Impact on quality of life and satisfaction with apremilast in patients with moderate plaque psoriasis: 52-week results of the UNVEIL study

Document Type

Conference Proceeding

Publication Date


Publication Title

J Clin Aesthet Dermatol


Background/Objective: Patients with moderate plaque psoriasis (i.e., 5–10% psoriasis-involved body surface area [BSA]) often receive no treatment or are undertreated with topical monotherapy. Patients with moderate psoriasis often report substantial impairments in disease-related quality of life (QoL), despite having lower psoriasis-involved BSA. Among the symptoms of psoriasis, pruritus is a key contributor to QoL impairments. Apremilast, an oral, small-molecule phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, improved QoL and disease severity, with acceptable tolerability, in Phase III clinical studies of patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Evaluating Apremilast in a Phase IV Trial of Efficacy and Safety in Patients With Moderate Plaque Psoriasis (UNVEIL; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02425826), the first prospective, randomized, placebo (PBO)-controlled trial in systemic- and biologic-naive patients with moderate plaque psoriasis, demonstrated that apremilast 30mg twice-daily (APR) was effective, generally well tolerated, and had a positive impact on QoL during the 16-week, double-blind, PBO-controlled phase. The improvements in QoL and pruritus as well as treatment satisfaction are described for the open-label APR treatment phase (Weeks 16 to 52) of UNVEIL.

Methods: UNVEIL is a Phase IV, multicenter, randomized, PBO-controlled, double-blind study. Adult men and women with chronic plaque psoriasis for at least six months before screening were included in the study. Moderate plaque psoriasis at screening and baseline as defined by a BSA of 5 to 10 percent and static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) of 3 (moderate) based on a scale ranging from 0 (clear) to 5 (very severe). Subject selected had no prior exposure to systemic or biologic treatments for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or any other condition that could affect the assessment of psoriasis. Exclusion criteria included presence of inflammatory or dermatologic conditions, including forms of psoriasis other than plaque psoriasis. Individuals who had undergone topical therapy within two weeks or phototherapy within four weeks of randomization were also excluded. Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive APR or PBO during Weeks 0 to 16; patients in the PBO group were switched to APR at Week 16. All patients continued taking APR through Week 52. An unmedicated moisturizer was the only topical therapy permitted during the study.

Patients completed the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Pruritus Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version II. QoL was assessed with the DLQI, a validated instrument containing ten items pertaining to the skin and designed to assess QoL in a dermatology clinical setting. QoL endpoints included mean change from baseline in DLQI total score at Week 16 and Week 52, proportion of patients with baseline DLQI greater than 5 who achieved DLQI response (i.e., minimal clinically important difference [MCID] defined as a 5-point improvement from baseline in DLQI total score among patients with baseline DLQI >5). Pruritus was assessed on a 100mm VAS ranging from “no itch” (0) to “itch as severe as can be imagined” (100). Pruritus endpoints included mean change from baseline in pruritus VAS at Week 16 and Week 52. Treatment satisfaction was assessed using the TSQM Version II, a validated, self-administered, 11-question instrument designed to evaluate patient satisfaction with current treatment. An algorithm was used to transform scores to a 0- to 100-scale for effectiveness, side effects, convenience, and global satisfaction, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. Mean TSQM scores for effectiveness, side effects, convenience, and global satisfaction were assessed at Week 16 and Week 52. Safety was evaluated based on adverse events (AEs), vital signs, clinical laboratory testing, and complete physical examinations. QOL, pruritus, and treatment satisfaction assessments at Week 16 were conducted for the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, which included all randomized patients. At Week 52, efficacy analyses were performed in the modified ITT population (all patients who entered the APR extension phase and were treated). Safety assessments were conducted in all randomized patients who received one dose of study medication. Changes from baseline in DLQI total score and pruritus VAS score at Week 16 were compared between the APR and PBO groups using a two-way analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with treatment and site as factors and baseline value as a covariate. The proportions of patients achieving a DLQI response at Week 16 were compared between groups using a two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by site. Mean TSQM scores at Week 16 were compared between treatment groups by ANOVA with treatment and site as factors. QOL, pruritus, and treatment satisfaction parameters at Week 52 were evaluated descriptively. The last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) methodology was used to impute missing values. Safety assessments were summarized using frequencies and percentages.

Results: A total of 221 patients were randomized to study treatment, constituting the ITT population; 185 patients (84%) completed the PBO-controlled phase (Weeks 0–16) and 136/185 patients (74%) completed the APR treatment phase (Weeks 16–52). Demographics and baseline disease characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups. At baseline, mean DLQI total score was comparable between treatment groups, and mean pruritus VAS score was slightly higher in the PBO group. At Week 16, improvement from baseline in DLQI total score was significantly greater with APR than with PBO (-4.8 vs. -2.4; P=0.0008). Significantly more patients with a baseline DLQI total score greater than 5 who received APR versus PBO achieved the DLQI MCID at Week 16 (63.8% vs. 34.5%; P=0.0009). At Week 52, improvement in DLQI total score was maintained in patients who were randomized to APR and then continued on APR during the open-label APR treatment phase (mean change from baseline: -4.4). Patients who switched from PBO to APR at Week 16 achieved similar improvements in DLQI total score at Week 52 (mean change from baseline: -5.1). Among patients who were initially randomized to APR at baseline, the percentages of patients who achieved DLQI MCID at Week 16 were maintained over 52 weeks. At Week 16, mean change from baseline in pruritus VAS score was -19.2mm in the APR group and -10.2mm in the PBO group (P=0.0016). The improvement in pruritus VAS score was maintained at Week 52 in patients who continued on APR, and mean VAS score improved in those switched from PBO to APR. At Week 16, treatment effectiveness, as measured by the TSQM, was significantly greater with APR than with PBO (P<0.0001). Global satisfaction also favored APR over PBO (P<0.0001), whereas satisfaction with side effects (P=0.34) and convenience (P=0.63) did not differ between treatment groups. At Week 52, levels of satisfaction were maintained on all domains. The most common AEs reported with APR treatment from 0 to 52 weeks included diarrhea, nausea, headache, and nasopharyngitis; most AEs were mild or moderate in severity. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIR) per 100 patient-years did not increase with longer exposure up to 52 weeks. No new safety or tolerability signals were observed up to 52 weeks.

Conclusion: APR improved QoL and reduced pruritus at Week 16 in systemic- and biologic-naive patients with moderate plaque psoriasis (BSA 5–10%); these improvements were maintained over 52 weeks with continued APR treatment. The beneficial effects of APR on QoL and pruritus were consistent with those previously reported in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in randomized Phase III trials. Global treatment satisfaction was greater with APR than with PBO at Week 16, and satisfaction remained high over 52 weeks of APR treatment. The safety and tolerability of APR was consistent with previous studies. No new safety or tolerability issues were observed with APR treatment up to Week 52.

Funding/Disclosures: The authors acknowledge financial support for this study from Celgene Corporation. Linda Stein Gold is an investigator and/or consultant for Celgene Corporation. Seth Forman provides research support for Celgene Corporation. Mark Lebwohl is affiliated with Mount Sinai, which receives funds from Celgene Corporation. J. Mark Jackson is a consultant, receives honoraria from, provides research support and/or other support to Celgene Corporation. Joana Goncalves and Eugenia Levi are employees of the Celgene Corporation. Jerry Bagel is an advisory board member, speaker, consultant, and/or provider of research support for Celgene Corporation.





First Page


This document is currently not available here.