BACKGROUND: Knowledge on the sequential treatment of psoriasis with biologics with regard to efficacy and safety is sparse. This also applies to the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in patients previously treated with etanercept. The relationship between the reasons for discontinuation of etanercept and the response to adalimumab is not clear in psoriasis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in patients with psoriasis with primary failure, secondary failure or intolerance to etanercept in daily practice. METHODS: Data were extracted from two prospective registries from all patients with psoriasis with failure on etanercept treatment, who switched to adalimumab therapy. Thirty patients fulfilled these criteria. All patients were naive to biologics when etanercept was initiated. Primary endpoints were the percentage of patients achieving a 50% or 75% improvement of the baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score (PASI 50 and PASI 75, respectively) at weeks 12, 24 and 48. Secondary endpoints were the percentage of patients achieving PASI 90, the mean percentage improvement in the PASI score from baseline and the adverse event rate. RESULTS: Compared with the baseline PASI score before the start of etanercept, the mean percentage improvement in PASI and the PASI 50/75/90 response rates to adalimumab until week 48 were comparable to those achieved with etanercept. In the patients failing on etanercept, PASI 75 was achieved by 27%, 36% and 54% at weeks 12, 24 and 48 of adalimumab treatment, respectively. The majority of patients showed a beneficial response to adalimumab, irrespective of the reason for discontinuation of etanercept. Previous treatment with etanercept did not increase the adverse event rate nor change the nature of the side-effects. CONCLUSIONS: Adalimumab seems to be an effective and safe treatment option for patients with psoriasis who failed on etanercept treatment irrespective of the reason for discontinuation.
BACKGROUND: Knowledge on the sequential treatment of psoriasis with biologics with regard to efficacy and safety is sparse. This also applies to the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in patients previously treated with etanercept. The relationship between the reasons for discontinuation of etanercept and the response to adalimumab is not clear in psoriasis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in patients with psoriasis with primary failure, secondary failure or intolerance to etanercept in daily practice. METHODS: Data were extracted from two prospective registries from all patients with psoriasis with failure on etanercept treatment, who switched to adalimumab therapy. Thirty patients fulfilled these criteria. All patients were naive to biologics when etanercept was initiated. Primary endpoints were the percentage of patients achieving a 50% or 75% improvement of the baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score (PASI 50 and PASI 75, respectively) at weeks 12, 24 and 48. Secondary endpoints were the percentage of patients achieving PASI 90, the mean percentage improvement in the PASI score from baseline and the adverse event rate. RESULTS: Compared with the baseline PASI score before the start of etanercept, the mean percentage improvement in PASI and the PASI 50/75/90 response rates to adalimumab until week 48 were comparable to those achieved with etanercept. In the patients failing on etanercept, PASI 75 was achieved by 27%, 36% and 54% at weeks 12, 24 and 48 of adalimumab treatment, respectively. The majority of patients showed a beneficial response to adalimumab, irrespective of the reason for discontinuation of etanercept. Previous treatment with etanercept did not increase the adverse event rate nor change the nature of the side-effects. CONCLUSIONS:Adalimumab seems to be an effective and safe treatment option for patients with psoriasis who failed on etanercept treatment irrespective of the reason for discontinuation.
Authors: Sabrina Giometto; Silvia Tillati; Laura Baglietto; Nicola De Bortoli; Marta Mosca; Marco Conte; Marco Tuccori; Rosa Gini; Ersilia Lucenteforte Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-02 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Karel Pavelka; Alan Kivitz; Eva Dokoupilova; Ricardo Blanco; Marco Maradiaga; Hasan Tahir; Luminita Pricop; Mats Andersson; Aimee Readie; Brian Porter Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2017-12-22 Impact factor: 5.156
Authors: Ireny Y K Iskandar; Richard B Warren; Mark Lunt; Kayleigh J Mason; Ian Evans; Kathleen McElhone; Catherine H Smith; Nick J Reynolds; Darren M Ashcroft; Christopher E M Griffiths Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 7.590
Authors: Laura Maria Andrade Silva; Bruno de Oliveira Rocha; Ana Cláudia Pinto Nobre; Vitória Regina Pedreira de Almeida Rêgo; Ivonise Follador; Maria de Fátima Santos Paim de Oliveira Journal: An Bras Dermatol Date: 2014 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.896