Tratamiento de la psoriasis del cuero cabelludo. Revisión de la evidencia y Consenso Delphi del Grupo de Psoriasis de la Academia Española de Dermatología y Venereología

The Use of Apremilast in Psoriasis: A Delphi Study

BACKGROUND

Experience in the use of apremilast in clinical practice complements the information available from pivotal clinical trials.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Following a review of the literature, a panel of dermatologists with expertise in the management of psoriasis considered 5 scenarios in which the evidence supporting the use of apremilast to treat moderate psoriasis is insufficient or controversial. These scenarios were then assessed using a Delphi questionnaire.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on 96 (67%) of the 143 items (positive in 85 and negative in 11). The therapeutic goal for apremilast should be based on 4 outcomes: clinical response, symptoms, quality of life, and patient satisfaction. The scenario in which the use of apremilast was considered to have the greatest possibility of success was in patients with stable moderate psoriasis. Most of the clinicians considered apremilast to be an appropriate treatment when conventional therapies fail or are contraindicated, preferably before the prescription of biologic therapy. Consensus was reached that apremilast is an appropriate treatment for psoriasis in difficult locations, such as the scalp or the palms and soles. It was also agreed that apremilast requires less prescreening and monitoring than other conventional and biologic systemic therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Apremilast could be a treatment option for patients with a different profile to that of clinical trial participants. The limitations of this proposal are the absence of consensus on the definition of moderate psoriasis, the lack of real-world evidence on the use of apremilast, and certain aspects related to tolerability.

Latin American Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Systemic Treatment of Psoriasis SOLAPSO - Sociedad Latinoamericana de Psoriasis (Latin American Psoriasis Society)

This Clinical Practice Guideline on the systemic treatment of Psoriasis includes the recommendations elaborated by a panel of experts from the Latin American Psoriasis Society SOLAPSO, who assessed the quality of the available evidence using the GRADE system and the PICO process to guide the literature search. To answer each question, the experts discussed the results of randomized controlled trials, observational studies and metanalysis evaluating the interventions identified (non-biologics, biologics and phototherapy) in different populations of patients with moderate to severe plaque-psoriasis, which was summarized in Tables ad-hoc. The main end-points considered to assess efficacy were PASI 50, 75, 90 and 100, PGA 0-1 and significant improvement of health-related quality of life. Specific adverse events, either severe or leading to treatment interruption, were also evaluated. The 31 recommendations included in this CPG follow the structure proposed by GRADE: direction (for or against) and strength (strong or weak). The goal of this CPG is to improve the management of patients with psoriasis by recommending interventions of proved benefit and providing a reference standard for the treating physician. Adhering to the contents of this CPG does not guarantee therapeutic success. The final decision on the specific treatment is the responsibility of the physician based on the individual circumstances and considering the values, the preferences and the opinions of the patient or caregivers.

Expert Recommendations on Treating Psoriasis in Special Circumstances (Part II)

BACKGROUND

There is insufficient information on how best to treat moderate to severe psoriasis in difficult clinical circumstances.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We considered 5 areas where there is conflicting or insufficient evidence: pediatric psoriasis, risk of infection in patients being treated with biologics, psoriasis in difficult locations, biologic drug survival, and impact of disease on quality of life. Following discussion of the issues by an expert panel of dermatologists specialized in the management of psoriasis, participants answered a questionnaire survey according to the Delphi method.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on 66 (70.9%) of the 93 items analyzed; the experts agreed with 49 statements and disagreed with 17. It was agreed that body mass index, metabolic comorbidities, and quality of life should be monitored in children with psoriasis. The experts also agreed that the most appropriate systemic treatment for this age group was methotrexate, while the most appropriate biologic treatment was etanercept. Although it was recognized that the available evidence was inconsistent and difficult to extrapolate, the panel agreed that biologic drug survival could be increased by flexible, individualized dosing regimens, continuous treatment, and combination therapies. Finally, consensus was reached on using the Dermatology Quality of Life Index to assess treatment effectiveness and aid decision-making in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

The structured opinion of experts guides decision-making regarding aspects of clinical practice for which there is incomplete or conflicting information.

Consensus document on the evaluation and treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis: Psoriasis Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology

Psoriasis is a highly prevalent disease with a major impact on quality of life; therefore, appropriate patient management is mandatory. Given that many issues in psoriasis are controversial and not clearly defined by evidence-based medicine, management of psoriasis is very variable. Expert consensus can generate practical guidelines for optimization of patient care. Much has changed since 2009, when the Consensus Document on the Evaluation and Treatment of Moderate to Severe Psoriasis was published by the Spanish Psoriasis Group (GEP) of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (AEDV). The objective of the present consensus document is to provide the dermatologist with updated recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. All active members of the GEP of the AEDV were invited to participate in the survey. The final group comprised 46 members from various areas of Spain and with substantial experience in managing psoriasis. A 3-round Delphi process was used to reach consensus. Consistent agreement and consistent disagreement (consensus) required the achievement of at least two of the following three criteria: Criterion 1, which was based on the position occupied by the mean on a scale of 1-9 and an SD <2; Criterion 2, which was based on the median and interquartile range (IQR) on a scale of 1-9; Criterion 3, which considered the percentage of the voting experts on a scale of 1-9. The items studied were definition of severity, therapeutic objectives, indications for systemic treatment and biologic therapy, induction and maintenance periods, therapeutic failure, loss of response, relapse and rebound, continuous and intermittent therapy, screening of patients before treatment, adherence to therapy, follow-up of treatment outcome, combination of drugs, transitioning and associated comorbidities. Consistent agreement or disagreement (consensus) was achieved for 198 items (agreement, 3 criteria 146 items, 2 criteria 43 items; disagreement, 3 criteria 9 items, 2 criteria 0 items) based on the criteria described above. Completion of the Delphi consensus process enabled a broad and experienced group of Spanish psoriasis experts to provide useful and practical guidelines for the management and treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, particularly in areas where evidence is lacking.

Topical treatments for scalp psoriasis

BACKGROUND

People with chronic plaque psoriasis often have lesions on the scalp. Hair makes the scalp difficult to treat and the adjacent facial skin is particularly sensitive to topical treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of topical treatments for scalp psoriasis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to August 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974) and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched five trials registers, screened abstracts of six psoriasis-specific conferences and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a parallel-group, cross-over or within-patient design of topical treatments for people of all ages with scalp psoriasis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently carried out study selection, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment. Disagreements were settled by reference to a third author.To assess the quality of evidence, we focused on the following outcomes: 'clearance' or 'response' as assessed by the investigator global assessment (IGA), improvement in quality of life, adverse events requiring withdrawal of treatment and 'response' as assessed by the patient global assessment (PGA).We expressed the results of the single studies as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. If studies were sufficiently homogeneous, we meta-analysed the data by using the random-effects model. Where it was not possible to calculate a point estimate for a single study, we described the data qualitatively. We also presented the number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB).We categorised topical corticosteroids according to the German classification of corticosteroid potency as mild, moderate, high and very high.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 59 RCTs with a total of 11,561 participants. Thirty studies were either conducted or sponsored by the manufacturer of the study medication. The risk of bias varied considerably among the included studies. For instance, most authors did not state the randomisation method and few addressed allocation concealment. Most findings were limited to short-term treatments, since most studies were conducted for less than six months. Only one trial investigated long-term therapy (12 months). Although we found a wide variety of different interventions, we limited the grading of the quality of evidence to three major comparisons: steroid versus vitamin D, two-compound combination of steroid and vitamin D versus steroid monotherapy and versus vitamin D.In terms of clearance, as assessed by the IGA, steroids were better than vitamin D (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.18; four studies, 2180 participants, NNTB = 8; 95% CI 7 to 11; moderate quality evidence). Statistically, the two-compound combination was superior to steroid monotherapy, however the additional benefit was small (RR 1.22; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.36; four studies, 2474 participants, NNTB = 17; 95% CI 11 to 41; moderate quality evidence). The two-compound combination was more effective than vitamin D alone (RR 2.28; 95% CI 1.87 to 2.78; four studies, 2008 participants, NNTB = 6; 95% CI 5 to 7; high quality evidence).In terms of treatment response, as assessed by the IGA, corticosteroids were more effective than vitamin D (RR 2.09; 95% CI 1.80 to 2.41; three studies, 1827 participants; NNTB = 4; 95% CI 4 to 5; high quality evidence). The two-compound combination was better than steroid monotherapy, but the additional benefit was small (RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.25; three studies, 2444 participants, NNTB = 13; 95% CI 9 to 24; moderate quality evidence). It was also more effective than vitamin D alone (RR 2.31; 95% CI 1.75 to 3.04; four studies, 2222 participants, NNTB = 3; 95% CI 3 to 4; moderate quality evidence).Reporting of quality of life data was poor and data were insufficient to be included for meta-analysis.Steroids caused fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than vitamin D (RR 0.22; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.42; four studies, 2291 participants; moderate quality evidence). The two-compound combination and steroid monotherapy did not differ in the number of adverse events leading withdrawal (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.88; three studies, 2433 participants; moderate quality evidence). The two-compound combination led to fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than vitamin D (RR 0.19; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.36; three studies, 1970 participants; high quality evidence). No study reported the type of adverse event requiring withdrawal.In terms of treatment response, as assessed by the PGA, steroids were more effective than vitamin D (RR 1.48; 95% CI 1.28 to 1.72; three studies, 1827 participants; NNTB = 5; 95% CI 5 to 7; moderate quality evidence). Statistically, the two-compound combination was better than steroid monotherapy, however the benefit was not clinically important (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.20; two studies, 2226 participants; NNTB = 13; 95% CI 9 to 26; high quality evidence). The two-compound combination was more effective than vitamin D (RR 1.76; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.12; four studies, 2222 participants; NNTB = 4; 95% CI 3 to 6; moderate quality evidence).Common adverse events with these three interventions were local irritation, skin pain and folliculitis. Systemic adverse events were rare and probably not drug-related.In addition to the results of the major three comparisons we found that the two-compound combination, steroids and vitamin D monotherapy were more effective than the vehicle. Steroids of moderate, high and very high potency tended to be similarly effective and well tolerated. There are inherent limitations in this review concerning the evaluation of salicylic acid, tar, dithranol or other topical treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The two-compound combination as well as corticosteroid monotherapy were more effective and safer than vitamin D monotherapy. Given the similar safety profile and only slim benefit of the two-compound combination over the steroid alone, monotherapy with generic topical steroids may be fully acceptable for short-term therapy.Future RCTs should investigate how specific therapies improve the participants' quality of life. Long-term assessments are needed (i.e. 6 to 12 months).

A consensus approach to improving patient adherence and persistence with topical treatment for actinic keratosis

BACKGROUND

Topical therapy is important in the treatment of actinic keratosis, but guidance for improving adherence/persistence during topical therapy is still lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To utilize expert consensus to generate a list of recommendations to improve real-world efficacy when prescribing topical therapy for actinic keratosis.

METHODS

An expert panel of eight dermatologists was convened to generate recommendations based on facilitated discussion and consensus generation using a modified Delphi session. The recommendations were ratified with the expert panel.

RESULTS

Facilitated discussion generated 31 issues within five themes, which were prioritized using expert voting. Consensus was achieved on the importance of short and simple treatment regimens for maximizing patient compliance, physician awareness of the progression of actinic keratosis to squamous cell carcinoma, provision of appropriate patient information, and the use of effective communication strategies to educate physicians about actinic keratosis. Based on these key findings, eight recommendations were generated.

CONCLUSIONS

The recommendations will assist physicians when prescribing topical actinic keratosis therapy. Further research should focus on the types of patient outcomes that are influenced by the characteristics of topical field therapy.