All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a healthcare professional.

  TRANSLATE

The PsOPsA Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the PsOPsA Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The PsOPsA Hub and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.

The PsOPsA Hub is an independent medical education platform. This activity is supported by an educational grant from Lilly. The funders are allowed no direct influence on our content. 

Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients

Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.

Find out more

IMMpactful phase IV: Risankizumab vs deucravacitinib in moderate plaque PsO

By Amy Hopkins

Share:

Jun 4, 2026

Learning objective: After reading this article, learners will be able to cite a new clinical development in psoriasis.


Results from period A of the phase IV IMMpactful trial (NCT06333860) comparing risankizumab with deucravacitinib in 393 adults with moderate plaque psoriasis (PsO) who were biologic-naïve and candidates for systemic therapy were published in Dermatology and Therapy by Magnolo et al. The coprimary endpoints were achievement of ≥90% improvement from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI90) and static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) 0/1 with ≥2-grade improvement from baseline at Week 16.  

Key data: At Week 16, a significantly higher proportion of patients treated with risankizumab vs deucravacitinib achieved the coprimary endpoints of PASI90 (57.3% vs 22.9%; p < 0.0001) and sPGA 0/1 (80.2% vs 39.7%; p < 0.0001). PASI100 (27.5% vs 6.5%; p < 0.0001) and sPGA 0 (27.5% vs 6.9%; p < 0.0001) were also achieved by more patients receiving risankizumab vs deucravacitinib. A greater proportion of patients receiving risankizumab achieved a Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of 0/1 (p < 0.0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 33.6% and 42.9% of patients receiving risankizumab and deucravacitinib, respectively, with no new safety signals. 

Key learning: Risankizumab demonstrated superior 16-week skin clearance and patient-reported outcomes compared with deucravacitinib, supporting its use as a preferred first-line systemic option.

References

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:

The content was clear and easy to understand

The content addressed the learning objectives

The content was relevant to my practice

I will change my clinical practice as a result of this content