A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of acitretin for the treatment of psoriasis

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2022: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes an additional 12 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 179, and randomised participants to 62,339, 67.1% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.6 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (56%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (152) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (65/179) had high risk of bias, 24 unclear risk, and most (90) low risk. Most studies (138/179) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 49.16, 95% CI 20.49 to 117.95), bimekizumab (RR 27.86, 95% CI 23.56 to 32.94), ixekizumab (RR 27.35, 95% CI 23.15 to 32.29), risankizumab (RR 26.16, 95% CI 22.03 to 31.07). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab and ixekizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than secukinumab. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than brodalumab and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab), and anti-IL23 drugs except tildrakizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than ustekinumab, three anti-TNF alpha agents, and deucravacitinib. Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab. Adalimumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with very low- to moderate-certainty evidence for all the comparisons. The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.6 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was very low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2021: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes an additional 19 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 167, and randomised participants to 58,912, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.5 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (57%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (140) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (57/167) had high risk of bias; 23 unclear risk, and most (87) low risk. Most studies (127/167) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions, except anti-IL23. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23 and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 50.19, 95% CI 20.92 to 120.45), bimekizumab (RR 30.27, 95% CI 25.45 to 36.01), ixekizumab (RR 30.19, 95% CI 25.38 to 35.93), risankizumab (RR 28.75, 95% CI 24.03 to 34.39). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab and risankizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than other anti-IL17 drugs (secukinumab and brodalumab) and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab and brodalumab) and anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab) except tildrakizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents (adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept). Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab; adalimumab and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low- to moderate-certainty for all the comparisons (except methotrexate versus placebo, which was high-certainty). The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.5 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports from regulatory agencies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Systematic Review and Recommendations to Combine Newer Therapies With Conventional Therapy in Psoriatic Disease

Background: Psoriasis continues to have unmet needs in its management despite introduction of newer molecules. Monotherapy with these newer agents may not achieve therapeutic goals in all cases, hence necessitating their combinations with other molecules. Improved understanding of newer as well as conventional treatment modalities and experiences in their combinations hence necessitates therapeutic guidelines for their use in psoriasis. Objective: To review the combinations of treatments reported in literature and recommendations for their use based on best current evidence in literature. Methods: A literature review of MEDLINE database for studies evaluating combinations of newer therapies with conventional therapies in psoriasis was done. Newer therapies were identified as biologic disease modifying anti rheumatic drugs and other molecules such as apremilast while conventional therapies included methotrexate, cyclosporine, or retinoids, phototherapy and others. The therapeutic guidelines are proposed with the aim to provide evidenced based approach to combine newer and conventional agents in day-to-day psoriasis management. Findings: Combination of acitretin and narrow band ultraviolet B (NB-UVB)/Psoralen with ultraviolet A (PUVA) achieves faster clearance and allows reduction of dose of the latter. A variable outcome is reported of methotrexate with TNF-α inhibitors vs. TNF-α inhibitors alone, although addition of methotrexate appears to reduce immunogenicity of TNF-α inhibitors thereby preventing formation of anti-drug antibodies especially in case of infliximab. While combination of acitretin and PUVA is beneficial, combining TNF-α inhibitors and phototherapy too produces better and faster results but long term risks of Non Melanoma Skin Cancers (NMSCs) may preclude their use together. Combination of cyclosporine and phototherapy is not recommended due to greater chances of NMSCs. Adding phototherapy to Fumaric Acid Esters (FAEs) improves efficacy. Apremilast can be safely combined with available biologic agents in patients with plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis not responding adequately to biologics alone. Hydroxyurea and acitretin may be used together increasing their efficacy and reducing doses of both and hence their adverse effects. Conclusion: Selected clinical scenarios shall benefit from combinations therapies, improving efficacy of both conventional and newer agents and at the same time helping reduce toxicity of higher dosages when used individually.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

For this living systematic review we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to September 2020: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers to the same date. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to eligible RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse events). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons, according to CINeMA, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer on treatment hierarchy: 0% (treatment is the worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (treatment is the best for effectiveness or safety).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 158 studies (18 new studies for the update) in our review (57,831 randomised participants, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (58%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 20 treatments. In all, 133 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (53/158) as being at high risk of bias; 25 were at an unclear risk, and 80 at low risk. Most studies (123/158) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report their source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in reaching PASI 90. At class level, in reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the non-biological systemic agents. At drug level, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, risankizumab and guselkumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab, and etanercept. Ustekinumab and adalimumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than etanercept; ustekinumab was more effective than certolizumab, and the clinical effectiveness of ustekinumab and adalimumab was similar. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and three non-biological drugs: fumaric acid esters (FAEs), ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab, and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar, except for ixekizumab which had a better chance of reaching PASI 90 compared with secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab. The clinical effectiveness of these seven drugs was: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 50.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 20.96 to 120.67, SUCRA = 93.6; high-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 32.48, 95% CI 27.13 to 38.87; SUCRA = 90.5; high-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.76, 95% CI 23.96 to 34.54; SUCRA = 84.6; high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86; SUCRA = 81.4; high-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 25.79, 95% CI 21.61 to 30.78; SUCRA = 76.2; high-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.52, 95% CI 21.25 to 30.64; SUCRA = 75; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 23.55, 95% CI 19.48 to 28.48; SUCRA = 68.4; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as mirikizumab, tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to moderate certainty for all the comparisons. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the evidence for all the interventions was of low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials directly comparing active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between non-biological systemic agents and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Joint American Academy of Dermatology-National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines of care for the management of psoriasis with systemic nonbiologic therapies

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease involving multiple organ systems and affecting approximately 2% of the world's population. In this guideline, we focus the discussion on systemic, nonbiologic medications for the treatment of this disease. We provide detailed discussion of efficacy and safety for the most commonly used medications, including methotrexate, cyclosporine, and acitretin, and provide recommendations to assist prescribers in initiating and managing patients on these treatments. Additionally, we discuss newer therapies, including tofacitinib and apremilast, and briefly touch on a number of other medications, including fumaric acid esters (used outside the United States) and therapies that are no longer widely used for the treatment of psoriasis (ie, hydroxyurea, leflunomide, mycophenolate mofetil, thioguanine, and tacrolimus).

Review of treatments for generalized pustular psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is an uncommon variant of psoriasis that is characterized clinically by sterile pustule formation superimposed over inflamed, erythematous skin.

METHODS

In June 2019, we conducted a systematic search of the PubMed Medline database using the keywords 'pustular psoriasis' and 'treatment'.

RESULTS

First-line treatment for the condition consists of established therapies, such as acitretin, cyclosporine, methotrexate, and infliximab. Several medications targeting IL-17 or IL-23 have also emerged recently with drugs such as ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, and ustekinumab having shown some efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the research in support of common treatments of GPP, including classically used medications and newer monoclonal antibodies, and addresses the continued need for high quality studies regarding treatments for this condition.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. This is the baseline update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2017, in preparation for this Cochrane Review becoming a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our research using the following databases to January 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and the conference proceedings of a number of dermatology meetings. We also searched five trials registers and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) reports (until June 2019). We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse effects (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse effects). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes, according to GRADE, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 140 studies (31 new studies for the update) in our review (51,749 randomised participants, 68% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (59%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 19 treatments. In all, 117 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (57/140) as being at high risk of bias; 42 were at an unclear risk, and 41 at low risk. Most studies (107/140) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report the source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90. At class level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents. At drug level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, infliximab, all of the anti-IL17 drugs (ixekizumab, secukinumab, bimekizumab and brodalumab) and the anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab, but not tildrakizumab) were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and 3 anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept. Adalimumab and ustekinumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than certolizumab and etanercept. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and between two conventional drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness for these seven drugs was similar: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 29.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 19.94 to 43.70, Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) = 88.5; moderate-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.12, 95% CI 23.17 to 34.12, SUCRA = 88.3, moderate-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 27.67, 95% CI 22.86 to 33.49, SUCRA = 87.5, high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86, SUCRA = 83.5, low-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.84, 95% CI 20.90 to 31.95; SUCRA = 81; moderate-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 23.97, 95% CI 20.03 to 28.70, SUCRA = 75.4; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 21.96, 95% CI 18.17 to 26.53, SUCRA = 68.7; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to very low certainty for just under half of the treatment estimates in total, and moderate for the others. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were very similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab were the best choices for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence (low-certainty evidence for bimekizumab). This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. Indeed, we found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, but the evidence for all the interventions was of very low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials comparing directly active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between conventional systemic and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Management of psoriasis in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: From the Medical Board of the National Psoriasis Foundation

BACKGROUND

There is a significant association between psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Many treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are also used for IBD.

OBJECTIVE

To assess therapeutic options for patients with psoriasis and concurrent IBD.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed for clinical studies of biologic and systemic psoriasis medications in psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and Crohn's disease, for the period from January 1, 1947, to February 14, 2017. Randomized, controlled, double-blinded studies were selected if available. If not, the next highest level of available evidence was selected.

RESULTS

Of the 2282 articles identified, 132 were selected. Infliximab and adalimumab have demonstrated efficacy in psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative; colitis, and Crohn's disease. Ustekinumab has demonstrated efficacy in psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and Crohn's disease. Certolizumab has demonstrated efficacy in psoriatic arthritis and Crohn's disease. Etanercept, secukinumab, brodalumab, and ixekizumab have demonstrated efficacy in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis but may exacerbate or induce IBD. Guselkumab has demonstrated efficacy in psoriasis.

LIMITATIONS

There are no known clinical trials of treatment specifically for concurrent psoriasis and IBD.

CONCLUSIONS

Infliximab and adalimumab have demonstrated efficacy in psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and Crohn's disease; other agents have demonstrated efficacy for some, but not all, of these indications.

Tazarotene gel with narrow-band UVB phototherapy: a synergistic combination in psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Narrow-band UVB (NB-UVB) has been shown to be one of the most effective treatment modalities for psoriasis. Tazarotene, a known effective anti-psoriatic modality, when combined with NB-UVB may enhance the therapeutic success.

OBJECTIVE

To study clinical efficacy and safety of combination of NB-UVB with topical tazarotene 0.05% gel in psoriasis.

METHOD

Thirty patients with plaque psoriasis having symmetrical lesions were enrolled for 12 weeks. All patients were instructed to apply tazarotene gel on target plaque on left side of body once daily. In addition, the whole body was irradiated with NB-UVB twice weekly. Efficacy was assessed by target plaque scoring and number of treatment sessions for clearance.

RESULT

Our study resulted in 3 key findings: Firstly, therapeutic efficacy of NB-UVB was enhanced by addition of tazarotene. This enhanced efficacy was more apparent in decreasing scaling and thickness as compared to decrease in erythema. Secondly, combination therapy showed faster clearance of target plaques, with reduction in mean number of treatment sessions. Thirdly, mean cumulative NB-UVB dose needed to achieve clearance of target plaques was significantly reduced with combination therapy.

STUDY LIMITATIONS

The study was not randomized or controlled, but an open-label trial. The study period was relatively short, i.e., 12 weeks, without any follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

Tazarotene gel significantly enhances the therapeutic efficacy of NB-UVB irradiation with faster clearance and without serious side effects.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head to head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional systemic agents (acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, methotrexate), small molecules (apremilast, tofacitinib, ponesimod), anti-TNF alpha (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab), anti-IL12/23 (ustekinumab), anti-IL17 (secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab), anti-IL23 (guselkumab, tildrakizumab), and other biologics (alefacept, itolizumab) for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to December 2016: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) reports. We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant RCTs. We searched the trial results databases of a number of pharmaceutical companies and handsearched the conference proceedings of a number of dermatology meetings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic and biological treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate to severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI) 90) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse effects). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes, according to GRADE; we evaluated evidence as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 109 studies in our review (39,882 randomised participants, 68% men, all recruited from a hospital). The overall average age was 44 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo controlled (67%), 23% were head-to-head studies, and 10% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and placebo. We have assessed all treatments listed in the objectives (19 in total). In all, 86 trials were multicentric trials (two to 231 centres). All of the trials included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment at less than 24 weeks after randomisation); in fact, all trials included in the network meta-analysis were measured between 12 and 16 weeks after randomisation. We assessed the majority of studies (48/109) as being at high risk of bias; 38 were assessed as at an unclear risk, and 23, low risk.Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90.In terms of reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents. Small molecules were associated with a higher chance of reaching PASI 90 compared to conventional systemic agents.At drug level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, all of the anti-IL17 agents and guselkumab (an anti-IL23 drug) were significantly more effective than the anti-TNF alpha agents infliximab, adalimumab, and etanercept, but not certolizumab. Ustekinumab was superior to etanercept. No clear difference was shown between infliximab, adalimumab, and etanercept. Only one trial assessed the efficacy of infliximab in this network; thus, these results have to be interpreted with caution. Tofacitinib was significantly superior to methotrexate, and no clear difference was shown between any of the other small molecules versus conventional treatments.Network meta-analysis also showed that ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, certolizumab, and ustekinumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90: the most effective drug was ixekizumab (risk ratio (RR) 32.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 23.61 to 44.60; Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) = 94.3; high-certainty evidence), followed by secukinumab (RR 26.55, 95% CI 20.32 to 34.69; SUCRA = 86.5; high-certainty evidence), brodalumab (RR 25.45, 95% CI 18.74 to 34.57; SUCRA = 84.3; moderate-certainty evidence), guselkumab (RR 21.03, 95% CI 14.56 to 30.38; SUCRA = 77; moderate-certainty evidence), certolizumab (RR 24.58, 95% CI 3.46 to 174.73; SUCRA = 75.7; moderate-certainty evidence), and ustekinumab (RR 19.91, 95% CI 15.11 to 26.23; SUCRA = 72.6; high-certainty evidence).We found no significant difference between all of the interventions and the placebo regarding the risk of serious adverse effects (SAEs): the relative ranking strongly suggested that methotrexate was associated with the best safety profile regarding all of the SAEs (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.99; SUCRA = 90.7; moderate-certainty evidence), followed by ciclosporin (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.01 to 5.10; SUCRA = 78.2; very low-certainty evidence), certolizumab (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.36; SUCRA = 70.9; moderate-certainty evidence), infliximab (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.00; SUCRA = 64.4; very low-certainty evidence), alefacept (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.55; SUCRA = 62.6; low-certainty evidence), and fumaric acid esters (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.99; SUCRA = 57.7; very low-certainty evidence). Major adverse cardiac events, serious infections, or malignancies were reported in both the placebo and intervention groups. Nevertheless, the SAEs analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to very low certainty for just over half of the treatment estimates in total, moderate for the others. Thus, the results have to be considered with caution.Considering both efficacy (PASI 90 outcome) and acceptability (SAEs outcome), highly effective treatments also had more SAEs compared to the other treatments, and ustekinumab, infliximab, and certolizumab appeared to have the better trade-off between efficacy and acceptability.Regarding the other efficacy outcomes, PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1, the results were very similar to the results for PASI 90.Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for a third of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, certolizumab, and ustekinumab are the best choices for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate to severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. At class level, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents, too. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured between 12 to 16 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficiently relevant for a chronic disease. Moreover, low numbers of studies were found for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 44 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice.Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. Indeed, we found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs. Methotrexate appeared to have the best safety profile, but as the evidence was of very low to moderate quality, we cannot be sure of the ranking. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies as well.In terms of future research, randomised trials comparing directly active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between conventional systemic and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve patients, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents.

Oral fumaric acid esters for psoriasis: abridged Cochrane systematic review including GRADE assessments

Fumaric acid esters (FAEs) are licensed for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis in Germany but are also used off-label in many other countries. We conducted this systematic review to synthesize the highest-quality evidence for the benefits and risks of FAEs for psoriasis. Our primary outcomes were change in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score and dropout rates due to adverse effects. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of FAEs or dimethylfumarate were included, with no restriction on age or psoriasis subtype. We searched the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, LILACS and five trials registers, and hand searched six conference proceedings. Six RCTs with a total of 544 participants were included, four of which were published only as abstracts or brief reports, limiting study reporting. Five RCTs compared FAEs with placebo, and all demonstrated benefit in favour of FAEs. However, meta-analysis was possible only for PASI 50 response after 12-16 weeks, which was achieved by 64% of participants on FAEs compared with 14% on placebo: risk ratio (RR) 4·55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2·80-7·40; two studies; 247 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in dropout rates due to adverse effects (RR 5·36, 95% CI 0·28-102·12; one study; 27 participants; very low-quality evidence and wide CI). More participants experienced nuisance adverse effects with FAEs (76%) than with placebo (16%) (RR 4·72, 95% CI 2·45-9·08; one study; 99 participants; moderate-quality evidence), mainly abdominal pain, diarrhoea and flushing. One head-to-head study of very low-quality evidence comparing FAEs with methotrexate reported comparable efficacy and dropout rates, although FAEs caused more flushing. The evidence in this review was limited and must be interpreted with caution; studies with better design and outcome reporting are needed.

Acitretin-Induced Hepatitis: When to Monitor Cholestatic Enzymes

Importance

Acitretin is a systemic retinoid that is used in dermatology for a variety of conditions. A well-recognized potential adverse event from acitretin is elevated transaminases, indicating acute hepatocyte damage. Less well known is the possible cholestatic injury that can occur, signaled by elevated γ-glutamyltransferase (GGT) and alkaline phosphatase (ALP).

Observations

Our patient presented with an acute acitretin-induced hepatitis with a mixed pattern of elevated transaminases as well as GGT and ALP. A literature review demonstrated that most cases of acitretin-induced hepatitis, outside clinical trials, describe patients with a similar mixed hepatitis pattern.

Conclusions

This is the first literature review on acitretin-induced hepatitis. Although acitretin-induced hepatoxicity is rare, the seemingly unusual presentation of a mixed pattern of hepatocyte injury and cholestasis may be more common than previously thought. The findings should encourage clinicians not only to monitor transaminases but also to consider measuring cholestatic enzymes (ALP/GGT) in patients with transaminase abnormalities.

Acitretin

Acitretin, a synthetic retinoid, is the pharmacologically active metabolite of etretinate. It is currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of severe psoriasis in adults and has been established as a second-line therapy for the treatment of psoriasis resistant to the use of topical therapy. It is also an option for generalized pustular psoriasis, palmoplantar pustulosis, exfoliative erythrodermic psoriasis, and severe psoriasis in the setting of acitretin. It also has been shown to have chemo-preventative characteristics. Acitretin is limited by its teratogenicity and therefore considered inappropriate in most female patients of childbearing age. Common side effects include mucocutaneous dryness and elevated triglycerides.

Acitretin in psoriasis: an evolving scenario

Acitretin, an active metabolite of etretinate, is the most widely used systemic retinoid in the treatment of psoriasis. There are several unique characteristics of this drug, which set it apart from other options in the therapeutic armamentarium of psoriasis. It is highly efficacious as monotherapy in some specific clinical subtypes of psoriasis. It has dose-sparing effects when used as combination therapy with conventional systemic drugs as well as the biologics. It is a good option for long-term maintenance therapy. Side effects are common but usually mild and can be managed by its proper dosing and monitoring. With appropriate patient selection, gradual dose escalation, and patient counseling, we can deliver good results in psoriasis with this useful drug. This review gives a comprehensive recount of acitretin use in the present era of biologics in psoriasis.

Guidelines for the use of acitretin in psoriasis. Psoriasis Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology

Phototherapy, classic systemic treatments (methotrexate, acitretin, and ciclosporin), and biologic agents (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab) constitute a broad therapeutic arsenal that increases the likelihood of achieving control of severe and extensive disease in patients with psoriasis. Acitretin continues to be a very valuable tool in both monotherapy, in which it is combined with other systemic treatments (classic or biologic), and in sequential therapy. Thanks to its lack of a direct immunosuppressive effect and its ability to achieve a long-term response, acitretin has an important role in the treatment of psoriasis, although this has not always been acknowledged in relevant treatment guidelines. We present consensus guidelines for the use of acitretin in psoriasis drawn up by the Psoriasis Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. These guidelines provide a detailed account of acitretin, including pharmacological properties, indications and contraindications, adverse effects, and factors that should be taken into account to enhance the safe use of this drug. They also propose treatment strategies for use in routine clinical practice. The overall aim of these guidelines is to define the criteria for the use and management of acetretin in psoriasis.

Immunotargeting in the management of psoriasis

The treatment of psoriasis has been revolutionized since the introduction of biologic therapies. Prior to their introduction, it was unclear if psoriasis was primarily a keratinocyte signaling dysfunction or an autoimmune T-cell mediated pathway. Nonspecific T-cell targeting treatments had been used with some success, but they were limited by a narrow therapeutic index. The nonspecific nature of these agents was fraught with side effects, and the efficacy of these treatments pales in comparison to current treatments. The initial biologic molecules, alefacept and efalizumab, were not specific for any T-cell driven pathway, and neither are currently available in the USA. The successors to these early therapies have shown high efficacy and low side effects in psoriasis and other autoimmune diseases through the specific targeting of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α). Since the initial use of antitumor necrosis factor agents, a renaissance in our understanding of psoriasis has been underway, leading to the elucidation of the T-helper 17 (Th17) from the Th1 pathway. With each new treatment, the pathogenesis for psoriasis continues to be more defined, allowing for improved targeted therapies and the ability to achieve new milestones in efficacy.

Effective and sustainable biologic treatment of psoriasis: what can we learn from new clinical data?

The introduction of the biologic agents, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab and ustekinumab, has provided more options for the short- and long-term treatment of patients with psoriasis. Physicians are now able to achieve and maintain effective disease control in more patients using biologic therapies. Newly published clinical data support the introduction of novel optimization strategies to further improve outcomes in patients with psoriasis. Recent randomized controlled clinical trials have provided data on the efficacy of conventional therapies, including systemic agents, and biologics at specific time points. Switching from methotrexate to a tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α antagonist after 16 weeks can improve response rates, as demonstrated in a study of patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, while the benefit of long-term methotrexate use remains unclear. In a separate study, psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) ≥ 75 response rates were maintained over time (>3 years for adalimumab), suggesting that long-term biologic therapy is an effective and sustainable treatment option for psoriasis. For each individual patient, the benefit of a particular treatment needs to be balanced with the risks. The lack of head-to-head trials of antipsoriatic therapies, particularly biologic therapies, does not help with making individualized treatment decisions. However, a benefit-risk assessment of TNF-α antagonists calculated from an integrated analysis of published literature in moderate-to-severe psoriasis can be used to aid clinical practice. The number needed to treat, number needed to harm and number of patient years of observation to detect an adverse event have been determined for adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab. The benefit-risk profiles generated demonstrated that, during the initial year of treatment, likelihood of success with TNF-α antagonists was several orders of magnitude greater than the likelihood of serious toxicity.

Canadian guidelines for the management of plaque psoriasis: overview

New clinical treatment guidelines for plaque psoriasis, written by a panel of 16 Canadian dermatologists, were recently published online. These Canadian Guidelines for the Management of Plaque Psoriasis are evidence based and free of any influence from corporate sponsors and have been endorsed by the Canadian Dermatology Association (CDA). The Guidelines offer treatment recommendations for mild and moderate to severe body psoriasis, as well as for psoriasis affecting specific areas of the skin, such as the facial, flexural, and genital areas; nails; scalp; and palms and soles. The present overview describes the genesis and contents of the Guidelines, which are available in full through the CDA at <http://www.dermatology.ca/guidelines/cdnpsoriasisguidelines.pdf> (English) or <http://www.dermatology.ca/french/psoriasisguidelines.html> (French).

A review of acitretin for the treatment of psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Acitretin is an oral retinoid that is approved for the treatment of psoriasis. It is unique compared to other systemic therapies for psoriasis such as methotrexate and cyclosporine in that it is not immunosuppressive. It is, therefore, safe for use in psoriasis patients with a history of chronic infection such as HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C or malignancy who have a contraindication to systemic immunosuppressive therapy and require systemic therapy because topical therapy is inadequate and they are unable to commit to phototherapy. Acitretin is one of the treatments of choice for pustular psoriasis. Even though acitretin is less effective as a monotherapy for chronic plaque psoriasis, combination therapy with other agents, especially UVB or psoralen plus UVA phototherapy, can enhance efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

To provide an updated review of the safety and efficacy of acitretin in the treatment for psoriasis.

METHODS

Literature review of journal articles from 2008 to 2009 since the last review of acitretin evaluated medical literature from 2005 to 2008.

RESULTS/CONCLUSION

Acitretin is an effective systemic therapy for psoriasis and is generally well tolerated at low doses for long-term use. If monotherapy with acitretin is inadequate, it can be used in combination with other treatments, particularly UVB phototherapy, to increase efficacy.

Guidelines of care for the management of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: section 4. Guidelines of care for the management and treatment of psoriasis with traditional systemic agents

Psoriasis is a common, chronic, inflammatory, multisystem disease with predominantly skin and joint manifestations affecting approximately 2% of the population. In this fourth of 6 sections of the guidelines of care for psoriasis, we discuss the use of traditional systemic medications for the treatment of patients with psoriasis. Treatment should be tailored to meet individual patients' needs. We will discuss in detail the efficacy and safety, and offer recommendations for the use of the 3 most commonly used, and approved, traditional systemic agents: methotrexate, cyclosporine, and acitretin. We will also briefly discuss the available data for the use of azathioprine, fumaric acid esters, hydroxyurea, leflunomide, mycophenolate mofetil, sulfasalazine, tacrolimus, and 6-thioguanine in psoriasis.

Systemic therapies for psoriasis: methotrexate, retinoids, and cyclosporine

Despite the current use and ongoing development of the biological therapies 'traditional' systemic agents will continue to form a key part of the therapeutic armamentarium for patients with severe psoriasis. Long-term maintenance therapy with retinoids and methotrexate is cost-effective and, for many patients with psoriasis, life changing. Regular monitoring is required for both treatments, particularly methotrexate to prevent significant bone marrow suppression and hepatotoxicity. Ideally, cyclosporine should be used for short courses of 3 to 4 months duration, within which it provides excellent disease control. Close assessment of renal function and blood pressure is essential.

Update on retinoid therapy of psoriasis in: an update on the use of retinoids in dermatology

Both in the topical and systemic treatment of psoriasis, retinoids are mainstays. In this chapter the history and modes of actions of retinoids are presented. Tazarotene and acitretin are the only retinoids that are available in both topical and systemic formulations. A more extensive description of their pharmacology, modes of action, indications and contraindications, clinical results, and treatment strategies will be presented. Finally, retinoid X receptor ligands and retinoic acid metabolism blocking agents will be introduced as potential future retinoid mimetics in psoriasis.

A review of acitretin, a systemic retinoid for the treatment of psoriasis

Acitretin is a second-generation, systemic retinoid that has been approved for the treatment of psoriasis since 1997. It can be considered one of the treatments of choice for pustular and erythrodermic psoriasis. However, the efficacy of acitretin as a monotherapy for plaque psoriasis is less, although it is often used in combination therapy with other systemic psoriasis therapies, especially ultraviolet B or psoralen plus ultraviolet A phototherapy, to increase efficacy. Such combination treatments may potentially minimise toxicity by using lower doses of each of the two agents. All systemic retinoids are potent teratogens. The most common side effects are mucocutanous effects such as cheilitis and hair loss, which are dose-dependent. Acitretin is not immunosuppressive, is generally safe for long-term use and has no time limit restrictions, which makes it useful in combination therapy and for maintenance therapy.

Efficacy and safety of oral retinoids in psoriasis

With the advent of new biological agents, interest in the treatment of psoriasis has been renewed. Vitamin A and its derivatives (retinoids) have been used successfully in the treatment of psoriasis for over 30 years. In this paper, data on the efficacy and safety of oral retinoids for the treatment of various forms of psoriasis is reviewed. Studies have shown that retinoids are particularly effective in the treatment of pustular and palmoplantar psoriasis. When used in conjunction with ultraviolet therapy, retinoids appear to have a synergistic effect and can be used safely as long-term maintenance therapy. The most common side effects of oral retinoids are usually modest, treatable or reversible, and predominantly affect the liver, musculoskeletal and neurological systems. Potential teratogenicity remains the primary concern with use in women. Oral retinoids appear to be well tolerated in paediatric and HIV-infected patients.

Retinoid therapy for psoriasis

This article focuses on the treatment of psoriasis with acitretin, the only systemic retinoid approved for psoriasis, and also briefly discusses its predecessor, etretinate, which was replaced by acitretin in 1997 and is no longer available. The use of topical tazarotene is also discussed in detail. Combination therapy of retinoids, both topical and systemic,with phototherapy and other therapeutic agents is described. In addition, new retinoid analogues that are undergoing clinical investigation are mentioned. Finally, potential toxicities and adverse effects associated with retinoids are discussed.

Drug-Induced lipid changes: a review of the unintended effects of some commonly used drugs on serum lipid levels

Many drugs besides lipid-lowering drugs affect serum lipid levels in either a potentially harmful or beneficial way, and may therefore increase or decrease the risk of cardiovascular disease. Diuretics, beta-blocking agents, progestogens, combined oral contraceptives containing 'second generation' progestogens, danazol, immunosuppressive agents, protease inhibitors and enzyme-inducing anticonvulsants adversely affect the lipid profile. They increase total cholesterol, low density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides by up to 40, 50 and 300%, respectively, and decrease high density lipoprotein cholesterol by a maximum of 50%. Conversely, alpha-blocking agents, estrogens, hormone replacement therapy, combined oral contraceptives containing 'third generation' progestogens, selective estrogen receptor modulators, growth hormone and valproic acid show mostly beneficial effects on the lipd profile. Some drugs, for example, isotretinoin, acitretin and antipsychotics, mainly elevate triglyceride levels. Adverse or beneficial effects on serum cholesterol levels do not always translate into a higher or lower, respectively, incidence of cardiovascular disease. because these drugs may influence cardiovascular risk through multiple pathways. In some cases, excessive cholesterol levels occur, for example, with protease inhibitor therapy, and several cases of pancreatitis attributable to drug-induced hypertriglyceridaemia have been reported. Some general guidelines on the management of drug-induced dyslipidaemia can be given. Replacement of the dyslipidaemia-inducing drug by an equivalent alternative therapy is preferred. However, such alternatives are often difficult to find. If there is no equivalent alternative and treatment with the dyslipidaemia-inducing drug must be initiated, monitoring of serum lipid levels is important. If drug use is expected to be long term, the existing guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemia in the general population can be applied to drug-induced dyslipidaemia. In cases of extreme hyperlipidaemia, medication use should be reassessed.

Acitretin and treatment of the oral leucoplakias. A model to have an active molecules release

AIMS

The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of acitretin in a new topical formulation (mucoadhesive two-layer tablets) for the treatment of oral leucoplakias.

METHODS

Twenty-one volunteers, 16 men, five women, with oral leucoplakia (histologically diagnosed), were included in this double-blind placebo-controlled study. Patients were randomized in three groups (A, B, C) of seven patients each. Groups A and B received tablets with different in vitro release profiles, and group C subjects (controls) received tablets without acitretin. The acitretin dose was 20 mg/day (two 10 mg tablets daily). Serum aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, cholesterol and triglycerides were evaluated before and after treatment. At the end of therapy the concentrations of acitretin in plasma, saliva and tissue were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography.

RESULTS

At the end of the study 71% (groups A and B) of patients showed clinical remission or marked improvement. No improvement was noted in the control subjects (group C). These results were further confirmed by histological findings. There were no significant changes in laboratory values in the three groups. The acitretin concentration in plasma and tissue ranged from 0 to 50 mg with no difference between groups A and B, and it was very high in saliva (ranging from 4.9 to 43 mg) with higher concentrations in group A than in group B (due to a longer adhesion time in group A). Patients' compliance was excellent. The results show that mucoadhesive tablets of topical acitretin are efficacious in the treatment of oral leucoplakia without systemic side-effects.

Tazarotene plus UVB phototherapy in the treatment of psoriasis

BACKGROUND

The addition of oral retinoids to phototherapy may accelerate and enhance antipsoriatic efficacy, but can result in systemic adverse events and additional laboratory monitoring costs.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to determine whether the topical addition of tazarotene to UVB phototherapy improves efficacy without problems related to photosensitivity.

METHODS

Bilateral target plaques were randomized to receive two of the following, one on each plaque once daily for 14 days: tazarotene 0.1% gel, vehicle gel, or no treatment. Thereafter, the same treatments were continued 3 times per week, plus UVB phototherapy 3 times per week, for an additional 67 days.

RESULTS

Tazarotene plus UVB phototherapy achieved faster and significantly greater reductions in plaque elevation and scaling throughout treatment and achieved at least 50% improvement from the pretreatment baseline with a significantly lower median cumulative UVB exposure than vehicle gel plus UVB light or UVB phototherapy alone. No case of unusual photosensitivity was noted in the tazarotene plus UVB treatment group.

CONCLUSION

The addition of tazarotene to UVB phototherapy improves and accelerates efficacy and maintains acceptable safety and tolerability.

Acitretin: optimal dosing strategies

Acitretin is an oral synthetic retinoid effective in the treatment of psoriasis. As monotherapy, acitretin has been shown to be most effective in treating pustular and erythrodermic types of the disease. Monotherapy with acitretin for plaque-type psoriasis is often less successful; however, its use in combination with other therapies is highly effective in treating this form of the disease. Dose-response studies have established the effective dose range of acitretin as well as the dose-dependence of its side effects. Because both efficacy and side effects can vary substantially among individual patients, proper dosing of acitretin requires a balance between optimizing response and minimizing toxicity for each patient. Optimal dosing for individual patients may be achieved through a dose-escalation strategy involving initiation of therapy at low doses (10 to 25 mg/day) and, if necessary, gradually increasing the dose as tolerated until optimal response is achieved.

Uses of vitamins A, C, and E and related compounds in dermatology: a review

Vitamins have been increasingly used as prophylactic and therapeutic agents in the management of skin disorders. The current literature is replete with studies that promote the potential benefits of these compounds and attempt to elucidate their mechanisms of action. We review the literature and discuss the roles, safety, and efficacy of vitamins A, C, and E and related compounds in cutaneous health and disease.

Tazarotene in combination with phototherapy

Despite the vast array of available therapies for treating psoriasis, there remains a need for safer, more effective treatments. Topical tazarotene has been shown to be effective in treating mild-to-moderate psoriasis without causing the adverse effects, such as mucocutaneous toxicity, hyperostosis, and elevation in serum lipids, often associated with orally administered retinoids. A 2-week pretreatment with tazarotene 0.1% gel once daily, followed by tazarotene plus UVB therapy (tazarotene-UVB) 3 times per week for 10 weeks, was more effective than UVB therapy alone or in combination with vehicle gel in reducing plaque elevation, scaling, and erythema. The tazarotene-UVB treatment was well tolerated, and no phototoxicity was observed. Treatment success, defined as a moderate response or better in psoriatic lesions (ie, > or = 50% improvement in psoriatic lesions compared with baseline), was achieved within 32 days with the tazarotene-UVB treatment, compared with 67 days with UVB alone or UVB plus vehicle gel.

Efficacy and tolerability of multiple-dose SDZ IMM 125 in patients with severe psoriasis

Although cyclosporin is effective in immunosuppression following organ transplantation and in the treatment of psoriasis, its use is limited by its side-effects, notably impaired renal function and hypertension. As SDZ IMM 125, a new derivative of the cyclosporin family, showed considerable immunosuppressive activity in experimental studies, with less effect on renal function, it was considered a potential successor to cyclosporin for both indications. In this multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, the efficacy and tolerability of 40, 100, 200 and 400 mg SDZ IMM 125 daily were studied in 59 patients with psoriasis. Patients were followed for a period of 5 weeks (4 weeks treatment, and 1 week post-treatment observation). A dose-dependent effect of SDZ IMM 125 was observed. A significant correlation was found between the dose of SDZ IMM 125 and changes in the sum of severity scores of three indicator plaques. There was a significant decrease in the body surface area affected by psoriasis in the 400-mg group (P < or = 0.01), whereas a decrease of the global psoriasis severity was observed in the 200-mg (P < or = 0.01) and the 400-mg groups (P < or = 0.001). No serious adverse events occurred during the 4 weeks of treatment. Three patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events (one sore throat, two influenza). Clinical adverse events were similar to those reported with cyclosporin, the most frequent being gastrointestinal disturbances. Estimation of renal function indices showed that increases from baseline values were dose-dependent, and appeared to be similar to those seen with cyclosporin.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Acitretin. A review of its pharmacology and therapeutic use

Acitretin (etretin), a second generation monoaromatic retinoid for use in the treatment of severe psoriasis and other dermatoses, is the major active metabolite of etretinate and possesses a similar therapeutic index; i.e. a similar ratio of clinical efficacy to adverse effects. When used alone at a maintenance dosage of 30 to 50mg daily, acitretin is effective in the treatment of psoriasis, causing a reduction in the severity of scaling, erythema and induration. Efficacy appears to be further enhanced by combination with psoralen-ultraviolet A photochemotherapy (PUVA) or ultraviolet B irradiation (UVB). These combinations reduce the time to lesion clearance and reduce the total radiation dose, improving overall safety. Comparative studies have confirmed the equivalence of acitretin and etrtinate with regard to efficacy and toxicity. Adverse reactions are dose-related and generally typical of hypervitaminosis A. Alopecia and mucocutaneous symptoms such as cheilitis and drying of the mucous membranes are particularly prevalent. Hypertriglyceridaemia and elevation of cholesterol levels also occur. Examination of the pharmacokinetic profile of acitretin reveals its main advantage over etretinate. Acitretin is less lipophilic than etretinate, and its lack of sequestration into 'deep' fatty storage sites is reflected in a comparatively short terminal elimination half-life of 50 to 60 hours, compared with 120 days for etretinate. Due to its teratogenic potential, acitretin is strictly contraindicated in women of childbearing potential unless effective contraceptive measures are employed. Etretinate has been identified in plasma samples of some patients treated with acitretin. Thus, acetretin has an established place in the treatment of keratinising disorders, although its use in women of child-bearing potential must be accompanied by effective contraceptive measures, with a further 2-year contraceptive period after therapy completion.

Photochemotherapy for severe psoriasis without or in combination with acitretin: a randomized, double-blind comparison study

In a randomized, double-blind comparative study 60 patients with severe, widespread psoriasis were treated either with photochemotherapy (PUVA) alone or in combination with acitretin. Forty-eight patients completed the study; of these, 25 received placebo combined with PUVA and 23 received acitretin with PUVA. Marked or complete clearing of psoriasis occurred in 80% of the patients (20 of 25) without acitretin and in 96% of the patients (22 of 23) with adjunctive acitretin administration. The mean cumulative UVA dose given to patients in the acitretin-PUVA group was 42% less than that required for patients in the placebo-PUVA group. We conclude that acitretin substantially augments the efficacy of photochemotherapy in the treatment of severe psoriasis.

Acitretin in the treatment of severe disorders of keratinization. Results of an open study

The purpose of this open, noncomparative study with acitretin (Ro 10-1670) was to evaluate the clinical response of patients with various nonpsoriatic disorders of keratinization and to establish for these patients the optimal dosage for both efficacy and tolerance. Thirty-three patients (21 adults and 12 children or adolescents) with ichthyoses, palmoplantar hyperkeratosis, or Darier's disease were treated for a period of 4 months. Most patients showed marked improvement or remission. The results obtained in congenital ichthyosiform erythroderma, lamellar ichthyosis, and Papillon-Lefèvre syndrome were judged as better than those usually reported with etretinate. The side effects observed in our patients were similar to those reported with etretinate, with the exception of scaling of palms and soles, which had an incidence and severity greater than expected with etretinate. The optimal acitretin dosage providing the best efficacy with minimal undesirable effects varied from patient to patient. The mean daily dose (+/- SD) was 27 +/- 11 mg in adults and 0.7 +/- 0.2 mg/kg in children or adolescents.