IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0241575.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Safety profile of biologic drugs for psoriasis in clinical practice: An Italian prospective pharmacovigilance study

Author

Listed:
  • Luigi Francesco Iannone
  • Luigi Bennardo
  • Caterina Palleria
  • Roberta Roberti
  • Caterina De Sarro
  • Maria Diana Naturale
  • Stefano Dastoli
  • Luca Donato
  • Antonia Manti
  • Giancarlo Valenti
  • Domenico D’Amico
  • Santo D’Attola
  • Adele Emanuela De Francesco
  • Vincenzo Bosco
  • Eugenio Donato Di Paola
  • Steven Paul Nisticò
  • Rita Citraro
  • Emilio Russo
  • Giovambattista De Sarro

Abstract

Psoriasis is an inflammatory and chronic skin disorder associated with physical and psychological burden impairing patients’ quality of life. In the last decade, biologic drugs have widely changed treatment of moderate-severe psoriasis and their number is increasing overtime. To early identify expected/unexpected adverse events (AEs) with biologic treatments, pharmacovigilance programs are needed. We designed a post-marketing active pharmacovigilance program to monitor and analyse AEs and/or serious adverse events (SAEs) reports. All consecutive patients treated with one biologic drug during a two-years period and satisfying inclusion criteria have been enrolled in five Dermatology tertiary units. Demographic and clinical features of patients, type of treatment used, therapy discontinuation, failures, switch/swap to another biologic, and possible onset of AEs were collected. Overall, 512 patients with a diagnosis of psoriasis (286; 55.9%) or arthropathic psoriasis (226; 44.1%) have been enrolled. Eighty-two (16%) patients with AEs and 5 (1%) with SAEs have been identified. Further, 59 (11.5%) had a primary/secondary failure (mainly on infliximab and etanercept). The adverse events and SAEs were reported with golimumab (4/12), adalimumab (32/167), infliximab (9/48), etanercept (31/175) and ustekinumab (11/73), no adverse events have occurred with secukinumab (0/37). Infliximab and etanercept were significantly associated with primary/secondary failures, whereas no differences have been highlighted for AEs insurgence. On the other hand, ustekinumab seems to be associated with a low rate of AEs (p = 0.01) and no adverse events or failures have been reported with secukinumab (p = 0.04 and 0.03, respectively). Our study, even though limited by a small sample size and a brief follow-up period, provide useful data on widely used biologic drugs and their tolerability, discontinuation rate and the incurrence of severe adverse events. Further studies are necessary to include the recently approved biologic drugs and to increase the sample size for more detailed analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Luigi Francesco Iannone & Luigi Bennardo & Caterina Palleria & Roberta Roberti & Caterina De Sarro & Maria Diana Naturale & Stefano Dastoli & Luca Donato & Antonia Manti & Giancarlo Valenti & Domenico, 2020. "Safety profile of biologic drugs for psoriasis in clinical practice: An Italian prospective pharmacovigilance study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-11, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0241575
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241575
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0241575
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0241575&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0241575?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0241575. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.