To test or not to test? An evidence-based assessment of the value of screening and monitoring tests when using systemic biologic agents to treat psoriasis

Monitoring the effect of TNF-alpha inhibitors on laboratory parameters and adverse effects in different diseases: a retrospective, single-center study

BACKGROUND

The introduction of biological treatments has revolutionized the management of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Multiple clinical trials have established the efficacy of biological agents in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Nevertheless, there are no clear indications for optimal monitoring intervals during treatment.

OBJECTIVES

Collect and analyze laboratory evaluation data from patients receiving biological therapy to provide a better understanding of the need for laboratory investigations before and during treatment with biological agents, and to analyze adverse events and other factors.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort SETTINGS: Tertiary care center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data were collected from the electronic medical records of patients attending the dermatology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology clinics from June 2014 to June 2019. The laboratory parameters of patients who have received one of the TNF-alpha inhibitors (adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab) were collected starting at baseline and up to at least one year from treatment initiation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The time points at which patients developed significantly abnormal laboratory results during treatment with one of the TNF-alpha inhibitors.

SAMPLE SIZE

250 patients RESULTS: Most patients were treated with adalimumab (38.4%); a similar proportion (38%) with infliximab, whereas only 23.6% were treated with etanercept. The majority of the significant abnormal laboratory results occurred at baseline, 3-6 and 9-12 months. Most abnormalities were among patients using infliximab, followed by etanercept, and then adalimumab. The median number of laboratory abnormalities for dermatology patients was significantly lower than that for gastroenterology patients (P<.001), and for rheumatology patients (P=.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Because dermatology patients showed a lower median number of laboratory abnormalities than patients treated by other specialties in our study, we believe that dermatology patients require less frequent laboratory monitoring. Therefore, we recommend laboratory evaluation at baseline, after 3-6 months, 1 year from the beginning of treatment, and annually thereafter for patients using TNF-alpha inhibitor agents. However, more frequent testing might be warranted according to patient comorbidities, concomitant medications, and physician judgment.

LIMITATIONS

Single center and retrospective design.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None.

Practical Guidelines for Managing Patients With Psoriasis on Biologics: An Update

The paradigm for treating inflammatory diseases has shifted dramatically in the past 10 to 20 years with the discovery of targeted therapeutics or "biologic" agents. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, psoriatic arthritis, and psoriasis, among others, are reaping the benefits of decades of bench to bedside research, allowing them to live more productive lives with less side effects than traditional systemic therapies. Despite these advances, many physicians unfamiliar with biologics are left to care for the basic needs of these patients and may be unaware of the multisystem comorbidities associated with psoriasis and the screening, monitoring, and other special considerations required of biologics patients. This can be overwhelming to primary care physicians and inadvertently expose patients to undue risks. The aim of this review is to provide a practical approach for all health care providers caring for patients with psoriasis being treated with biologics to facilitate communication with their treating dermatologist and ultimately provide patients with more comprehensive care.

To test or not to test? An updated evidence-based assessment of the value of screening and monitoring tests when using systemic biologic agents to treat psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis

BACKGROUND

Safety profiles of systemic biologic agents for the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) encompass a wide spectrum of adverse events. To date, no uniform evidence-based guidelines exist regarding screening and monitoring patients who are undergoing biologic therapy.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify studies evaluating screening and monitoring tests in the treatment of psoriasis and PsA with systemic biologic agents, and to propose evidence-based practical guidelines.

METHODS

The MEDLINE database was searched to identify data on risks associated with adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and ustekinumab. Articles were reviewed and graded according to methods developed by the US Preventative Services Task Force.

RESULTS

Evidence was strongest (grade B) for tuberculosis screening. Interferon-gamma release assay was preferable to tuberculin skin testing. Among known hepatitis B virus carriers, the evidence grade was C for monitoring liver function tests and viral load.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by the lack of high-quality controlled trials evaluating screening and monitoring tests in patients treated with biologic agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline tuberculosis testing remains the only screening test with strong evidence to support its practice. Other screening and monitoring tests commonly performed in patients who are taking biologic agents are supported only in certain clinical settings or lack evidence to support or recommend against their practice.

A new era in the management of psoriasis? The biologics: facts and controversies

During the last 30 years, the tremendous progress in our knowledge of the pathogenesis of psoriasis has led to the development of new agents, the so-called biologics, that have revolutionized the management of severe psoriasis. Dermatologists and patients see this emerging therapy as a new perspective in the state of the art in managing moderate to severe psoriasis. After a few years of use in daily practice, we may begin to analyze the power of the currently available biologic agents in the management of severe psoriasis from the perspective of facts.

Anti-NuMA antibodies in a psoriatic patient: considerations about clinical relevance and effect of infliximab treatment

Antibodies against the nuclear mitotic spindle apparatus protein (NuMA) are infrequently detected during antinuclear antibodies testing on HEp-2 cells. In a series of 428 psoriatic patients anti-NuMA antibodies were found only in a patient, at a titer of 1:640, without any apparent clinical relevance. The significance of anti-NuMA is not yet known and is briefly reviewed, also in consideration of potential therapeutic implications. Although biologic drugs targeting tumor necrosis factor-alpha have been associated with the development of non-organ specific autoantibodies and rare reports of autoimmune phenomena, infliximab was well tolerated in this patient and caused no changes in autoantibody titers.

Biologics in the Treatment of Psoriasis: Clinical and Economic Overview

Background:

The use of biologic medications for psoriasis is a recent therapeutic advance.

Objective:

To review clinical and economic data for biologic therapies in the treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis.

Methods:

Published meta-analyses and additional literature review identified randomized controlled trials. Analyses included the number needed to treat (NNT), the cost in Canadian dollars for the first year of treatment per the Canadian product monograph, and the estimated cost per responder achieving a 75% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI 75).

Results:

Pooled NNTs were 1.3 (infliximab), 1.5 (ustekinumab 90 mg), 1.6 (adalimumab and ustekinumab 45 mg), 2.3 (etanercept), 4.1 (efalizumab), and 5.6 (alefacept). The annual treatment cost per patient was $19,825 to $37,600. The cost per patient achieving a PASI 75 response at 12 weeks ranged from $8,330 (adalimumab) to $71,371 (alefacept).

Conclusion:

This analysis suggests favorable cost and benefits of biologic psoriasis therapies, particularly adalimumab, infliximab, and ustekinumab.