4.6 Article

Certolizumab pegol for the treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis: Results through 48 weeks from 2 phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled studies (CIMPASI-1 and CIMPASI-2)

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.04.012

关键词

anti-TNF; antietumor necrosis factor; certolizumab pegol; chronic plaque psoriasis; CIMPASI-1; CIMPASI-2; phase 3 trial

资金

  1. Dermira Inc
  2. UCB Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Certolizumab pegol, the only Fc-free, PEGylated antietumor necrosis factor biologic, demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements suggestive of a positive risk-benefit balance in phase 2 studies in adults with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis. Objective: Assess certolizumab efficacy and safety versus placebo in phase 3 studies. Methods: Patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis were randomized 2: 2: 1 to certolizumab 400 mg, certolizumab 200 mg, or placebo every 2 weeks. At week 16, certolizumab-treated patients achieving a 50% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index continued treatment through week 48. Coprimary endpoints were week 16 responder rates, defined as a 75% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index and Physician's Global Assessment 0/1 (clear/almost clear) and >= 2-point improvement. Safety was assessed by treatment-emergent adverse events. Results: Week-16 endpoints were significantly greater for both doses of certolizumab versus placebo, and the responses were maintained through week 48. For most measures, improvement was numerically greater for certolizumab 400 mg. No unexpected safety signals were identified. Limitation: There was no active comparator. Conclusion: Treatment with either certolizumab 400 mg or 200 mg every 2 weeks was associated with significant and clinically meaningful improvements in moderate-to-severe psoriasis. The 400-mg dose could provide additional clinical benefit. The safety profile was consistent with the therapeutic class.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据