The combination of calcipotriol and methotrexate compared with methotrexate and vehicle in psoriasis: results of a multicentre placebo-controlled randomized trial

[Translated article] Comparing the Use of Topical Therapy Along with Anti-IL-17 and Anti-IL-23 to Treat Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis in the Routine Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

Combinations of topical (TT) and biological therapies (BT) are a common thing in the routine clinical practice. However, the scientific medical literature on how TT is, actually, used after the initiation of BT is scarce, particularly in combination with anti-IL17, or anti-IL23.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the frequency of the concomitant use of TT + BT at baseline and after a 6-month course of several drugs (anti-IL17, ustekinumab, and anti-IL23). Our secondary endpoints are to describe the type of topical therapy used, compare the frequency of use of TT among the different groups of BT, describe the survival of topical therapy in these patients, and identify the factors that can impact the use or discontinuation of topical therapy in these patients (clinical response, quality of life, type of drug, etc.).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational, and single-center study of patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis treated with anti-IL17 (secukinumab, ixekizumab), anti-IL17R (brodalumab), ustekinumab, and guselkumab from January 2015 through December 2020.

RESULTS

We included a total of 138 patients. When treatment started, 82.7% were on TT (55% daily), and after 6 months, 86.6% had discontinued TT. Regarding the analysis by type of drug, at 6 months, we found that 100% of the patients with BRO had discontinued topical treatment. We did not find any significant differences in the frequency of use of TT based on the BT used during the 6-month course of treatment. The estimated mean course of TT was 4.3 months (SD, 6.7). Also, the estimated mean course of TT was significantly shorter in the group of patients who achieved PASI100 (2.8 months vs. 8.1 months).

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort, we saw a significant decrease in the frequency of use of TT at 6 months after starting BT in the routine clinical practice. This reduction occurred earlier in patients who improved their objective clinical response and quality of life.

Comparing the Use of Topical Therapy Along with Anti-IL-17 and Anti-IL-23 to Treat Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis in the Routine Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

Combinations of topical (TT) and biological therapies (BT) are a common thing in the routine clinical practice. However, the scientific medical literature on how TT is, actually, used after the initiation of BT is scarce, particularly in combination with anti-IL17, or anti-IL23.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the frequency of the concomitant use of TT + BT at baseline and after a 6-month course of several drugs (anti-IL17, ustekinumab, and anti-IL23). Our secondary endpoints are to describe the type of topical therapy used, compare the frequency of use of TT among the different groups of BT, describe the survival of topical therapy in these patients, and identify the factors that can impact the use or discontinuation of topical therapy in these patients (clinical response, quality of life, type of drug, etc.).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational, and single-center study of patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis treated with anti-IL17 (secukinumab, ixekizumab), anti-IL17R (brodalumab), ustekinumab, and guselkumab from January 2015 through December 2020.

RESULTS

We included a total of 138 patients. When treatment started, 82.7% were on TT (55% daily), and after 6 months, 86.6% had discontinued TT. Regarding the analysis by type of drug, at 6 months, we found that 100% of the patients with BRO had discontinued topical treatment. We did not find any significant differences in the frequency of use of TT based on the BT used during the 6-month course of treatment. The estimated mean course of TT was 4.3 months (SD, 6.7). Also, the estimated mean course of TT was significantly shorter in the group of patients who achieved PASI100 (2.8 months vs. 8.1 months).

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort, we saw a significant decrease in the frequency of use of TT at 6 months after starting BT in the routine clinical practice. This reduction occurred earlier in patients who improved their objective clinical response and quality of life.

Disentangling the complexity of psoriasis in the post-genome-wide association era

In recent years, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been instrumental in unraveling the genetic architecture of complex diseases, including psoriasis. The application of large-scale GWA studies in psoriasis has illustrated several associated loci that participate in the cutaneous inflammation, however explaining a fraction of the disease heritability. With the advent of high-throughput sequencing technologies and functional genomics approaches, the post-GWAS era aims to unravel the functional mechanisms underlying the inter-individual variability in psoriasis patients. In this review, we present the key advances of psoriasis GWAS in under-represented populations, rare, non-coding and structural variants and epistatic phenomena that orchestrate the interplay between different cell types. We further review the gene-gene and gene-environment interactions contributing to the disease predisposition and development of comorbidities through Mendelian randomization studies and pleiotropic effects of psoriasis-associated loci. We finally examine the holistic approaches conducted in psoriasis through system genetics and state-of-the-art transcriptomic analyses, discussing their potential implication in the expanding field of precision medicine and characterization of comorbidities.

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.

Nanoscale Topical Pharmacotherapy in Management of Psoriasis: Contemporary Research and Scope

Psoriasis is a typical dermal condition that has been anticipated since prehistoric times when it was mistakenly implicit in being a variant of leprosy. It is an atypical organ-specific autoimmune disorder, which is triggered by the activation of T-cells and/or B-cells. Until now, the pathophysiology of this disease is not completely explicated and still, many research investigations are ongoing. Different approaches have been investigated to treat this dreadful skin disease using various anti-psoriatic drugs of different modes of action through smart drug-delivery systems. Nevertheless, there is no ideal therapy for a complete cure of psoriasis owing to the dearth of an ideal drug-delivery system for anti-psoriatic drugs. The conventional pharmacotherapy approaches for the treatment of psoriasis demand various classes of anti-psoriatic drugs with optimum benefit/risk ratio and insignificant untoward effects. The advancement in nanoscale drug delivery had a great impact on the establishment of a nanomedicine-based therapy for better management of psoriasis in recent times. Nanodrug carriers are exploited to design and develop nanomedicine-based therapy for psoriasis. It has a promising future in the improvement of the therapeutic efficacy of conventional anti-psoriatic drugs. The present manuscript aims to discuss the pathophysiology, conventional pharmacotherapy, and contemporary research in the area of nanoscale topical drug delivery systems for better management of psoriasis including the significance of targeted pharmacotherapy in psoriasis.

Methotrexate Dosing Regimen for Plaque-type Psoriasis: An Update of a Systematic Review

Background Methotrexate (MTX) is a systemic treatment for plaque-type psoriasis. At the time of approval, no dose-ranging studies were performed. Nowadays, a uniform dosing regimen is lacking. This might contribute to suboptimal treatment with the drug.Objective To summarize the literature involving the MTX dosing regimens in psoriasis patients.Methods In this SR, RCTs and documents with aggregated evidence (AgEv) on the MTX dosing regimen in psoriasis were summarized. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which oral, subcutaneous or intramuscular MTX was used in patients with psoriasis and AgEv, were included. The MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched up to June 20, 2022. This SR was registered in PROSPERO.Results Thirty-nine RCTs had a high risk of bias. Test dosages were given in only 3 RCTs. In the RCTs, MTX was usually prescribed in a start dose of 7.5 mg/week (n = 13). MTX was mostly given in a start dose of 15 mg/week, in the AgEv (n = 5). One guideline recommended a test dose, in other aggregated evidence a test dose was not mentioned or even discouraged.Conclusions There is a lack of high-quality evidence and available data for dosing MTX in psoriasis is heterogeneous.

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.

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 AAD-NPF Guidelines of care for the management and treatment of psoriasis with topical therapy and alternative medicine modalities for psoriasis severity measures

Psoriasis is a chronic, inflammatory, multisystem disease that affects up to 3.2% of the United States population. This guideline addresses important clinical questions that arise in psoriasis management and care and provides recommendations based on the available evidence. The treatment of psoriasis with topical agents and with alternative medicine will be reviewed, emphasizing treatment recommendations and the role of dermatologists in monitoring and educating patients regarding benefits as well as risks that may be associated. This guideline will also address the severity assessment methods of psoriasis in adults.

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.

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.

The Frequent Use of Oral Retinoids in Combination with other Treatments for Psoriasis: A Retrospective Analysis

Background:

Combination treatment in psoriasis may be common, logical, and appropriate, even if not well tested or well documented by clinical trials. While oral retinoids such as acitretin can be used as monotherapy, efficacy can be further augmented by combination use with other agents. Similarly, because of its safety profile, acitretin can be added in low doses to help patients who have not achieved adequate control with other psoriasis treatments.

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to assess how oral retinoids are used in combination with other drugs to treat psoriasis.

Methods:

We assessed the use of acitretin and other oral retinoids for the treatment of psoriasis using two sources of information: nationally representative survey data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) and local data obtained by chart review of 518 patients seen in a university dermatology clinic.

Results:

In the NAMCS, oral retinoids were prescribed with other psoriasis medications at 71% of visits. In the chart review, combination use was even more frequent (96% of subjects were on combination treatment) and included combinations of acitretin with topicals, phototherapy, and other systemic treatments. Adverse events were reported in 53% of patients treated with acitretin, although none were severe.

Conclusion:

Use of acitretin in combination with many other psoriasis treatments is a common practice. Mucocutaneous side effects of oral retinoids are common but with appropriate dosing are generally mild.

Can pretreatment serum calcium level predict the efficacy of methotrexate in the treatment of severe plaque psoriasis?

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of methotrexate (MTX) varies in the treatment of psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify an indicator from routine pretreatment tests to predict MTX efficacy in the treatment of psoriasis.

METHODS

In a retrospective analysis of 77 psoriatic patients, the correlation between MTX efficacy and pretreatment routine test results was analyzed with Spearman correlation. The potential risks were further evaluated with a linear regression model. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to examine the effectiveness of serum total calcium (tCa) to predict the effect of MTX on psoriasis. The highest Youden index was used to determine the cutoff point, with which the positive and negative predictive values were calculated. Synergistic effects of MTX and calcium on keratinocyte growth and psoriasis-like mouse model were also investigated.

RESULTS

The pretreatment tCa level exhibited the closest association with MTX efficacy. The relative psoriasis improvement with tCa was 61.07% (95% confidence interval, 42.85-79.29; P < .001) and better improvements were observed in patients with higher tCa (r = 0.588; P < .002). MTX inhibited keratinocyte growth, which was enhanced synergistically by calcium. In a psoriasis-like mouse model, MTX strongly inhibited epidermis proliferation in the high-calcium group.

LIMITATIONS

One limitation of our study is the relatively small sample size.

CONCLUSION

Pretreatment tCa level has the highest correlation with MTX efficacy, which might be useful in predicting beneficial treatment results in psoriasis. Larger studies are required to confirm our findings.

Biologic therapy with or without topical treatment in psoriasis: what does the current evidence say?

Biologic therapy represents a relatively new class of drugs which have revolutionized the treatment of psoriasis and are used with increasing frequency in order to control this chronic, systemic inflammatory disease. However, it is unclear what role there is for combination therapy of biologics with traditional topical agents. The purpose of this article is to assess the literature on the role of topical agents as adjuvants to biological treatments in the treatment of psoriasis and identify areas for further research. A MEDLINE search was performed in order to identify English-language publications from 1996 to 2014 examining combination biologic therapy with topical medications in the treatment of psoriasis. Data from these clinical studies are summarized and the outcomes are discussed. In general, the addition of adjuvant topical therapy to systemic biologic therapy allowed for a reduction in dosage and side effects of both agents, maintenance of initial response to biologics, treatment of recalcitrant lesions in partial responders, and potential acceleration of response to biologic therapies. The current data, though limited, suggest that using topical therapies as adjunct treatment to biologics is a well tolerated and effective means of controlling psoriasis and improving quality of life for patients. However, the treating physician should remain attentive to signs of adverse events and seek opportunities to reduce the dose or treatment frequency during chronic use.

Treating axial and peripheral spondyloarthritis, including psoriatic arthritis, to target: results of a systematic literature search to support an international treat-to-target recommendation in spondyloarthritis

BACKGROUND

Current recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) and psoriatic arthritis are to monitor disease activity and adjust therapy accordingly. However, treatment targets and timeframes of change have not been defined. An international expert panel has been convened to develop 'treat-to-target' recommendations, based on published evidence and expert opinion.

OBJECTIVE

To review evidence on targeted treatment for axial and peripheral SpA, as well as for psoriatic skin disease.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search covering Medline, Embase and Cochrane, conference abstracts and studies in http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.

RESULTS

Randomised comparisons of targeted versus routine treatment are lacking. Some studies implemented treatment targets before escalating therapy: in ankylosing spondylitis, most trials used a decrease in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index; in psoriatic arthritis, protocols primarily considered a reduction in swollen and tender joints; in psoriasis, the Modified Psoriasis Severity Score and the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index were used. Complementary evidence correlating these factors with function and radiographic damage at follow-up is sparse and equivocal.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for randomised trials that investigate the value of treat-to-target recommendations in SpA and psoriasis. Several trials have used thresholds of disease activity measures to guide treatment decisions. However, evidence on the effect of these data on long-term outcome is scarce. The search data informed the expert committee regarding the formulation of recommendations and a research agenda.

Combination therapy in psoriasis: an evidence-based review

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is a chronic, systemic, inflammatory condition for which a variety of treatment modalities exist. Combinations of therapies are used often in clinical practice to enhance efficacy and reduce drug toxicities.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review is to assess the literature on the efficacy and safety of combination therapy in the treatment of psoriasis.

METHODS

MEDLINE was reviewed to identify English-language publications from 1966 to 2011 examining combination therapy in psoriasis. Fifty-three articles met inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Randomized controlled trials addressing various combinations of treatment modalities for psoriasis were included. Data from these clinical studies were summarized and the outcomes were discussed.

RESULTS

Large-scale, randomized controlled trials investigating the use of various combination therapies in psoriasis are limited. The strongest data support the use of combinations of vitamin D derivatives and corticosteroids as topical combinations and, to a lesser extent, the combination of other topical agents. Phototherapy and topical vitamin D derivatives as well as phototherapy in combination with oral retinoids are well supported in the literature. Combinations of systemic medications, though often used clinically, have little data to support their efficacy or safety.

LIMITATIONS

Our data were limited by the small number of clinical trials examining the multiple available combinations that are used in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of combination treatments falls within the standard of care for psoriasis, even if these combinations have not been extensively studied in clinical trials.

Vitamin D analogs in the treatment of psoriasis: Where are we standing and where will we be going?

Vitamin D and analogs exert in the skin and other tissues potent effects on cellular differentiation and proliferation. Moreover, these compounds regulate apoptosis and exert immunomodulatory effects. During the last decades, it has convincingly been shown that vitamin D compounds are effective and safe in the topical treatment of psoriasis, where they nowadays represent a standard therapy. This review summarizes laboratory and clinical investigations related to the treatment of psoriasis with calcitriol or analogs. Additionally, promising concepts for the development of new vitamin D analogs are discussed. As a matter of fact, the final goal to create strong antiproliferative or antiinflammatory acting vitamin D analogs that exert only minor calcemic activity has not been reached until today. New agents that may activate selective vitamin D signalling pathways but may exert only negligible calcemic activity would declare a new era in dermatologic therapy and may also be effective in the topical or systemic treatment of various inflammatory skin diseases including atopic dermatitis and in various cutaneous malignancies, including lymphomas, squamous cell carcinoma or basal cell carcinoma.

Topical delivery for the treatment of psoriasis

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Psoriasis is one of the most common human skin diseases. Topical therapy forms the cornerstone in the management of mild-to-moderate psoriasis. Topical therapies are also used as adjunctive to systemic therapy in moderate and severe forms of the disease.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

In this review, an overview of psoriasis pathogenesis, new topical medications for psoriasis, new targets and molecules, combination topical therapies and combination of topical and phototherapy is provided. Over the past decade several efficacious and acceptable treatment options have emerged from the age-old therapies. The development of sophisticated formulation options has led to an enhancement in the rate and extent of drug delivery across the skin, increasing therapeutic value and improving patient compliance.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

Readers will learn about monotherapy and combination topical products as well as new topical drug delivery technology to achieve optimal clinical outcomes. This review will highlight the need to generate more dermal pharmacokinetic data for better understanding of the impact of formulation change on skin pharmacokinetics to help design improved topical drug delivery systems.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

New topical formulations have the potential to achieve better efficacy with improved safety profile.

Combination of calcipotriol and methotrexate in nanostructured lipid carriers for topical delivery

The combination of calcipotriol with methotrexate can strengthen the topical therapy for psoriasis. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the potential of nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs) loaded with lipophilic calcipotriol and hydrophilic methotrexate as topical therapy. NLCs composed of Precirol ATO 5 with various amounts of squalene as the liquid lipid were prepared. The particle size, surface charge, molecular environment, drug permeation, and skin irritation of the carriers were assessed. Hyperproliferative skin was also used as a permeation barrier in this study. It was found that variations in the Precirol/squalene ratio had profound effects on the physicochemical characteristics of the NLCs. The range of particle size of the NLC preparations was 270 to 320 nm, with vehicles containing a higher Precirol amount exhibiting a larger diameter. NLCs with a higher Precirol/squalene ratio also showed greater polarity in their molecular environment. Calcipotriol-loaded NLC systems provided drug fluxes of 0.62 to 1.08 microg/cm(2)/h, which were slightly higher or comparable to the 30% ethanol vehicle (control, 0.72 microg/cm(2)/h). The methotrexate amount permeating the skin was 2.4 to 4.4-times greater using NLCs compared to that with the control. Dual drug-loaded NLCs exhibited reduced skin permeation of calcipotriol but not methotrexate. The in vivo topical delivery examined by confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) showed a good correlation with the in vitro results. These two drugs with extremely different polarities can successfully be combined in NLCs. Results suggest that NLCs may have the potential to serve as delivery carriers for antipsoriatic drugs because of enhanced drug permeation and limited skin irritation.

Psoriasis: consensus on topical therapies

OBJECTIVE

A consensus conference was convened to evaluate the topical treatment of psoriasis.

PARTICIPANTS

Members of the International Psoriasis Council (IPC) with broad clinical experience in the treatment of psoriasis and a specialist in meta- and pharmacoeconomic analyses were invited to participate on the consensus panel. Those accepting the invitation convened in Saariselkä, Finland.

EVIDENCE

An advisory group on topical treatments was nominated by the organizing panel members. All participants reported at the consensus conference on evidence based data with respect to disease severity assessment, the available data on efficacy and safety and on a comparative efficacy/safety analysis.

CONSENSUS PROCESS

At the consensus conference, the presentations were discussed and conclusions, which were reached by the group, were recorded. Active participants of the group wrote assigned sections of this consensus document with a majority of participants agreed on the conclusions.

Disorders of cell kinetics and differentiation

The kinetics of cells, keratin, and lipids in the skin could provide useful information about skin biology in health and disease. The kinetics of skin cell turnover are of interest for a variety of physiologic and pathologic conditions. There are also uncertainties regarding the extent of keratinocyte turnover in various skin diseases. Hyperproliferation may represent a risk factor for skin cancer and occurs in physiologic conditions such as wound healing.

Relapse, rebound, and psoriasis adverse events: An advisory group report

Psoriasis is a chronic disease, the severity of which varies among patients and changes unpredictably over time in individual patients. Psoriasis can be exacerbated during treatment by infection, endocrine factors, hypocalcemia, medications, psychologic stress, skin trauma, or other factors. Patients who discontinue treatments may experience a return of disease--relapse--or worsening of disease--rebound. The National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) proposed standardized definitions of relapse and rebound. Efalizumab, a recombinant humanized immunoglobulin G-1 monoclonal antibody, is approved for the management of psoriasis. During efalizumab clinical trials, a small percentage of patients experienced protocol-defined adverse events related to psoriasis. After publication of the NPF definition of rebound, post hoc exploratory analyses of the efalizumab clinical trial data were performed. The efalizumab clinical trial investigators discussed their observations, the analyses, and their individual approaches to the treatment of patients receiving or discontinuing efalizumab therapy, the conclusions of which are described herein.

Modern modified 'ultra' Goeckerman therapy: a PASI assessment of a very effective therapy for psoriasis resistant to both prebiologic and biologic therapies

BACKGROUND

Compared with the original Goeckerman therapy devised by Dr Goeckerman in the 1930s, modern modified Goeckerman therapy in the second millennium shows significantly enhanced efficacy by improvements in technology (e.g. narrowband UVB) and the possibility of adding other relatively safe therapeutic options for more resistant cases to enhance efficacy without compromising the basic safety profile.

METHODS

For approximately 6 months, psoriasis patients undergoing Goeckerman therapy at the UCSF Psoriasis Center were followed from admission to discharge. A total of 25 consecutive psoriasis patients were treated with the Goeckerman regimen until (near-) clearance or for a maximum period of 3 months, and their weekly improvements in terms of PASI (psoriasis area and severity index) were recorded.

RESULTS

In all, 100% reached PASI 75 by 12 weeks of treatment. In fact, by 8 weeks, 95% reached PASI 75 and most of the patients were discharged within 2 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The onset of treatment effect was rapid. Goeckerman therapy is still a valuable and important part of the psoriatic armamentarium.

The Frequent Use of Oral Retinoids in Combination with Other Treatments for Psoriasis: A Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Combination treatment in psoriasis may be common, logical, and appropriate, even if not well tested or well documented by clinical trials. While oral retinoids such as acitretin can be used as monotherapy, efficacy can be further augmented by combination use with other agents. Similarly, because of its safety profile, acitretin can be added in low doses to help patients who have not achieved adequate control with other psoriasis treatments.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess how oral retinoids are used in combination with other drugs to treat psoriasis.

METHODS

We assessed the use of acitretin and other oral retinoids for the treatment of psoriasis using two sources of information: nationally representative survey data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) and local data obtained by chart review of 518 patients seen in a university dermatology clinic.

RESULTS

In the NAMCS, oral retinoids were prescribed with other psoriasis medications at 71% of visits. In the chart review, combination use was even more frequent (96% of subjects were on combination treatment) and included combinations of acitretin with topicals, phototherapy, and other systemic treatments. Adverse events were reported in 53% of patients treated with acitretin, although none were severe.

CONCLUSION

Use of acitretin in combination with many other psoriasis treatments is a common practice. Mucocutaneous side effects of oral retinoids are common but with appropriate dosing are generally mild.

Recommendations for the topical treatment of psoriasis

Several topical treatments are available for patients with psoriasis. Although individualization of the treatment remains important, there is a need for treatment recommendations to identify the best treatment out of the available treatments and to help with improvement in treatment compliance. In this communication we give our views on the assessment of severity of psoriasis. We provide recommendations for selection of treatments, reconciling the clearance phase and the long-term management. Finally, we provide recommendations for the treatment of particular localizations: the scalp and psoriasis at sensitive sites.