Multi‐failure psoriasis patients: characterization of the patients and response to biological therapy in a multicenter Italian cohort

Abstract

IntroductionPatients with psoriasis who have failed multiple biologic drugs have been defined as “multi‐failure,” although there are no clear data on the characteristics, comorbidities, and best treatment strategies for this population. Nowadays, given the next generation and the number of biologics available, patients are considered multi‐failure when ≥4 biologics fail to achieve a good response.MethodsDemographic characteristics and efficacy of anti‐interleukin drugs in multi‐failure patients were compared to a cohort of general psoriatic patients treated with IL‐23 or IL‐17 inhibitors.ResultsIn total 97 multi‐failure patients (≥4 lines of biologics) were compared with 1,057 patients in the general cohort. The current drugs in the multi‐failure group were risankizumab (34), ixekizumab (23), guselkumab (21), brodalumab (7), tildrakizumab (5), ustekinumab (4), secukinumab (2), and certolizumab pegol (1). A significant difference was found in the multi‐failure cohort for age of psoriasis onset (mean 29.7 vs. 35.1, P < 0.001), concurrent psoriatic arthritis (45.4 vs. 26.9%, P < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (30.9 vs. 10.9%, P < 0.001), and cardiovascular comorbidity (54.6 vs. 39.8%, P = 0.005). In multi‐failure patients, current biological therapy showed a good initial response (PASI 90 and 100 of 41.24 and 27.84%, respectively, at 16 weeks); the response tended to decline after 40 weeks. Anti‐IL‐17 agents showed clinical superiority over IL‐23 agents in terms of achieving PASI90 at 28 weeks (P < 0.001) and 40 weeks (P = 0.007), after which they reached a plateau. In contrast, IL‐23 agents showed a slower but progressive improvement that was maintained for up to 52 weeks. A similar trend was also seen for PASI100 (28 weeks P = 0.032; 40 weeks P = 0.121).ConclusionsThe multi‐failure patient is characterized by many comorbidities and longstanding inflammatory disease that frequently precedes the introduction of systemic biologic therapy. Further studies are needed to identify more specific criteria that could be applied as a guideline by clinicians.