Background Drug survival is a marker for treatment sustainability in chronic diseases such as psoriasis.ObjectiveThe aim of these analyses was to assess survival of biologic treatments in the PSOriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR).Methods PSOLAR is a large, prospective, international, disease‐based registry of patients with psoriasis receiving (or eligible for) systemic therapy in a real‐world setting. Drug survival is defined as the time from initiation to discontinuation (stop/switch) of biologic therapy on registry. The number of patients who discontinued each treatment and the duration of therapy were recorded. Using Kaplan–Meier survival curves and Cox‐regression analyses [hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs)], time to discontinuation was compared across cohorts undergoing first‐, second‐ or third‐line treatment with ustekinumab, infliximab, adalimumab or etanercept.ResultsAs of the 2013 data cut, 12 095 patients with psoriasis were enrolled in PSOLAR. Of the 4000 patients initiating any new biologic therapy, approximately 3500 started a first‐line, second‐line or third‐line biologic therapy during the registry. Lack of effectiveness was the most common reason for discontinuation across biologic therapies. Based on the multivariate analysis, significantly shorter times to discontinuation were observed for infliximab [HR (95%CI) = 2.73 (1.48–5.04), P = 0.0014]; adalimumab [4.16 (2.80–6.20), P < 0.0001]; and etanercept [4.91 (3.28–7.35) P < 0.0001] compared with ustekinumab [reference treatment]) for first‐line biologic use; results were similar for treatment effects for second/third‐line therapies. Although limited in power, analyses in patients with concurrent psoriatic arthritis confirmed by a rheumatologist reflect observations in the overall psoriasis population.ConclusionDrug survival was superior for ustekinumab compared with infliximab, adalimumab and etanercept in patients with psoriasis.

Objective: To compare the relative efficacy of ustekinumab (UST) vs. other therapies for 1-year response and remission rates in patients with moderate-severe UC. Methods: Randomized controlled trials reporting induction and maintenance efficacy of anti-TNFs (infliximab [IFX], adalimumab [ADA], golimumab [GOL]), vedolizumab (VDZ), tofacitinib (TOF) or UST were identified through a systematic literature review (SLR). Analyses were conducted for clinical response, clinical remission and endoscopic-mucosal healing for populations with and without failure of prior biologics (non-biologic failure [NBF]; biologic failure [BF]). Maintenance data from trials with re-randomized response designs were recalculated to correspond to treat-through arms. Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted to obtain posterior distribution probabilities for UST to perform better than comparators. Results: Six trials included NBF patients and four included BF patients. In NBF patients, UST as a 1year regimen showed higher probabilities of clinical response, remission and endoscopic-mucosal healing vs. all treatments: Bayesian probabilities of UST being better than active therapies ranged from 91% (VDZ) to 100% (ADA) for response; 82% (VDZ) to 99% (ADA) for remission and 82% (IFX) to 100% (ADA and GOL) for endoscopic-mucosal healing. In BF patients, UST was the most effective treatment (Q8W dose); however, effect sizes were smaller than in the NBF population. Conclusions: Results indicate a higher likelihood of response, remission and endoscopic-mucosal healing at 1 year with UST vs. comparators in the NBF population. In BF patients, a higher likelihood of response to UST vs. the most comparators was also observed, although results were more uncertain.

All authors have made substantial contributions to all of the following: (1) the conception and design of the study, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data, (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content, (3) final approval of the version to be submitted. The study was funded by Janssen-Cilag, Espoo, Finland. Employees of Janssen-Cilag are study authors and as such they contributed to the study design, design and interpretation of data analyses, and to the writing the manuscript.

Objectives: Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is a severe complication of allogenic stem cell transplantation. Preliminary data suggest the potential role of ruxolitinib as a new treatment option in patients with corticosteroid-refractory GVHD. The aim of the present study was to explore the effectiveness and safety of ruxolitinib as a salvage therapy in this population. MethOds: A single-center, retrospective, observational study was carried out. Inclusion criteria: all patients with corticosteroidrefractory GVHD treated with ruxolitinib until June 2016. Collected variables: age, sex, underlying disease, GVHD location, type (acute or chronic) and grade, previous therapies, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status at baseline, daily dose of ruxolitinib, treatment response and grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AE). Data sources: pharmacy information system and clinical charts review. Results: 13 patients met the inclusion criteria. 46% were male, with a median age of 46 years (range:32-51). The majority of patients (77%) had an ECOG performance status = 1. The most frequent underlying condition was myeloid acute leukemia. Most of the patients (77%) had more than one part of the body affected, being the most affected the cutaneous and gastrointestinal locations. GVHD was chronic in 62% of patients, and 54% had grade ≥ 3 GVHD. The median number of previous GVHD-therapies was 3 (range: 3-5). The most frequency therapies were corticosteroids, inmmunosuppression therapies with tacrolimus and rapamycin, and photopheresis. The median daily dose of ruxolitib was 20 (range: 5-25) mg. The overall response rate was 77% (complete response: 23%, partial response: 54%). Esophageal affectation in one patient was the only AE ≥ 3 recorded. cOnclusiOns: Ruxolitinib appears to be an effective and safe treatment option for patients with GVHD who are refractory to corticosteroids and other available therapies. Randomized control trials are needed to confirm these promising results.

No abstract