Linked Article: Gordon et al. Br J Dermatol 2018; 178:132-139.During prehistoric periods, humans rarely experienced technological change. For nearly all of recorded human history, most humans experienced no major technological advances over their entire lives. We live in far more interesting times! Over the past few hundred years, humans began to experience multiple technological changes over the course of their lives, and now we take for granted that there will be a major update to our iPhones every year. New technologies come so fast that what was new and hot a short while ago (records, CDs, videotapes, DVD stores, AOL, MySpace) may already be superseded. This is happening in medicine too. When etanercept was approved for psoriasis 15 odd years ago, I thought I would never see that kind of revolutionary quantum leap forward in psoriasis treatment again in my lifetime; now I rarely prescribe the drug because of products that seem at least as safe and considerably more effective.The current rage in psoriasis treatment consists of drugs blocking the interleukin (IL)-23/IL-17 pathway.1 Ustekinumab, an antibody against the p40 subunit contained in both IL-12 and IL-23, hits a sweet spot: few injections, high efficacy and minimal, if any, risk.2 Several IL-17 antagonists are, in head-tohead trials, even more effective. The newest treatment, guselkumab, binds the p19 subunit of IL-23, thereby leaving IL-12 unaffected. In head-to-head trials against adalimumab, a highly effective psoriasis treatment, guselkumab was more effective.
3,4Guselkumab requires few injections (every 2 months in the maintenance phase) and, if we can extrapolate from our experience with the IL-12/IL-23 blocker ustekinumab (which we really shouldn't do), we can expect it should be very safe. The current issue of the British Journal of Dermatology features an analysis by Gordon et al. of the effectiveness of guselkumab in patient subpopulations. 5 The authors compile data from 1829 subjects enrolled in the two large, randomized, placebo-controlled, blinded, head-to-head trials -Voyage 1 and Voyage 2 -of guselkumab vs. adalimumab. The primary efficacy outcome was assessed at week 16 (the primary endpoint in adalimumab's package insert). At that point, patients would have been treated with only three injections (baseline, week 4 and week 12) of guselkumab. Not surprisingly, regardless of baseline characteristics, more patients achieved standard measures of success [Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75% improvement over baseline (PASI 75) and clear/almost clear] with guselkumab than with adalimumab, and more patients achieved high levels of success (PASI 90, clear) with guselkumab than with adalimumab. At this point, it's getting harder and harder to identify psoriasis patient populations for which a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor would be the clear first choice of treatment. The levels of success achievable with inhibitors of the IL-23/IL-17 axis, along with their safety and injection frequency, seem to make them the more rational choice, except...