Psoriasis Biologics: IL-17 vs IL-23 Inhibitors in Head-to-Head Trials

IL-17 Inhibitors: Secukinumab, Ixekizumab, Brodalumab, Bimekizumab
Biologic therapy for moderate-to-severe psoriasis has reached a point where complete or near-complete skin clearance is a realistic treatment goal for the majority of patients. The question facing the dermatologist is no longer whether biologics work — they do, dramatically — but which mechanism of action is optimal for a specific patient, how to sequence agents when the first choice fails, and how comorbidities influence selection. With head-to-head trial data now available for several key comparisons, the evidence base for making these decisions is more concrete than in any prior era of psoriasis management.
IL-17A inhibitors (secukinumab 300 mg, ixekizumab 80 mg) and the IL-17 receptor antagonist brodalumab 210 mg provide rapid and robust skin clearance. In the FIXTURE trial, secukinumab achieved PASI 90 in 59% at week 16[1]. Ixekizumab demonstrated PASI 90 of 71% at week 12 in UNCOVER-3[2]. Bimekizumab, a dual IL-17A/IL-17F inhibitor, achieved PASI 100 of 59% at week 16 in the BE READY trial[3], the highest complete clearance rate reported for any biologic. Oral candidiasis is the class-specific adverse event, occurring in 2-16% of patients (highest with bimekizumab at 16%)[4].
IL-23 Inhibitors: Guselkumab, Risankizumab, Tildrakizumab
IL-23p19 inhibitors target the upstream cytokine driving Th17 cell differentiation. Guselkumab (100 mg q8w after loading) achieved PASI 90 of 73% at week 48 in VOYAGE-1[5]. Risankizumab (150 mg q12w after loading) achieved PASI 90 of 75% at week 16 in UltIMMa-1 and UltIMMa-2[6]. Tildrakizumab (100 mg q12w) offers a more modest efficacy profile (PASI 90 of 35% at week 28 in reSURFACE-2)[7] but maintains a favorable safety record with the lowest injection frequency in the class. The IL-23 class is notable for exceptional durability, with rising PASI 90 rates through week 52 and beyond.
Head-to-Head Trials: The Key Comparisons
The IMMerge trial compared risankizumab versus secukinumab, showing risankizumab superiority at week 52 (PASI 90: 87% vs 57%, p<0.001)[8]. The ECLIPSE trial demonstrated guselkumab superiority over secukinumab at week 48 (PASI 90: 84% vs 70%, p<0.001)[9]. Bimekizumab showed superiority over secukinumab at week 16 (PASI 100: 61% vs 49%, p=0.011) in the BE RADIANT trial[10], though durability data favor IL-23 agents. The BE VIVID trial showed bimekizumab superiority over ustekinumab (PASI 90: 86% vs 47% at week 16)[11].
Selecting Between IL-17 and IL-23: Clinical Framework
IL-17 inhibitors offer faster onset (measurable within 1-2 weeks), making them preferred when rapid clearance is clinically important. IL-23 inhibitors offer superior durability with less frequent dosing and rising efficacy over time, making them ideal for long-term maintenance. For patients with concomitant psoriatic arthritis, both classes are effective, but IL-17 inhibitors have more extensive joint data. IL-17 agents are contraindicated in active inflammatory bowel disease (risk of IBD flare), making IL-23 inhibitors the preferred choice in patients with comorbid Crohn disease or ulcerative colitis.
Safety and Monitoring Considerations
Both IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitor classes have favorable long-term safety profiles based on 5+ years of extension study data. Neither class requires routine laboratory monitoring. The main differentiators are candidiasis risk (higher with IL-17, especially bimekizumab) and the theoretical IBD risk with IL-17 agents. Infection rates are comparable to TNF inhibitors without the elevated tuberculosis reactivation risk. For atopic dermatitis, dupilumab and JAK inhibitors offer additional options. Pre-treatment screening should include hepatitis B/C serologies, tuberculosis testing, and assessment for IBD symptoms. Live vaccines should be avoided during active treatment with either class.
Talking to Patients About Treatment Goals
Many psoriasis patients have lived for years with the expectation that their skin will never be fully clear. Biologic therapy has changed this reality, and setting appropriate goals at the outset matters. In the era of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors, the treatment target should be near-complete clearance — not "better than before" but a skin state where the disease does not interfere with daily life, clothing choices, or self-image. Patients should understand that it may take several months to see the full benefit (particularly with IL-23 agents, which build efficacy over time) and that if the first biologic does not achieve the desired response, switching mechanism or agent is a standard and effective strategy.
Limitations and Evolving Questions
Despite the wealth of head-to-head data, several clinically relevant comparisons remain unaddressed. There are no large direct trials comparing IL-23 inhibitors to each other (risankizumab versus guselkumab), and the optimal approach when a patient fails one IL-23 agent — switch within class or change mechanism — is based on clinical judgment rather than randomized evidence. Whether the higher candidiasis rate with bimekizumab represents a clinically significant safety concern or a manageable adverse effect that is outweighed by its superior clearance rates is a question that longer-term real-world data will help resolve. And the cost of biologic therapy remains a significant barrier that prevents many eligible patients from accessing these treatments at all.
References
- Secukinumab in plaque psoriasis - results of two phase 3 trials (ERASURE and FIXTURE)
- Phase 3 Trials of Ixekizumab in Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis (UNCOVER-1, -2, -3)
- Bimekizumab efficacy and safety in moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (BE READY)
- Bimekizumab efficacy and safety in moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (BE READY)
- Efficacy and safety of guselkumab compared with adalimumab for continuous treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis (VOYAGE 1)
- Efficacy and safety of risankizumab in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (UltIMMa-1 and UltIMMa-2)
- Tildrakizumab versus placebo or etanercept for chronic plaque psoriasis (reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2)
- Efficacy and safety of risankizumab vs. secukinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (IMMerge)
- Guselkumab versus secukinumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis (ECLIPSE)
- Bimekizumab versus Secukinumab in Plaque Psoriasis (BE RADIANT)
- Bimekizumab versus ustekinumab for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (BE VIVID)
Frequently Asked Questions
Which psoriasis biologic has the highest PASI 100 rate?
Does risankizumab outperform secukinumab in head-to-head trials?
When should IL-17 inhibitors be avoided in psoriasis?
Which biologic class offers better long-term durability for psoriasis?
What monitoring is required for psoriasis biologics?
Explore This Topic in Ailva
Ailva is a free clinical intelligence platform for NPI-verified US physicians. Get evidence-based answers with verified citations from 16M+ indexed papers — plus free CME credits.

Founder of Ailva.ai | Former Director of Research and Author of 200+ Medically Reviewed Articles | Editor-in-Chief of EudaLife Magazine