4.6 Article

Certolizumab pegol for the treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis: Results through 48 weeks of a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, etanercept-and placebo-controlled study (CIMPACT)

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.04.013

关键词

anti-TNF; antietumor necrosis factor; certolizumab pegol; chronic plaque psoriasis; CIMPACT; etanercept; phase 3 trial

资金

  1. Dermira Inc
  2. UCB Inc.
  3. UCB

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Phase 2 psoriasis studies with the Fc-free, PEGylated, anti-tumor necrosis factor biologic certolizumab pegol demonstrated meaningful clinical activity. Objective: Assess safety and efficacy of certolizumab in adults with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis. Methods: Patients were randomized 3: 3: 1: 3 to certolizumab 400 mg, certolizumab 200 mg, or placebo every 2 weeks for 16 weeks or etanercept 50 mg twice weekly for 12 weeks. Certolizumab-treated patients achieving a >= 75% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) at week 16 from baseline PASI were rerandomized to certolizumab or placebo for 32 weeks. The primary endpoint was responder rate (>= 75% reduction in PASI from baseline PASI) versus placebo (primary analysis) and etanercept (secondary analysis) at week 12; secondary endpoints included responder rates on various measures versus placebo at weeks 12, 16, and 48. Safety was assessed by treatment-emergent adverse events. Results: All endpoints were significantly greater for certolizumab versus placebo with the greatest response seen with 400 mg. Certolizumab 400 mg was superior to and 200 mg was noninferior to etanercept. Adverse events were consistent with the anti-tumor necrosis factor class of drugs. Limitations: Etanercept was administered by unblinded study staff or self-administered, but efficacy assessments were performed by a blinded assessor. Conclusion: Both certolizumab regimens improved psoriasis symptoms, with a greater response seen with the higher dose. No new safety signals were observed.

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