RECORD STATUS: None CITATION: Department of Science and Technology - Brazilian Health Technology Assessment General Coordination. Efalizumabe para o tratamento da psoriase. [Efalizumab in treating psoriasis] Brasilia: Secretaria de Ciencia, Tecnologia e Insumos Estrategicos, Departamento de Ciencia e Tecnologia (DECIT-CGATS ). No 180. 2005

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety, tolerability and cost-effectiveness of etanercept and efalizumab for the treatment of moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis. DATA SOURCES: Major electronic databases and several Internet resources were searched up to April 2004. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews were undertaken of the efficacy, safety and economic reviews of etanercept and efalizumab. An existing systematic review of the efficacy and safety of other treatments was also updated. Economic models supplied by the manufacturers of etanercept and efalizumab were critiqued. An economic model was then developed of etanercept and efalizumab in the treatment of moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis. RESULTS: The review of the clinical evidence identified a total of 39 published and three unpublished studies: eight randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the efficacy of etanercept (three trials) and efalizumab (five); 10 studies of the adverse effects of the interventions; and 24 RCTs of the efficacy of the other treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis. The trials of the efficacy of the interventions were all double-blind and placebo-controlled trials and generally of good quality, but three of the five efalizumab trials were poorly reported. A total of 1347 patients were included in the etanercept trials and 2963 in the efalizumab trials. Data on the efficacy of etanercept 25 mg twice a week for 12 weeks were available from three RCTs. On average, active treatment resulted in 62% of patients achieving a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 50, 33% achieving a PASI 75, 11% achieving a PASI 90 and 40% were assessed as clear or almost clear. These figures are not adjusted for changes relative to placebo. Improvement in quality of life as assessed by mean percentage change in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) was around 59% with etanercept 25 mg twice a week compared with 9% with placebo, and all mean differences that could be calculated were statistically significantly in favour of etanercept. Data on the efficacy of etanercept 50 mg twice a week for 12 weeks were available from two RCTs. Across the two trials, the proportion of patients achieving PASI 50, 75 and 90 was 76, 49 and 21%, respectively; the pooled relative risks were all statistically significantly in favour of etanercept. The findings for mean PASI after treatment, mean percentage change in PASI from baseline and mean percentage change in DLQI also demonstrated the efficacy of etanercept treatment. Evidence from one RCT indicates that the response to etanercept is maintained post-treatment, at least in the medium term, and data from uncontrolled follow-up phases reflect and extend these findings. Efalizumab at a dose of 1 mg/kg once a week subcutaneously was studied in five RCTs. Across these trials, 12 weeks of active treatment resulted in an average of 55% of patients achieving PASI 50, 27% PASI 75, 4.3% PASI 90 and 27% clear or minimal psoriasis status. These figures are not adjusted for changes relative to placebo. There is no evidence from RCTs that the response to efalizumab 1 mg/kg once a week is maintained when treatment continues beyond 12 weeks, and long-term follow-up data relate to a range of doses and are poorly reported and so cannot be used to draw even tentative conclusions regarding the long-term efficacy of efalizumab. Uncontrolled data from trial follow-up suggest that time to relapse may be around 60 days. No data indicating the existence or absence of any rebound in psoriasis after discontinuation of efalizumab were identified. There is no evidence relating to the efficacy of efalizumab upon retreatment. A mixed treatment comparison analysis found a higher response rate in terms of PASI 50, 75 and 90 with etanercept than with efalizumab. Injection site reactions appear to be the most common adverse effects of etanercept. Overall, etanercept appears to be well tolerated in short- and long-term use, although many of the long-term data are not from patients with psoriasis. Headache, chills and, to a lesser extent, nausea, myalgia, pain and fever are the common adverse events associated with efalizumab. Overall, withdrawal rates due to adverse events are low. Longer term data for efalizumab are not readily available for evaluation, but the adverse events data up to 3 years appear to reflect those over 12 weeks and to remain stable. Unfortunately, few data for serious infections and serious adverse events with efalizumab are available. For the primary analysis comparing etanercept, efalizumab and supportive care, the results of the York Model suggest that the biological therapies would only be cost-effective for all patients with moderate to severe psoriasis if the NHS were willing to pay over pound60,000 per QALY gained. In patients with poor baseline quality of life (fourth quartile DLQI), efalizumab, etanercept 25 mg (intermittent), etanercept 25 mg (continuous) and etanercept 50 mg (intermittent) would be cost-effective as part of a treatment sequence if the NHS were willing to pay pound45,000, pound35,000, pound45,000 and pound65,000 per QALY gained, respectively. In patients who are also at high risk of inpatient hospitalisation (21 days per annum), these therapies would be cost-effective as part of a sequence as long as the NHS were willingness to pay pound25,000, pound20,000, pound25,000 and pound45,000 per QALY gained, respectively. As part of a secondary analysis including a wider range of systemic therapies as comparators, the York Model found that it would only be cost-effective to use etanercept and efalizumab in a sequence after methotrexate, ciclosporin and Fumaderm. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trial data indicate that both etanercept and efalizumab are efficacious in patients who are eligible for systemic therapy, but the economic evaluation demonstrates that these biological therapies are likely to be cost-effective only in patients with poor baseline QoL and who are at risk of hospitalisation. Efficacy trials conducted in the specific population for which etanercept and efalizumab are licensed are required, as are long-term comparisons of etanercept and efalizumab with other treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis. Long-term efficacy trials and safety/tolerability data for patients treated with etanercept or efalizumab are required, as are trials on the response of specific subtypes of psoriasis to different drugs. Research on the rate of inpatient hospitalisation in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis is warranted, and the effect of treatment on this rate.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety, tolerability and cost-effectiveness of etanercept and efalizumab for the treatment of moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis. DATA SOURCES: Major electronic databases and several Internet resources were searched up to April 2004. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews were undertaken of the efficacy, safety and economic reviews of etanercept and efalizumab. An existing systematic review of the efficacy and safety of other treatments was also updated. Economic models supplied by the manufacturers of etanercept and efalizumab were critiqued. An economic model was then developed of etanercept and efalizumab in the treatment of moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis. RESULTS: The review of the clinical evidence identified a total of 39 published and three unpublished studies: eight randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the efficacy of etanercept (three trials) and efalizumab (five); 10 studies of the adverse effects of the interventions; and 24 RCTs of the efficacy of the other treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis. The trials of the efficacy of the interventions were all double-blind and placebo-controlled trials and generally of good quality, but three of the five efalizumab trials were poorly reported. A total of 1347 patients were included in the etanercept trials and 2963 in the efalizumab trials. Data on the efficacy of etanercept 25 mg twice a week for 12 weeks were available from three RCTs. On average, active treatment resulted in 62% of patients achieving a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 50, 33% achieving a PASI 75, 11% achieving a PASI 90 and 40% were assessed as clear or almost clear. These figures are not adjusted for changes relative to placebo. Improvement in quality of life as assessed by mean percentage change in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) was around 59% with etanercept 25 mg twice a week compared with 9% with placebo, and all mean differences that could be calculated were statistically significantly in favour of etanercept. Data on the efficacy of etanercept 50 mg twice a week for 12 weeks were available from two RCTs. Across the two trials, the proportion of patients achieving PASI 50, 75 and 90 was 76, 49 and 21%, respectively; the pooled relative risks were all statistically significantly in favour of etanercept. The findings for mean PASI after treatment, mean percentage change in PASI from baseline and mean percentage change in DLQI also demonstrated the efficacy of etanercept treatment. Evidence from one RCT indicates that the response to etanercept is maintained post-treatment, at least in the medium term, and data from uncontrolled follow-up phases reflect and extend these findings. Efalizumab at a dose of 1 mg/kg once a week subcutaneously was studied in five RCTs. Across these trials, 12 weeks of active treatment resulted in an average of 55% of patients achieving PASI 50, 27% PASI 75, 4.3% PASI 90 and 27% clear or minimal psoriasis status. These figures are not adjusted for changes relative to placebo. There is no evidence from RCTs that the response to efalizumab 1 mg/kg once a week is maintained when treatment continues beyond 12 weeks, and long-term follow-up data relate to a range of doses and are poorly reported and so cannot be used to draw even tentative conclusions regarding the long-term efficacy of efalizumab. Uncontrolled data from trial follow-up suggest that time to relapse may be around 60 days. No data indicating the existence or absence of any rebound in psoriasis after discontinuation of efalizumab were identified. There is no evidence relating to the efficacy of efalizumab upon retreatment. A mixed treatment comparison analysis found a higher response rate in terms of PASI 50, 75 and 90 with etanercept than with efalizumab. Injection site reactions appear to be the most common adverse effects of etanercept. Overall, etanercept appears to be well tolerated in short- and long-term use, although many of the long-term data are not from patients with psoriasis. Headache, chills and, to a lesser extent, nausea, myalgia, pain and fever are the common adverse events associated with efalizumab. Overall, withdrawal rates due to adverse events are low. Longer term data for efalizumab are not readily available for evaluation, but the adverse events data up to 3 years appear to reflect those over 12 weeks and to remain stable. Unfortunately, few data for serious infections and serious adverse events with efalizumab are available. For the primary analysis comparing etanercept, efalizumab and supportive care, the results of the York Model suggest that the biological therapies would only be cost-effective for all patients with moderate to severe psoriasis if the NHS were willing to pay over pound60,000 per QALY gained. In patients with poor baseline quality of life (fourth quartile DLQI), efalizumab, etanercept 25 mg (intermittent), etanercept 25 mg (continuous) and etanercept 50 mg (intermittent) would be cost-effective as part of a treatment sequence if the NHS were willing to pay pound45,000, pound35,000, pound45,000 and pound65,000 per QALY gained, respectively. In patients who are also at high risk of inpatient hospitalisation (21 days per annum), these therapies would be cost-effective as part of a sequence as long as the NHS were willingness to pay pound25,000, pound20,000, pound25,000 and pound45,000 per QALY gained, respectively. As part of a secondary analysis including a wider range of systemic therapies as comparators, the York Model found that it would only be cost-effective to use etanercept and efalizumab in a sequence after methotrexate, ciclosporin and Fumaderm. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trial data indicate that both etanercept and efalizumab are efficacious in patients who are eligible for systemic therapy, but the economic evaluation demonstrates that these biological therapies are likely to be cost-effective only in patients with poor baseline QoL and who are at risk of hospitalisation. Efficacy trials conducted in the specific population for which etanercept and efalizumab are licensed are required, as are long-term comparisons of etanercept and efalizumab with other treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis. Long-term efficacy trials and safety/tolerability data for patients treated with etanercept or efalizumab are required, as are trials on the response of specific subtypes of psoriasis to different drugs. Research on the rate of inpatient hospitalisation in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis is warranted, and the effect of treatment on this rate.

RECORD STATUS: None CITATION: Efalizumab and etanercept for the treatment of psoriasis.. University of York.

RECORD STATUS: None CITATION: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Etanercept and efalizumab for the treatment of adults with psoriasis. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Technology Appraisal Guidance 103. 2006

CRD SUMMARY: This 2006 review found that etanercept and efalizumab were efficacious for patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis, but they were only likely to be cost-effective for patients with a poor quality of life before treatment, who were at risk of hospitalisation. Long-term trials and trials comparing the drugs were needed. The mixed-treatment comparison favoured etanercept.

RECORD STATUS: None CITATION: Woolacott N, Hawkins N, Mason A, Kainth A, Khadjesari Z, Bravo Vergel Y, Misso K, Light K, Chalmers R, Sculpher M, Riemsma R. Etanercept and efalizumab for the treatment of psoriasis: a systematic review. Health Technology Assessment 2006; 10(46): 1-252

BACKGROUND: Interactions between leukocyte-function-associated antigen type 1 (LFA-1) and intercellular adhesion molecules are important in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. Efalizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody, binds to the alpha subunit (CD11a) of LFA-1 and inhibits the activation of T cells. METHODS: In a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, we assign 597 subjects with psoriasis to receive subcutaneous efalizumab (1 or 2 mg per kilogram of body weight per week) or placebo for 12 weeks. Depending on the response after 12 weeks, subjects received an additional 12 weeks of treatment with efalizumab or placebo. Study treatments were discontinued at week 24, and subjects were followed for an additional 12 weeks. RESULTS: At week 12, there was an improvement of 75 percent or more in the psoriasis area-and-severity index in 22 percent of the subjects who had received 1 mg of efalizumab per kilogram per week and 28 percent of those who had received 2 mg of efalizumab per kilogram per week, as compared with 5 percent of the subjects in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Efalizumab-treated subjects had greater improvement than those in the placebo group as early as week 4 (P<0.001). Among the efalizumab-treated subjects who had an improvement of 75 percent or more at week 12, improvement was maintained through week 24 in 77 percent of those who continued to receive efalizumab, as compared with 20 percent of those who were switched to placebo (P<0.001 for both comparisons). After the discontinuation of efalizumab at week 24, an improvement of 50 percent or more in the psoriasis area-and-severity index was maintained in approximately 30 percent of subjects during the 12 weeks of follow-up. Efalizumab was well tolerated, and adverse events were generally mild to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Efalizumab therapy resulted in significant improvements in plaque psoriasis in subjects with moderate-to-severe disease. Extending treatment from 12 to 24 weeks resulted in both maintenance and improvement of responses.

CONTEXT: Because T-cell interactions are involved in the pathophysiology of psoriasis, therapy with a T-cell modulator may have beneficial effects on psoriasis severity and health-related quality of life (HRQL). OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of efalizumab, a T-cell modulator, in patients with plaque psoriasis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Phase 3 randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial involving 556 adult patients with stable, moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and conducted at 30 study centers in the United States and Canada between January and July 2002. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive 12 weekly doses of subcutaneous efalizumab, 1 mg/kg (n = 369), or placebo equivalent (n = 187). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: At least 75% improvement on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-75); improvement on the overall Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Itching Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and Psoriasis Symptom Assessment (PSA) at week 12 vs baseline. RESULTS: Efalizumab-treated patients experienced significantly greater improvement on all end points than placebo-treated patients. Twenty-seven percent of efalizumab-treated patients achieved PASI-75 vs 4% of the placebo group ( P<.001). Efalizumab-treated patients exhibited significantly greater mean percentage improvement than placebo-treated patients on the overall DLQI (47% vs 14%; P<.001), Itching VAS (38% vs -0.2%; P<.001), and PSA frequency and severity subscales (48% vs 18% and 47% vs 17%, respectively; P<.001 for both) at the first assessment point. Efalizumab was safe and well tolerated, with primarily mild to moderate adverse events. CONCLUSION: In this 12-week study, efalizumab resulted in significant improvements in clinical end points, including physician-assessed and dermatology-specific patient-reported HRQL measures, in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: The relatively recent introduction of biological agents to treat psoriasis presents clinicians with the need to objectively compare and contrast these agents to allow more effective treatment of their patients. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of biological agents in the treatment of plaque psoriasis. METHODS: (i) DATA SOURCES: Four parallel systematic reviews conducted through July 2006, including peer-reviewed data and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports. (ii) STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled, double-blind, monotherapy trials of alefacept (n = 3), efalizumab (n = 5), etanercept (n = 4) and infliximab (n = 4); 16 studies comprising 7931 patients met inclusion criteria. (iii) DATA EXTRACTION: Efficacy was measured by Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 achievement after 10-14 weeks of treatment, using intention-to-treat analysis. Safety was evaluated by the incidence of one or more adverse event(s) (AEs) and serious adverse event(s) (SAEs) during 10-30 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Pooled relative risk (RR) and number needed to treat (NNT) of PASI 75 achievement compared with placebo was computed using Mantel-Haenszel methods and the random effects model. All biological agents for psoriasis were efficacious (P < 0.001); however, there was a graded response for achievement of PASI 75: infliximab (RR = 17.40, NNT = 2), etanercept (RR = 11.73, NNT = 3), efalizumab (RR = 7.34, NNT = 4) and alefacept (RR = 3.70, NNT = 8). The risk of one or more AEs was evaluated by RR and number needed to harm (NNH). This was increased in the alefacept (RR = 1.09, P = 0.03, NNH = 15), efalizumab (RR = 1.15, P < 0.001, NNH = 9) and infliximab (RR = 1.18, P < 0.001, NNH = 9) groups compared with placebo. SAEs were increased in a sensitivity analysis of four efalizumab trials (n = 2443, RR = 1.92, P = 0.03, NNH = 60). CONCLUSIONS: The decreasing rank order for pooled efficacy was infliximab, etanercept, efalizumab and alefacept when compared with placebo. Pooling safety data revealed a previously unreported increased risk of AEs for alefacept, efalizumab and infliximab.