-
Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) Dec 2023Targeted therapies represent major advancements in the treatment of chronic skin conditions such as psoriasis. While previous studies have shown an increased risk of... (Review)
Review
Targeted therapies represent major advancements in the treatment of chronic skin conditions such as psoriasis. While previous studies have shown an increased risk of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) in patients receiving TNF-α inhibitors, the risks associated with newer biologics (IL-12/23 inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitors, IL-17 inhibitors) and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors remain less known. Using a systematic and meta-analytical approach, we aimed to summarize the currently available literature concerning skin cancer risk in patients treated with targeted therapies. The MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to find studies reporting the incidence rates (IR) of melanoma and NMSC in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis treated with biologics or JAK inhibitors. Nineteen studies were included in the analysis with a total of 13,739 patients. The overall IR of melanoma was 0.08 (95% CI, 0.05-0.15) events per 100 PYs and the overall IR of NMSC was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.33-0.61) events per 100 PYs. The IRs of melanoma were comparable across patients treated with IL-17 inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitors, and JAK inhibitors, while the IRs of NMSC were higher in patients treated with JAK inhibitors than in those treated with biologics. Prospective, long-term cohort studies are required to reliably assess the risks associated with novel targeted therapies.
PubMed: 38276003
DOI: 10.3390/ph17010014 -
Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia 2024Molecularly targeted therapies, such as monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and Janus Kinase inhibitors (JAKis), have emerged as essential tools in the treatment of...
BACKGROUND
Molecularly targeted therapies, such as monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and Janus Kinase inhibitors (JAKis), have emerged as essential tools in the treatment of dermatological diseases. These therapies modulate the immune system through specific signaling pathways, providing effective alternatives to traditional systemic immunosuppressive agents. This review aims to provide an updated summary of targeted immune therapies for inflammatory skin diseases, considering their pathophysiology, efficacy, dosage, and safety profiles.
METHODS
The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic search was conducted on PubMed over the past 10 years, focusing on randomized clinical trials, case reports, and case series related to targeted immune therapies in dermatology. Eligibility criteria were applied, and data were extracted from each study, including citation data, study design, and results.
RESULTS
We identified 1360 non-duplicate articles with the initial search strategy. Title and abstract review excluded 1150, while a full-text review excluded an additional 50 articles. The review included 143 studies published between 2012 and 2022, highlighting 39 drugs currently under investigation or in use for managing inflammatory skin diseases.
STUDY LIMITATIONS
The heterogeneity of summarized information limits this review. Some recommendations originated from data from clinical trials, while others relied on retrospective analyses and small case series. Recommendations will likely be updated as new results emerge.
CONCLUSION
Targeted therapies have revolutionized the treatment of chronic skin diseases, offering new options for patients unresponsive to standard treatments. Paradoxical reactions are rarely observed. Further studies are needed to fully understand the mechanisms and nature of these therapies. Overall, targeted immune therapies in dermatology represent a promising development, significantly improving the quality of life for patients with chronic inflammatory skin diseases.
Topics: Humans; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Dermatologists; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Skin Diseases
PubMed: 38521706
DOI: 10.1016/j.abd.2023.10.002 -
Immunity, Inflammation and Disease Feb 2023The risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation after biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) therapy in patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation after biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) combined with HBsAg-/HBcAb+ is still inconsistent.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of existing databases from 1977 to August 22, 2021. Studies of RA patients combined with HBsAg-/HBcAb +, treated with b/tsDMARDs and the reported number of HBV reactivation were included.
RESULTS
We included 26 studies of 2252 HBsAg-/HBcAb+ RA patients treated with b/tsDMARDs. The pooled HBV reactivation rate was 2.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01-0.04; I = 66%, p < .01). In the subgroup analysis, the HBV reactivation rate of rituximab (RTX), abatacept, and inhibitors of Janus kinase (JAK), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) were 9.0% (95% CI: 0.04-0.15; I = 61%, p = .03), 6.0% (95% CI: 0.01-0.13; I = 40%, p = .19), 1.0% (95% CI: 0.00-0.03; I = 41%, p = .19), 0.0% (95% CI: 0.00-0.02; I = 0%, p = .43), 0.0% (95% CI: 0.00-0.01; I = 0%, p = .87), respectively. While HBsAb- patients have a significant risk of reactivation (odds ratio [OR] = 4.56, 95% CI = 2.45-8.48; I = 7%, p = .37), low HBsAb+ group also display a significant risk of reactivation (OR = 5.45, 95% CI: 1.35-21.94; I = 0%, p = .46).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis demonstrates the highest potential risk of HBV reactivation in HBsAg-/HBcAb+ RA patients receiving RTX treatment, especially HBsAb- patients. Our study furthers the understanding of the prophylactic use of anti-HBV drugs in such patients. However, it is relative safety to use the inhibitors of IL-6, TNF-α, and JAK in these patients.
Topics: Humans; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Products; Hepatitis B; Hepatitis B Antibodies; Hepatitis B Surface Antigens; Hepatitis B virus; Interleukin-6; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Rituximab; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 36840482
DOI: 10.1002/iid3.780 -
Skin Research and Technology : Official... Mar 2024The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness and safety of oral and injectable systemic treatments, such as methotrexate, azathioprine, cyclosporine,... (Review)
Review
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness and safety of oral and injectable systemic treatments, such as methotrexate, azathioprine, cyclosporine, tofacitinib, baricitinib, corticosteroids, statins, zinc, apremilast, etc., for treating vitiligo lesions.
METHOD
Databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were meticulously searched for studies spanning from 2010 to August 2023, focusing on systemic oral and injectable therapies for vitiligo, using comprehensive keywords and search syntaxes tailored to each database. Key data extracted included study design, treatment efficacy, patient outcomes, patient satisfaction, and safety profiles.
RESULTS
In a total of 42 included studies, oral mini-pulse corticosteroid therapy (OMP) was the subject of six studies (14.2%). Minocycline was the focus of five studies (11.9%), while methotrexate, apremilast, and tofacitinib each were examined in four studies (9.5%). Antioxidants and Afamelanotide were the subjects of three studies each (7.1%). Cyclosporine, simvastatin, oral zinc, oral corticosteroids (excluding OMP) and injections, and baricitinib were each explored in two studies (4.8%). Azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, and Alefacept were the subjects of one study each (2.4%).
CONCLUSION
Systemic treatments for vitiligo have been successful in controlling lesions without notable side effects. OMP, Methotrexate, Azathioprine, Cyclosporine, Mycophenolate mofetil, Simvastatin, Apremilast, Minocycline, Afamelanotide, Tofacitinib, Baricitinib, Antioxidants, and oral/injectable corticosteroids are effective treatment methods. However, oral zinc and alefacept did not show effectiveness.
Topics: Humans; Methotrexate; Azathioprine; Vitiligo; Mycophenolic Acid; Minocycline; Alefacept; Cyclosporine; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Hypopigmentation; Simvastatin; Zinc; Purines; Pyrazoles; Sulfonamides; Azetidines; Thalidomide
PubMed: 38454597
DOI: 10.1111/srt.13642 -
The Journal of Rheumatology Feb 2023Axial involvement in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a common subset of this condition, but a unanimous definition has yet to be established. It has been...
OBJECTIVE
Axial involvement in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a common subset of this condition, but a unanimous definition has yet to be established. It has been defined by using different criteria, ranging from the presence of at least unilateral grade 2 sacroiliitis to those used for ankylosing spondylitis (AS), or simply the presence of inflammatory low back pain (IBP). Our aim was to identify and evaluate the efficacy of therapeutic interventions for treatment of axial disease in PsA.
METHODS
This systematic review is an update of the axial PsA (axPsA) domain of the treatment recommendations project by the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA).
RESULTS
The systematic review of the literature showed that new biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug classes, namely interleukin (IL)-17A and Janus kinase inhibitors, could be considered for the treatment of axPsA. This would be in addition to previously recommended treatments such as nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, physiotherapy, simple analgesia, and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Conflicting evidence still remains regarding the use of IL-12/23 and IL-23 inhibitors.
CONCLUSION
Further studies are needed for a better understanding of the treatment of axPsA, as well as validated outcome measures.
Topics: Humans; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Psoriasis; Spondylitis, Ankylosing; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Interleukin-23; Low Back Pain
PubMed: 36318999
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.220309 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Jun 2020To perform an update of a review of the efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
Pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature research for the 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis.
OBJECTIVE
To perform an update of a review of the efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
METHODS
This is a systematic literature research of 2015-2018 publications on all DMARDs in patients with PsA, searching Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Efficacy was assessed in randomised controlled trials. For safety, cohort studies, case-control studies and long-term extensions (LTEs) were analysed.
RESULTS
56 publications (efficacy: n=33; safety n=23) were analysed. The articles were on tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (n=6; golimumab, etanercept and biosimilars), interleukin (IL)-17A inhibitors (n=10; ixekizumab, secukinumab), IL-23-p19 inhibitors (n=2; guselkumab, risankizumab), clazakizumab (IL-6 inhibitor), abatacept (CD80/86 inhibitor) and ABT-122 (anti-TNF/IL-17A), respectively. One study compared ustekinumab (IL-12/23i) with TNF inhibitor therapy in patients with entheseal disease. Three articles investigated DMARD tapering. Trials on targeted synthetic DMARDs investigated apremilast (phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor) and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi; tofacitinib, filgotinib). Biosimilar comparison with bio-originator showed non-inferiority. Safety was evaluated in 13 LTEs, 9 cohort studies and 1 case-control study investigating malignancies, infections, infusion reactions, multiple sclerosis and major cardiovascular events, as well as efficacy and safety of vaccination. No new safety signals were identified; however, warnings on the risk of venous thromboembolic events including pulmonary embolism when using JAKi were issued by regulators based on other studies.
CONCLUSION
Many drugs in PsA are available and have demonstrated efficacy against placebo. Efficacy varies across PsA manifestations. Safety must also be taken into account. This review informed the development of the European League Against Rheumatism 2019 updated PsA management recommendations.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Biological Products; Humans; Interleukin-17; Interleukin-23 Subunit p19; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Synthetic Drugs; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 32381564
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217163 -
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics Dec 2017Aggregate data model-based meta-analysis is a regression approach to compare the dose-response and/or time-course across different treatments using summary level data... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Aggregate data model-based meta-analysis is a regression approach to compare the dose-response and/or time-course across different treatments using summary level data from the literature. Literature search and systematic review following the Cochrane approach yielded 912 sources for investigational and approved treatments for psoriasis. In addition, data for tofacitinib were obtained from an internal database. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor. Two mathematical models were developed for Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response in moderate to severe psoriasis patients to quantify the time to maximum effect for PASI75 and to evaluate the dose-response relationship for PASI responders (PASI50, PASI75, PASI90, PASI100) at Week 12. Body weight exhibited an inverse effect on the placebo component of both models, suggesting that body weight affects the overall PASI response regardless of drug. This analysis provides a quantitative framework for efficacy comparisons across psoriasis treatments.
Topics: Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Models, Statistical; Piperidines; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Psoriasis; Pyrimidines; Pyrroles; Severity of Illness Index; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28480503
DOI: 10.1002/cpt.732 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Oct 2013Tofacitinib is a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) which was recently approved by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). There are several randomised clinical... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Tofacitinib is a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) which was recently approved by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). There are several randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that have investigated the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A systematic review with a meta-analysis of RCTs was undertaken to determine the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in treating patients with RA.
METHODS
Electronic and clinical trials register databases were searched for published RCTs of tofacitinib between 2009 and 2013. Outcomes of interest include 20% and 50% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology Scale (ACR20 and ACR50) response rates, rates of infection, the number of immunological/haematological adverse events (AEs), deranged laboratory results (hepatic, renal, haematological tests and lipoprotein level) and the incidence of drug withdrawal.
RESULTS
Eight RCTs (n = 3,791) were reviewed. Significantly greater ACR20 response rates were observed in patients receiving tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg bid (twice daily) versus placebo at week 12, with risk ratios (RR) of 2.20 (95% CI 1.58, 3.07) and 2.38 (95% CI 1.81, 3.14) respectively. The effect was maintained at week 24 for 5 mg bid (RR 1.94; 95% CI 1.55, 2.44) and 10 mg bid (RR 2.20; 95% CI 1.76, 2.75). The ACR50 response rate was also significantly higher for patients receiving tofacitinib 5 mg bid (RR 2.91; 95% CI 2.03, 4.16) and 10 mg bid (RR 3.32; 95% CI 2.33, 4.72) compared to placebo at week 12. Patients in the tofacitinib group had significantly lower mean neutrophil counts, higher serum creatinine, higher percentage change of LDL/HDL and a higher risk of ALT/AST > 1 ULN (upper limit of normal) versus placebo. There were no significant differences in AEs and withdrawal due to AEs compared to placebo.
CONCLUSION
Tofacitinib is efficacious and well tolerated in patients with MTX-resistant RA up to a period of 24 weeks. However, haematological, liver function tests and lipoproteins should be monitored. Long-term efficacy and pharmacovigilance studies are recommended.
Topics: Adalimumab; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Humans; Janus Kinase 3; Piperidines; Pyrimidines; Pyrroles; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24139404
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-14-298 -
Clinical Rheumatology Apr 2022Myasthenia gravis is an autoimmune disease affecting the neuromuscular junction, often associated with other autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Myasthenia gravis is an autoimmune disease affecting the neuromuscular junction, often associated with other autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis present an increased prevalence of myasthenia gravis compared to the general population. While these two diseases share some therapeutic options, such as glucocorticoids, methotrexate, and rituximab, there are no guidelines for treating concomitant disease. We aim to review the available evidence and to discuss the efficacy and safety of the therapeutic options in patients with rheumatoid arthritis associated with myasthenia gravis.
METHOD
We described three patients with rheumatoid arthritis associated with myasthenia gravis and we performed a systematic review of the associated literature.
RESULTS
A 48-year-old man and two women (48 and 55 years old) with concomitant diagnoses of active rheumatoid arthritis and well-controlled myasthenia gravis are described. They were treated with methotrexate, leflunomide, upadacitinib, and adalimumab. None of them experienced changes in their myasthenic symptoms. We found 9 additional cases from our literature review. Methotrexate, rituximab, upadacitinib, diphenyl sulfone, auranofin, and loxoprofen sodium did not show an impact on the seven patients with previously well-controlled myasthenia. Glucocorticoids, methotrexate, and rituximab proved effective in active myasthenia gravis and arthritis. Conflicting data emerged for Tumor-necrosis factor inhibitors.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the available evidence remains scarce, we consider glucocorticoids, methotrexate, and rituximab as safe and effective options. The role of tumor-necrosis factor inhibitors remains uncertain. Eventually, Janus Kinase inhibitors are a novel interesting option for these patients. Key Points • To date, the only evidence on the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis and concomitant myasthenia gravis derives from case reports. • Based on the review of the available case reports and on the cases we described, we consider glucocorticoids, methotrexate, and rituximab as safe and effective options, while the role of Tumor-necrosis factor inhibitors remains uncertain. • Based on the cases we described, Janus Kinase inhibitors are a novel interesting option for patients with concomitant rheumatoid arthritis and myasthenia gravis.
Topics: Adalimumab; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Female; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Male; Methotrexate; Middle Aged; Myasthenia Gravis
PubMed: 35031874
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-022-06062-w -
The Journal of Rheumatology Mar 2023Nail psoriasis is common, impairs fine motor finger functioning, affects cosmesis, and is associated with a lower quality of life. This review updates the previous Group...
OBJECTIVE
Nail psoriasis is common, impairs fine motor finger functioning, affects cosmesis, and is associated with a lower quality of life. This review updates the previous Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) treatment recommendations for nail psoriasis.
METHODS
This systematic literature review of the PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases examined the updated evidence since the last GRAPPA nail psoriasis treatment recommendations published in 2014. Recommendations are based on preformed PICO (Patient/Population - Intervention - Comparison/Comparator - Outcome) questions formulated by an international group of dermatologists, rheumatologists, and patient panel members. Data from this literature review were evaluated in line with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.
RESULTS
Overall, there is insufficient evidence to make any recommendation for the use of topical corticosteroids, topical calcipotriol, topical tazarotene, topical cyclosporine, dimethyl fumarates/fumaric acid esters, phototherapy, and alitretinoin. There is a low strength of evidence to support the use of calcipotriol and corticosteroid preparations, topical tacrolimus, oral cyclosporine, oral methotrexate, intralesional corticosteroids, pulsed dye laser, acitretin, Janus kinase inhibitors, and apremilast.
CONCLUSION
The highest strength of supporting evidence is for the recommendation of biologic agents including tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, and interleukin 12/23, 17, and 23 inhibitors.
Topics: Humans; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Quality of Life; Psoriasis; Nail Diseases; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Cyclosporins
PubMed: 36319021
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.220313