Kenneth B Gordon, K. Eyerich, Milan J Anadkat, S. Choon, Boni Elewski, Jonathan N. Barker, Arash Mostaghimi, Ming Tang, T. Haeufel, C. Thoma, Diamant Thaçi
{"title":"Low Occurrence of Predefined Safety Events Across Six Randomized Clinical Trials of Spesolimab in Dermatologic Conditions","authors":"Kenneth B Gordon, K. Eyerich, Milan J Anadkat, S. Choon, Boni Elewski, Jonathan N. Barker, Arash Mostaghimi, Ming Tang, T. Haeufel, C. Thoma, Diamant Thaçi","doi":"10.25251/skin.8.supp.410","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction In the randomized, placebo-controlled Effisayil 2 trial, the anti-interleukin (IL)-36 receptor antibody spesolimab demonstrated a reassuring safety profile when given over 48 weeks for flare prevention in patients with generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP). Nevertheless, given its novel mechanistic approach, it is important to characterize events relating to IL-36 inhibition with spesolimab as well as those of potential relevance to an intravenously/subcutaneously administered biologic. \nMethods In this analysis, rates of such predefined events – severe/serious/opportunistic infections, potential hypersensitivity reactions, peripheral neuropathies, and malignant tumors – were examined using available data from six randomized trials of spesolimab across various dermatologic conditions. \nResults Events reported in patients receiving spesolimab at various doses and schedules in two trials in GPP, two in palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP), one in atopic dermatitis (AD), and one in hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) were included (total n=345 for spesolimab and 145 for placebo). Exposure to spesolimab was: GPP, 244.3; PPP, 327.8; AD, 40.0; and HS, 45.7 patient-years, respectively. Rates of severe/serious/opportunistic infections were low with spesolimab (3.2% in one GPP trial; otherwise, 0% vs. 0% with placebo), and the incidences of hypersensitivity reactions were similar for spesolimab (7.7–33.3%) and placebo (5.6–44.4%) across trials. There was one report of peripheral neuropathy with spesolimab in a PPP trial (incidence 0–0.9% across trials) versus two (one GPP, one PPP) with placebo (0–3.3%), and one malignancy with spesolimab in GPP (0–1.1% across trials) versus one with placebo in PPP (0–2.3%). \nConclusion These results support the favorable safety profile of spesolimab seen in Effisayil 2.","PeriodicalId":22013,"journal":{"name":"SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine","volume":"134 35","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25251/skin.8.supp.410","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction In the randomized, placebo-controlled Effisayil 2 trial, the anti-interleukin (IL)-36 receptor antibody spesolimab demonstrated a reassuring safety profile when given over 48 weeks for flare prevention in patients with generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP). Nevertheless, given its novel mechanistic approach, it is important to characterize events relating to IL-36 inhibition with spesolimab as well as those of potential relevance to an intravenously/subcutaneously administered biologic.
Methods In this analysis, rates of such predefined events – severe/serious/opportunistic infections, potential hypersensitivity reactions, peripheral neuropathies, and malignant tumors – were examined using available data from six randomized trials of spesolimab across various dermatologic conditions.
Results Events reported in patients receiving spesolimab at various doses and schedules in two trials in GPP, two in palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP), one in atopic dermatitis (AD), and one in hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) were included (total n=345 for spesolimab and 145 for placebo). Exposure to spesolimab was: GPP, 244.3; PPP, 327.8; AD, 40.0; and HS, 45.7 patient-years, respectively. Rates of severe/serious/opportunistic infections were low with spesolimab (3.2% in one GPP trial; otherwise, 0% vs. 0% with placebo), and the incidences of hypersensitivity reactions were similar for spesolimab (7.7–33.3%) and placebo (5.6–44.4%) across trials. There was one report of peripheral neuropathy with spesolimab in a PPP trial (incidence 0–0.9% across trials) versus two (one GPP, one PPP) with placebo (0–3.3%), and one malignancy with spesolimab in GPP (0–1.1% across trials) versus one with placebo in PPP (0–2.3%).
Conclusion These results support the favorable safety profile of spesolimab seen in Effisayil 2.