Efficacy and safety of TNF blockers and of ustekinumab in palmoplantar pustulosis and in acrodermatitis continua of Hallopeau
Background Palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) and acrodermatitis continua of Hallopeau (ACH) are rare variants of psoriasis. Knowledge of the efficacy of biologics is scarce. Objectives To evaluate the real‐life efficacy of tumour necrosis factor blockers and ustekinumab in PPP and in ACH. Methods A mult...
Saved in:
Published in | Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Vol. 34; no. 10; pp. 2330 - 2338 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
England
Wiley
01.10.2020
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
ISSN | 0926-9959 1468-3083 1468-3083 |
DOI | 10.1111/jdv.16265 |
Cover
Summary: | Background
Palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) and acrodermatitis continua of Hallopeau (ACH) are rare variants of psoriasis. Knowledge of the efficacy of biologics is scarce.
Objectives
To evaluate the real‐life efficacy of tumour necrosis factor blockers and ustekinumab in PPP and in ACH.
Methods
A multicentre retrospective descriptive study was conducted in 19 dermatology departments, including all patients with PPP or ACH seen from 2014 to 2016 who received one of the studied biologics. The data were collected by a standardized document. Factors associated with complete clearance (CC) were analysed by multivariate analysis, estimating odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Results
Among 92 patients included, 50 received adalimumab, 44 ustekinumab, 36 etanercept and 31 infliximab. Improvement and CC were observed in 83.9% and 20.0% patients receiving infliximab, 75.0% and 38.6% ustekinumab, 57.1% and 20.0% etanercept and 60.4% and 29.2% adalimumab. We found no significant difference in CC rates or duration of treatment among the biological treatments (P = 0.18 and P = 0.10, respectively). On multivariate analysis, CC with etanercept was associated with the ACH form and not smoking [OR = 9.5 (95% CI 1.1–82.7), P = 0.04 and 0.1 (0.01–0.9), P = 0.04]; with ustekinumab, male sex and absence of obesity [6.0 (1.3–28.6), P = 0.02 and 4.7 (1.0–22.7), P = 0.05]; with adalimumab, the ACH form [11.9 (2.7–52.3), P = 0.001]; and with infliximab, obesity [5.6 (1.1–29.4), P = 0.04].
Conclusions
We found no difference in efficacy between TNF blockers and ustekinumab and among the three different TNF blockers in real life for PPP or ACH, which reveals the heterogeneity of clinical response to biologics in pustular psoriasis as compared with plaque psoriasis. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | Conflicts of interest C. Barbe, S. Hegazy, E. Sbidian, M. D'Incan, E. Brenaut, M.A. Richard: no conflict of interest declared. B. Husson: non‐financial support from CELGENE, outside the submitted work. J. Seneschal: personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from Janssen‐Cilag, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Leo‐Pharma, personal fees from Celgene, outside the submitted work. F. Aubin: non‐financial support from NOVARTIS, non‐financial support from BMS, non‐financial support from LEO PHARMA, grants from JANSSEN, non‐financial support from CELGENE, outside the submitted work. E. Mahé: grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Leo Pharma, personal fees and non‐financial support from Celgene, personal fees and non‐financial support from Janssen Cilag, outside the submitted work. D. Jullien: personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from Janssen‐Cilag, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Celgen, personal fees from Fresenius Kabi, personal fees from UCB, personal fees from LEO, outside the submitted work. C. Conrad: served as a scientific adviser and/or clinical study investigator and/or paid speaker for AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer. C. Girard: non‐financial support from Investigator for Novartis, Janssen Cilag, Lilly, Leo Pharma, personal fees from consultant for Novartis, Janssen Cilag, Lilly, UCB, Medac, outside the submitted work. H. Bachelez: personal fees and non‐financial support from AbbVie, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Almirall, personal fees from Baxalta, grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees and non‐financial support from Celgene, personal fees from Dermavant, personal fees and non‐financial support from Leo Pharma, personal fees and non‐financial support from Lilly, personal fees and non‐financial support from Janssen, personal fees from Mylan, personal fees and non‐financial support from Novartis, personal fees and non‐financial support from Sun Pharmaceuticals, personal fees and non‐financial support from UCB, grants, personal fees and non‐financial support from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. M. Viguier: personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Janssen‐Cilag, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Fresenius Kabi, personal fees from UCB, personal fees from Leo Pharma, personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from Medac, personal fees from Arrow, personal fees from Boehringer, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work. None. Funding source ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 0926-9959 1468-3083 1468-3083 |
DOI: | 10.1111/jdv.16265 |