Luca Mastorino, Paolo Dapavo, Orsola Crespi, Cristina Sarda, Eleonora Bongiovanni, Umberto Santaniello, Giuseppe Gallo, Pietro Quaglino, Simone RIbero
{"title":"“Full-naïve”患者:甲氨蝶呤、环孢素和阿维素对治疗中重度牛皮癣一线生物制剂反应的影响——一项单中心回顾性研究","authors":"Luca Mastorino, Paolo Dapavo, Orsola Crespi, Cristina Sarda, Eleonora Bongiovanni, Umberto Santaniello, Giuseppe Gallo, Pietro Quaglino, Simone RIbero","doi":"10.1080/14712598.2025.2517082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The impact of traditional systemic drugs to treat psoriasis (ciclosporin, methotrexate, and acitretin) in a subsequent response to biologics, has not been adequately addressed in the literature. In clinical practice it is increasingly necessary to initiate, due to concomitant comorbidities, biologics in patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who have not undergone prior treatment with systemics, i.e. full-naive.</p><p><strong>Objectives and methods: </strong>This study analyzed the possible impact of non-biological systemic therapies on the effectiveness and drug survival of first-line biologic drug up to 12 months in bio-naive psoriatic and PsA patients consecutively enrolled from January 2017 to March 2021.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>95 patients with severe psoriasis (13.5%) were full-naive. Being full-naive and having or not having undergone methotrexate or cyclosporine therapy did not impact response to subsequent years of biologic therapy. Only acitretin promotes faster response to subsequent biologic drugs with 59.6% and 74.2% of patients achieving Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 90 at 16 and 28 Week, respectively, vs. 50.5% and 65% (<i>p</i> = 0.034 and 0.026). In multivariate analysis, the advantage given by acitretin was lost.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Previous systemic therapy in bio-naive patients does not appear to result in a differential response to biologics during the first year of treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":12084,"journal":{"name":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"Full-naïve\\\" patients: the impact of previous methotrexate, cyclosporine, and acitretin on first-line biologics response in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis - a monocentric retrospective study.\",\"authors\":\"Luca Mastorino, Paolo Dapavo, Orsola Crespi, Cristina Sarda, Eleonora Bongiovanni, Umberto Santaniello, Giuseppe Gallo, Pietro Quaglino, Simone RIbero\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14712598.2025.2517082\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The impact of traditional systemic drugs to treat psoriasis (ciclosporin, methotrexate, and acitretin) in a subsequent response to biologics, has not been adequately addressed in the literature. In clinical practice it is increasingly necessary to initiate, due to concomitant comorbidities, biologics in patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who have not undergone prior treatment with systemics, i.e. full-naive.</p><p><strong>Objectives and methods: </strong>This study analyzed the possible impact of non-biological systemic therapies on the effectiveness and drug survival of first-line biologic drug up to 12 months in bio-naive psoriatic and PsA patients consecutively enrolled from January 2017 to March 2021.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>95 patients with severe psoriasis (13.5%) were full-naive. Being full-naive and having or not having undergone methotrexate or cyclosporine therapy did not impact response to subsequent years of biologic therapy. Only acitretin promotes faster response to subsequent biologic drugs with 59.6% and 74.2% of patients achieving Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 90 at 16 and 28 Week, respectively, vs. 50.5% and 65% (<i>p</i> = 0.034 and 0.026). In multivariate analysis, the advantage given by acitretin was lost.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Previous systemic therapy in bio-naive patients does not appear to result in a differential response to biologics during the first year of treatment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12084,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2025.2517082\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2025.2517082","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
"Full-naïve" patients: the impact of previous methotrexate, cyclosporine, and acitretin on first-line biologics response in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis - a monocentric retrospective study.
Background: The impact of traditional systemic drugs to treat psoriasis (ciclosporin, methotrexate, and acitretin) in a subsequent response to biologics, has not been adequately addressed in the literature. In clinical practice it is increasingly necessary to initiate, due to concomitant comorbidities, biologics in patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who have not undergone prior treatment with systemics, i.e. full-naive.
Objectives and methods: This study analyzed the possible impact of non-biological systemic therapies on the effectiveness and drug survival of first-line biologic drug up to 12 months in bio-naive psoriatic and PsA patients consecutively enrolled from January 2017 to March 2021.
Results: 95 patients with severe psoriasis (13.5%) were full-naive. Being full-naive and having or not having undergone methotrexate or cyclosporine therapy did not impact response to subsequent years of biologic therapy. Only acitretin promotes faster response to subsequent biologic drugs with 59.6% and 74.2% of patients achieving Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 90 at 16 and 28 Week, respectively, vs. 50.5% and 65% (p = 0.034 and 0.026). In multivariate analysis, the advantage given by acitretin was lost.
Conclusion: Previous systemic therapy in bio-naive patients does not appear to result in a differential response to biologics during the first year of treatment.
期刊介绍:
Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy (1471-2598; 1744-7682) is a MEDLINE-indexed, international journal publishing peer-reviewed research across all aspects of biological therapy.
Each article is structured to incorporate the author’s own expert opinion on the impact of the topic on research and clinical practice and the scope for future development.
The audience consists of scientists and managers in the healthcare and biopharmaceutical industries and others closely involved in the development and application of biological therapies for the treatment of human disease.
The journal welcomes:
Reviews covering therapeutic antibodies and vaccines, peptides and proteins, gene therapies and gene transfer technologies, cell-based therapies and regenerative medicine
Drug evaluations reviewing the clinical data on a particular biological agent
Original research papers reporting the results of clinical investigations on biological agents and biotherapeutic-based studies with a strong link to clinical practice
Comprehensive coverage in each review is complemented by the unique Expert Collection format and includes the following sections:
Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results;
Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.