Vixarelimab

Prurigo nodularis is a chronic skin disease characterised by intensely pruritic, hyperkeratotic nodules. Vixarelimab, a human monoclonal antibody, binds to the beta subunit of the oncostatin M receptor, inhibiting signalling of both interleukin 31 and oncostatin M, two cytokine pathways that contribute to pruritus and nodule formation in prurigo nodularis.

This double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2a trial was done at both private and academic dermatology outpatient research clinics across the United States and Canada (n = 40). Patient eligibility criteria included age 18-75 years, physician-documented diagnosis of prurigo nodularis minimum 6 months duration of prurigo nodularis, presence of at least 10 pruritic nodules approximately 0.5-2 cm in size on at least two different anatomical locations (excluding face and scalp) and involving the extremities, and presence of normal-appearing skin between nodules; atopic dermatitis as a comorbidity was exclusionary. Patients were required to have moderate-to-severe pruritus, defined as Worst Itch-Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) score ≥7 at screening and LS-mean weekly WI-NRS score ≥5 for each of the 2 consecutive weeks immediately before randomisation. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive weekly subcutaneous vixarelimab 360 mg (720 mg loading dose) or placebo using stratification factors (sex and presence of atopy) and block size 4 through the IWRS system. Stratification by atopy status was based on the reported high prevalence of atopy in this population and the potential impact of atopy in the immunopathologic process in prurigo nodularis. Patients, investigators, study sponsor, and site staff were masked to study treatment. The primary efficacy endpoint was least squares (LS)-mean percent change from baseline (PCFB) at Week 8 in weekly average Worst Itch-Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) score. The primary efficacy endpoint was analysed with ANCOVA including treatment as fixed effect, with baseline WI-NRS, and randomisation stratification factor as covariates. All randomised patients who had at least 1 dose of study drug or placebo were included in the Safety Analysis Set. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03816891.

Of 50 patients randomised between March 11, 2019 and January 31, 2020, 23 vixarelimab recipients and 26 placebo recipients comprised the modified intent-to-treat analysis population (baseline LS-mean [SD] WI-NRS score, 8.3 [1.05]). Outcomes at Week 8 for vixarelimab versus placebo included LS-mean PCFB in WI-NRS score, -50.6% versus -29.4% (LS-mean difference [95% CI], -21.2% [-40.82, -1.60]; p = 0.03); ≥4-point reduction in WI-NRS score, 52.2% (12/23) versus 30.8% (8/26) (p = 0.11); PN-IGA score of 0 or 1, 30.4% (7/23) versus 7.7% (2/26) (p = 0.03); LS-mean PCFB in pruritus VAS score, -54.4% versus -32.6% (p = 0.03); and LS-mean PCFB sleep loss reduction (improvement), -56.3% versus -30.0% (p = 0.02). No deaths, serious TEAEs, or TEAEs leading to dose interruption were reported. The percentage of vixarelimab recipients reporting any TEAE was 91.3% (21/23) versus 76.9% (20/26) of placebo recipients; drug-related TEAEs generally were similar between the two groups (vixarelimab, 43.5% [10/23]; placebo, 38.5% [10/26]).

Vixarelimab demonstrated rapid reduction of pruritus and achievement of clear/almost clear skin in one-third of the patients by Week 8. Relief of itch and clearing of skin nodules represent two important potential therapeutic advances in the management of patients suffering from the debilitating disease Prurigo Nodularis.

Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.

Eczema is a common and chronic, relapsing, inflammatory skin disorder. It seriously impacts quality of life and economic outcomes, especially for those with moderate to severe eczema. Various treatments allow sustained control of the disease; however, their relative benefit remains unclear due to the limited number of trials directly comparing treatments.

To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of different types of systemic immunosuppressive treatments for moderate to severe eczema using NMA and to generate rankings of available systemic immunosuppressive treatments for eczema according to their efficacy and safety.

We searched the following databases up to August 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase.

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic immunosuppressive agents for moderate to severe atopic eczema when compared against placebo or any other eligible eczema treatment.

We synthesised data using pair-wise analysis and NMA to compare treatments and rank them according to their effectiveness. Effectiveness was assessed primarily by determining the proportion of participants who achieved at least 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75) and improvement in the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). Safety was evaluated primarily by considering the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) and infection. We deemed short-term follow-up as ≤ 16 weeks and long-term follow-up as > 16 weeks. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for these primary outcomes using six domains of CiNEMA grading.

We included a total of 74 studies, with 8177 randomised participants. Approximately 55% of participants were male, with average age of 32 years (range 2 to 84 years), although age and gender were unreported for 419 and 902 participants, respectively. Most of the included trials were placebo controlled (65%), 34% were head-to-head studies (15% assessed the effects of different doses of the same drug), and 1% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. All trials included participants with moderate to severe eczema, but 62% of studies did not separate data by severity; 38% of studies assessed only severe eczema. The total duration of included trials ranged from 2 weeks to 60 months, whereas treatment duration varied from a single dose (CIM331, KPL-716) to 60 months (methotrexate (MTX)). Seventy studies were available for quantitative synthesis; this review assessed 29 immunosuppressive agents from three classes of interventions. These included (1) conventional treatments, with ciclosporin assessed most commonly; (2) small molecule treatments, including phosphodiesterase (PDE)-4 inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors; and (3) biological treatments, including anti-CD31 receptors, anti-interleukin (IL)-22, anti-IL-31, anti-IL-13, anti-IL-12/23p40, anti-OX40, anti-TSLP, anti-CRTH2, and anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) monoclonal antibodies, but most commonly dupilumab. Most trials (73) assessed outcomes at a short-term duration ranging from 2 to 16 weeks, whereas 33 trials assessed long-term outcomes, with duration ranging from 5 to 60 months. All participants were from a hospital setting. Fifty-two studies declared a source of funding, and of these, pharmaceutical companies funded 88%. We rated 37 studies as high risk; 21, unclear risk, and 16, low risk of bias, with studies most commonly at high risk of attrition bias. Network meta-analysis suggests that dupilumab ranks first for effectiveness when compared with other biological treatments. Dupilumab is more effective than placebo in achieving EASI75 (risk ratio (RR) 3.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.51 to 3.69) and improvement in POEM score (mean difference 7.30, 95% CI 6.61 to 8.00) at short-term follow-up (high-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain of the effects of dupilumab when compared with placebo, in terms of the proportion of participants who achieve EASI75 (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.60) at longer-term follow-up. Low-certainty evidence indicates that tralokinumab may be more effective than placebo in achieving short-term EASI75 (RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.21 to 5.34), but there was no evidence for tralokinumab to allow us to assess short-term follow-up of POEM or long-term follow-up of EASI75. We are uncertain of the effect of ustekinumab compared with placebo in achieving EASI75 (long-term follow-up: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.45; short-term follow-up: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.97; both very low certainty). We found no evidence on ustekinumab for the POEM outcome. We are uncertain whether other immunosuppressive agents that targeted our key outcomes influence the achievement of short-term EASI75 compared with placebo due to low- or very low-certainty evidence. Dupilumab and ustekinumab were the only immunosuppressive agents evaluated for longer-term EASI75. Dupilumab was the only agent evaluated for improvement in POEM during short-term follow-up. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence indicates a lower proportion of participants with SAEs after treatment with QAW039 and dupilumab compared to placebo during short-term follow-up, but low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in SAEs during short-term follow-up of other immunosuppressive agents compared to placebo. Evidence for effects of immunosuppressive agents on risk of any infection during short-term follow-up and SAEs during long-term follow-up compared with placebo was of low or very low certainty but did not indicate a difference. We did not identify differences in other adverse events (AEs), but dupilumab is associated with specific AEs, including eye inflammation and eosinophilia.

Our findings indicate that dupilumab is the most effective biological treatment for eczema. Compared to placebo, dupilumab reduces eczema signs and symptoms in the short term for people with moderate to severe atopic eczema. Short-term safety outcomes from clinical trials did not reveal new safety concerns with dupilumab. Overall, evidence for the efficacy of most other immunosuppressive treatments for moderate to severe atopic eczema is of low or very low certainty. Given the lack of data comparing conventional with newer biological treatments for the primary outcomes, there remains high uncertainty for ranking the efficacy and safety of conventional treatments such as ciclosporin and biological treatments such as dupilumab. Most studies were placebo-controlled and assessed only short-term efficacy of immunosuppressive agents. Further adequately powered head-to-head RCTs should evaluate comparative long-term efficacy and safety of available treatments for moderate to severe eczema.