Effectiveness of bimekizumab according to previous biologic exposure in patients with plaque psoriasis: a multicenter real-world study.
Biologic-naïve patients achieved faster and deeper responses to bimekizumab compared to those with prior biologic exposure, suggesting it may be beneficial to use this treatment earlier.
Where it sits
this study against the rest of the mazdutide (ibi362) corpusSummary and findings
This study evaluated the effectiveness of bimekizumab in patients with plaque psoriasis, comparing biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced groups. A total of 98 patients were analyzed, with outcomes measured using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) scores. Biologic-naïve patients achieved faster and deeper responses compared to those with prior biologic exposure.
Abstract
<h4>Objectives</h4>Bimekizumab, a dual interleukin (IL)-17A/IL-17F inhibitor, has demonstrated clinical efficacy in clinical trials. However, real-world evidence comparing outcomes according to previous biologic exposure remains limited. We evaluated the effectiveness of bimekizumab in biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced patients with plaque psoriasis, including high-impact body areas.<h4>Methods</h4>We retrospectively analyzed 98 patients treated with bimekizumab (23 biologic-naïve, 75 biologic-experienced). Outcomes included Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), PASI90 and PASI100 response rates, and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) scores for scalp, nail, genital, palmoplantar, and pretibial psoriasis. Biologic-experienced patients were further stratified by the number of prior biologics.<h4>Results</h4>Despite higher baseline PASI values (18.04 vs. 13.29; <i>p</i> = 0.021), biologic-naïve patients achieved significantly faster responses. At week 4, PASI reduction (85.5% vs. 62.5%; <i>p</i> < 0.001), PASI90 (50.0% vs. 13.3%; <i>p</i> = 0.001), and PASI100 (50.0% vs. 11.7%; <i>p</i> = 0.001) were significantly higher in biologic-naïve patients. Similar findings were observed in high-impact areas. Differences persisted through week 16 but disappeared from week 24 onward. Nevertheless, biologic-naïve patients maintained numerically higher response rates throughout follow-up. Previous biologic burden did not compromise long-term outcomes.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Bimekizumab showed sustained effectiveness regardless of prior biologic exposure. Nevertheless, biologic-naïve patients achieved faster and deeper responses, supporting earlier use of bimekizumab to maximize treatment benefit.
Background
This study addresses the effectiveness of bimekizumab, a dual interleukin (IL)-17A/IL-17F inhibitor, in treating plaque psoriasis. Prior clinical trials have shown its efficacy, but real-world evidence comparing outcomes based on previous biologic exposure is limited. Understanding how prior treatments affect the response to bimekizumab is important for optimizing treatment strategies.
Methods
This was a retrospective analysis of 98 patients with plaque psoriasis treated with bimekizumab, including 23 biologic-naïve and 75 biologic-experienced patients. Outcomes measured included PASI scores, PASI90, PASI100 response rates, and PGA scores for various affected areas. The study did not specify the duration of treatment or the specific dosing regimen.
Results
At week 4, biologic-naïve patients showed a PASI reduction of 85.5% compared to 62.5% in biologic-experienced patients, with a p-value of <0.001. PASI90 and PASI100 response rates were also significantly higher in biologic-naïve patients at 50.0% vs. 13.3% (p=0.001) and 50.0% vs. 11.7% (p=0.001), respectively. These differences were maintained through week 16 but not beyond week 24.
Interpretation
The findings suggest that biologic-naïve patients respond more rapidly and robustly to bimekizumab compared to those with prior biologic exposure. While the statistical significance is clear, the clinical significance of these differences may vary based on individual patient circumstances. Limitations such as the retrospective nature of the study and the potential for selection bias should be considered when interpreting the results.
Key findings
- Baseline PASI values were 18.04 vs. 13.29 in biologic-naïve vs. biologic-experienced patients, p=0.021.
- At week 4, PASI reduction was 85.5% vs. 62.5%, p<0.001.
- PASI90 response rates were 50.0% vs. 13.3% at week 4, p=0.001.
- PASI100 response rates were 50.0% vs. 11.7% at week 4, p=0.001.
- Differences in response rates persisted through week 16 but disappeared from week 24 onward.
Limitations
- Retrospective analysis may introduce selection bias.
- Follow-up duration may not be sufficient to assess long-term outcomes.
- Not reported in abstract.