Der Hautarzt

, Volume 69, Issue 4, pp 290–297 | Cite as

Biologikanebenwirkungen bei Psoriasis

Leitthema

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Die Einführung der Biologika hat die Therapie der mittelschweren bis schweren Plaquepsoriasis bahnbrechend verändert. Indem die biologischen Therapien der Psoriasis kontinuierlich erweitert werden, ist es besonders wichtig, die Wirksamkeit und Sicherheit der Substanzen nicht nur in klinischen Studien, sondern auch in langfristigen Anwendungsbeobachtungen im Rahmen von Registern zu ermitteln.

Ziel der Arbeit

Es erfolgt die Darstellung typischer Nebenwirkungen und signifikanter Risiken der Biologikatherapien im Rahmen der Psoriasis unter der Berücksichtigung psoriatischer Kontrollpopulationen.

Material und Methoden

Es wurde eine selektive Literatursuche in PubMed durchgeführt, und Studien zur Langzeitsicherheit im Rahmen der Psoriasisregister PsoBest, PSOLAR und BADBIR wurden ausgewertet.

Ergebnisse und Diskussion

Zur Beurteilung der langfristigen Sicherheit der Biologika ist es von besonderer medizinischer Bedeutung, die Verläufe an möglichst vielen Patienten in Langzeitregistern zu beobachten. Eine Tendenz zu verbesserten Nebenwirkungs- und Sicherheitsprofilen der neueren biologischen Medikamente scheint sich abzuzeichnen.

Schlüsselwörter

Patientenregister Plaquepsoriasis Anwendungsbeobachtungen Langzeitsicherheit Therapien 

Side effects of biologic therapies in psoriasis

Abstract

Background

The introduction of biologics has revolutionized the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Due to the continuous expansion of biological therapies for psoriasis, it is particularly important to acknowledge efficacy and safety of the compounds not only in clinical trials but also in long-term registry-based observational studies.

Aim

Typical side effects and significant risks of antipsoriatic biologic therapies considering psoriatic control groups are presented.

Materials and methods

A selective literature search was conducted in PubMed and long-term safety studies of the psoriasis registries PsoBest, PSOLAR and BADBIR were evaluated.

Results and discussion

To assess the long-term safety of biologics, the evaluation of the course of large patient cohorts in long-term registries is of particular medical importance. Newer biologic drugs seem to exhibit a better safety profile than older ones.

Keywords

Patient registries Plaque psoriasis Observational study Long-term safety Therapy 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

A. Altenburg, M. Augustin und C.C. Zouboulis geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Blauvelt A, Lebwohl MG, Bissonnette R (2015) IL-23/IL-17 A dysfunction phenotypes inform possible clinical effects from Anti-IL-17 A therapies. J Invest Dermatol 135:1946–1195CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lockwood SJ, Prens LM, Kimball AB (2018) Adverse reactions to biologics in psoriasis. Curr Probl Dermatol 53:1–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Papp KA, Strober B, Augustin M et al (2012) PSOLAR: design, utility, and preliminary results of a prospective, international, disease-based registry of patients with psoriasis who are receiving, or are candidates for, conventional systemic treatments or biologic agents. J Drugs Dermatol 11:1210–1217PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Iskandar IYK, Ashcroft DM, Warren RB et al (2017) Patterns of biologic therapy use in the management of psoriasis: Cohort study from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic Interventions Register (BADBIR). Br J Dermatol 176:1297–1307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reich K, Mrowietz U, Radtke MA et al (2015) Drug safety of systemic treatments for psoriasis: Results from The German Psoriasis Registry PsoBest. Arch Dermatol Res 307:875–883CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Menter A, Feldman SR, Weinstein GD et al (2007) A randomized comparison of continuous vs. intermittent infliximab maintenance regimens over 1 year in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol 56(31):e1–e15Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gordon KB, Langley RG, Leonardi C et al (2006) Clinical response to adalimumab treatment in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis: Double-blind, randomized controlled trial and open-label extension study. J Am Acad Dermatol 55:598–606CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tyring S, Gordon KB, Poulin Y et al (2007) Long-term safety and efficacy of 50 mg of etanercept twice weekly in patients with psoriasis. Arch Dermatol 143:719–726CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kwon HJ, Coté TR, Cuffe MS et al (2003) Case reports of heart failure after therapy with a tumor necrosis factor antagonist. Ann Intern Med 138:807–811CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Solomon DH, Rassen JA, Kuriya B et al (2013) Heart failure risk among patients with rheumatoid arthritis starting a TNF antagonist. Ann Rheum Dis 72:1813–1818CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hastings R, Ding T, Butt S et al (2010) Neutropenia in patients receiving anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy. Arthritis Care Res (hoboken) 62:764–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hsu L, Snodgrass BT, Armstrong AW (2014) Antidrug antibodies in psoriasis: A systematic review. Br J Dermatol 170:261–273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leonardi CL, Kimball AB, Papp KA (2008) Efficacy and safety of ustekinumab, a human interleukin-12/23 monoclonal antibody, in patients with psoriasis: 76-week results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (PHOENIX 1). Lancet 371:1665–1674CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Papp KA, Langley RG, Lebwohl M et al (2008) Efficacy and safety of ustekinumab, a human interleukin-12/23 monoclonal antibody, in patients with psoriasis: 52-week results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (PHOENIX 2). Lancet 371:1675–1684CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lebwohl M, Leonardi C, Griffiths CE et al (2012) Long-term safety experience of ustekinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis (Part I of II): Results from analyses of general safety parameters from pooled Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. J Am Acad Dermatol 66:731–741CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gottlieb AB, Kalb RE, Langley RG et al (2014) Safety observations in 12095 patients with psoriasis enrolled in an international registry (PSOLAR): Experience with infliximab and other systemic and biologic therapies. J Drugs Dermatol 13:1441–1448PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stamell EF, Kutner A, Viola K et al (2013) Ustekinumab associated with flares of psoriatic arthritis. Jama Dermatol 149:1410–1413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leonardi C, Matheson R, Zachariae C et al (2012) Anti-interleukin-17 monoclonal antibody ixekizumab in chronic plaque psoriasis. N Engl J Med 366:1190–1199CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saeki H, Nakagawa H, Ishii T et al (2015) Efficacy and safety of open-label ixekizumab treatment in Japanese patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, erythrodermic psoriasis and generalized pustular psoriasis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 29:1148–1155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van de Kerkhof PC, Griffiths CE, Reich K et al (2016) Secukinumab long-term safety experience: A pooled analysis of 10 phase II and III clinical studies in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol 75:83–98CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Griffiths CE, Reich K, Lebwohl M (2015) Comparison of ixekizumab with etanercept or placebo in moderate-to-severe psoriasis (UNCOVER-2 and UNCOVER-3): Results from two phase 3 randomised trials. Lancet 386:541–551CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gordon KB, Blauvelt A, Papp KA et al (2016) Phase 3 trials of Ixekizumab in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. N Engl J Med 375:345–356CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Blauvelt A, Prinz JC, Gottlieb AB et al (2016) Secukinumab self-administration by prefilled syringe maintains reduction of plaque psoriasis severity over 52 weeks: Results of the FEATURE trial. J Drugs Dermatol 15:1226–1234PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Crowley J, Thaçi D, Joly P et al (2017) Long-term safety and tolerability of apremilast in patients with psoriasis: Pooled safety analysis for ≥156 weeks from 2 phase 3, randomized, controlled trials (ESTEEM 1 and 2). J Am Acad Dermatol 77:310–317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reich K, Augustin M (2017) Arzneimittelsicherheit bei Psoriasis: Welche Rolle spielt Suizidalität? J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 15:353–355CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wollina U, Hansel G, Koch A et al (2008) Tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitor-induced psoriasis or psoriasiform exanthemata: First 120 cases from the literature including a series of six new patients. Am J Clin Dermatol 9:1–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Puig L (2018) Paradoxical reactions: anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha agents, ustekinumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, and others. Curr Probl Dermatol 53:49–63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Seneschal J, Milpied B, Taieb A (2012) Cutaneous drug eruptions associated with the use of biologies and cutaneous drug eruptions mimicking specific skin diseases. Chem Immunol Allergy 97:203–216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kalb RE, Fiorentino DF, Lebwohl MG (2015) Risk of serious infection with biologic and systemic treatment of psoriasis: Results from the psoriasis longitudinal assessment and registry (PSOLAR). Jama Dermatol 151:961–969CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shalom G, Zisman D, Bitterman H et al (2015) Systemic therapy for psoriasis and the risk of herpes zoster: A 500,000 person-year study. Jama Dermatol 151:533–538CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hochschulklinik für Dermatologie, Venerologie und Allergologie, Immunologisches Zentrum, Städtisches Klinikum DessauMedizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor FontaneDessau-RoßlauDeutschland
  2. 2.Institut für Versorgungsforschung in der Dermatologie und bei Pflegeberufen, CVdermUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE)HamburgDeutschland
  3. 3.MVZ des Städtischen Klinikums Dessau gGmbHDessau-RoßlauDeutschland

Personalised recommendations