4.6 Article

Secukinumab retreatment-as-needed versus fixed-interval maintenance regimen for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: A randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial (SCULPTURE)

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2015.04.011

关键词

clinical trial; dosing; immunogenicity; noninferiority; psoriasis; retreatment as needed; secukinumab

资金

  1. Novartis Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Secukinumab has demonstrated high, sustained efficacy in psoriasis to 52 weeks on a fixed-interval regimen. Objective: We sought to compare a retreatment-as-needed versus a fixed-interval regimen. Methods: In this double-blind study, adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis were randomized 1: 1 to subcutaneous secukinumab at 300 mg (n = 484) or 150 mg (n = 482) weekly from baseline until week 4, and at week 8. At week 12, patients achieving 75% or more improvement from baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI 75) were rerandomized to 2 dose levels of secukinumab retreatment as needed (n = 217, 300 mg; n = 206, 150 mg) or fixed interval (n = 217; n = 203). Primary end point was noninferiority of retreatment as needed versus fixed interval for maintaining PASI 75 to week 52. Results: Secukinumab induced high responses by week 12 (84.4%-91.1% PASI 75 responders). From week 12 to week 52, more patients on fixed interval (78.2%, 300 mg; 62.1%, 150 mg) maintained PASI 75 versus retreatment as needed (67.7%; 52.4%); statistical noninferiority of retreatment as needed was not established. Overall safety, including very low incidences of treatment-emergent anti-drug antibodies (<0.5%), was similar between regimens. Limitations: The primary end point was developed without any known precedent. Conclusion: Secukinumab fixed interval showed clear benefit versus the study-specified retreatment-as-needed regimen for maintaining efficacy. Both regimens exhibited safety consistent with previous trials. The potential of retreatment as needed with secukinumab warrants further investigation.

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