Reich K, Ortonne J-P, Gottlieb AB, et al. Successful treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with the PEGylated Fab’ certolizumab pegol: results of a phase II randomized, placebo-controlled trial with a re-treatment extension. Br J Dermatol. 2012;167(1):180–190. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2012.10941.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Ortonne J-P, Taïeb A, Ormerod AD, et al. Patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis recapture clinical response during re-treatment with etanercept. Br J Dermatol. 2009;161(5):1190–1195. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09238.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Zhou F, Yu T, Du R, et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2020 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30566-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Zhou F, Yu T, Du R, et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2020 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30566-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Menter A, Tyring SK, Gordon K, et al. Adalimumab therapy for moderate to severe psoriasis: a randomized, controlled phase III trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008;58(1):106–115. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2007.09.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Saurat J-H, Stingl G, Dubertret L, et al. Efficacy and safety results from the randomized controlled comparative study of adalimumab vs. methotrexate vs. placebo in patients with psoriasis (CHAMPION) Br J Dermatol. 2008;158(3):558–566. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2007.08315.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Tyring S, Gordon KB, Poulin Y, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of 50 mg of etanercept twice weekly in patients with psoriasis. Arch Dermatol. 2007;143(6):719–726. doi: 10.1001/archderm.143.6.719. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Papp KA, Tyring S, Lahfa M, et al. A global phase III randomized controlled trial of etanercept in psoriasis: safety, efficacy, and effect of dose reduction. Br J Dermatol. 2005;152(6):1304–1312. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2005.06688.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Leonardi CL, Powers JL, Matheson RT, et al. Etanercept as monotherapy in patients with psoriasis. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(21):2014–2022. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa030409. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Reich K, Nestle FO, Papp K, et al. Infliximab induction and maintenance therapy for moderate-to-severe psoriasis: a phase III, multicentre, double-blind trial. Lancet. 2005;366(9494):1367–1374. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67566-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Menter MDA, Feldman SR, Weinstein GD. A randomized comparison of continuous versus intermittent infliximab maintenance regimens over 1 year in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;56:e1–e15. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2006.07.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Gottlieb AB, Blauvelt A, Thaçi D, et al. Certolizumab pegol for the treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis: results through 48 weeks from 2 phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled studies (CIMPASI-1 and CIMPASI-2) J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;79(2):302–314.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.04.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Leonardi CL, Kimball AB, Papp KA, et al. Efficacy and safety of ustekinumab, a human interleukin-12/23 monoclonal antibody, in patients with psoriasis: 76-week results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (PHOENIX 1) Lancet. 2008;371(9625):1665–1674. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60725-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Papp KA, Langley RG, Lebwohl M, et al. Efficacy and safety of ustekinumab, a human interleukin-12/23 monoclonal antibody, in patients with psoriasis: 52-week results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (PHOENIX 2) Lancet. 2008;371(9625):1675–1684. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60726-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Langley RG, Elewski BE, Lebwohl M, et al. Secukinumab in plaque psoriasis–results of two phase 3 trials. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(4):326–338. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1314258. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Blauvelt A, Prinz JC, Gottlieb AB, et al. Secukinumab administration by pre-filled syringe: efficacy, safety and usability results from a randomized controlled trial in psoriasis (FEATURE) Br J Dermatol. 2015;172(2):484–493. doi: 10.1111/bjd.13348. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Paul C, Lacour J-P, Tedremets L, et al. Efficacy, safety and usability of secukinumab administration by autoinjector/pen in psoriasis: a randomized, controlled trial (JUNCTURE) J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015;29(6):1082–1090. doi: 10.1111/jdv.12751. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Papp KA, Reich K, Paul C, et al. A prospective phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of brodalumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Br J Dermatol. 2016;175(2):273–286. doi: 10.1111/bjd.14493. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Papp KA, Gordon KB, Langley RG, et al. Impact of previous biologic use on the efficacy and safety of brodalumab and ustekinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: integrated analysis of the randomized controlled trials AMAGINE-2 and AMAGINE-3. Br J Dermatol. 2018;179(2):320–328. doi: 10.1111/bjd.16464. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Gordon KB, Blauvelt A, Papp KA, et al. Phase 3 trials of ixekizumab in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(4):345–356. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1512711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Blauvelt A, Papp KA, Griffiths CEM, et al. Efficacy and safety of guselkumab, an anti-interleukin-23 monoclonal antibody, compared with adalimumab for the continuous treatment of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis: results from the phase III, double-blinded, placebo- and active comparator-controlled VOYAGE 1 trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76(3):405–417. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2016.11.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Reich K, Armstrong AW, Foley P, et al. Efficacy and safety of guselkumab, an anti-interleukin-23 monoclonal antibody, compared with adalimumab for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis with randomized withdrawal and retreatment: results from the phase III, double-blind, placebo- and active comparator-controlled VOYAGE 2 trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76(3):418–431. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2016.11.042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Reich K, Papp KA, Blauvelt A, et al. Tildrakizumab versus placebo or etanercept for chronic plaque psoriasis (reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2): results from two randomised controlled, phase 3 trials. Lancet. 2017;390(10091):276–288. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31279-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Gordon KB, Strober B, Lebwohl M, et al. Efficacy and safety of risankizumab in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (UltIMMa-1 and UltIMMa-2): results from two double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled and ustekinumab-controlled phase 3 trials. Lancet. 2018;392(10148):650–661. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31713-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Langley R, Blauvelt A, Gooderham M, et al. Efficacy and safety of continuous Q12W risankizumab versus treatment withdrawal: results from the phase 3 IMMhance trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;81(4, Supplement 1):AB52. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.06.220. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Lebwohl M, Blauvelt A, Paul C, et al. Certolizumab pegol for the treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis: Results through 48 weeks of a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, etanercept- and placebo-controlled study (CIMPACT) J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;79(2):266–276.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.04.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.