Infliximab monotherapy provides rapid and sustained benefit for plaque-type psoriasis

A systematic review investigating at what proportion clinical images are shared in prospective randomized controlled trials involving patients with psoriasis and biological agents

For many patients including those with psoriasis, scientific manuscripts comprising clinical outcomes including psoriasis area severity index (PASI) and/or physician global assessment (PGA) may be difficult to understand. However, most patients can relate to images at baseline and follow-up, particularly for dermatological diseases. This study aimed to assess the proportion of shared clinical images in psoriasis trials. A systematic review adhering to the PRISMA guidelines was performed. The review was limited to randomized controlled trials, and among these, only investigations involving biological agents for treatment of psoriasis were included. The Embase, MEDLINE and Scopus databases were searched for eligible studies published from inception to October 26, 2021. In total, 152 studies were included. When combining these, 62,871 patients were randomized. Overall, 203 images were shared depicting 60 patients in the manuscripts yielding an overall sharing rate of 0.1%. Patient images are seldom incorporated in clinical trial manuscripts which impairs interpretation for patients. Inclusion of image material would strengthen the patients' perspective and understanding on what treatment effects that can be expected. As such, this systematic review should be an invitation to the pharmaceutical industry, other sponsors, and editorial offices to improve easy transfer of information to patients using image data.

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.

Long-Term Psoriasis Control with Guselkumab, Adalimumab, Secukinumab, or Ixekizumab in the USA

BACKGROUND

Biologics have revolutionized the management of psoriasis, but response to treatment varies. Loss of treatment efficacy may occur over time, requiring treatment switching or escalation. Claims data on persistence may be informative of real-world treatment outcome. This analysis described persistence and rates of remission of patients with psoriasis initiated on current biologics.

METHODS

Adults with psoriasis initiated (index date) on guselkumab, adalimumab, secukinumab, or ixekizumab between 07/13/2017 and 07/31/2020 were identified in the IBM MarketScan Databases. Discontinuation (or end of persistence) was defined as gaps in index biologic supply of more than twice the labelled dosing interval or mode days of supply (> 120 days for guselkumab and > 60 days for adalimumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab). The proportion of patients reinitiating index therapy post-discontinuation and the proportion achieving remission (proxy definition: no claims for psoriasis-related treatment post-discontinuation among patients with ≥ 6 months of follow-up post-discontinuation) were assessed.

RESULTS

There were 3408 patients in the guselkumab (mean age: 47.9 years old; female: 47.1%), 8017 in the adalimumab (47.4 years old; 54.1%), 6123 in the secukinumab (49.4 years old; 54.2%), and 3728 in the ixekizumab cohorts (49.1 years old; 50.3%). The median time to discontinuation was 26.2 months in the guselkumab cohort and 9.9, 12.4, and 12.5 months in adalimumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab cohorts, respectively. Among those who discontinued index therapy, 22.9% in the guselkumab cohort and 21.1%, 31.9%, and 32.0% in the adalimumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab cohorts reinitiated it. Remission rates were 17.2% in the guselkumab cohort and 12.4%, 10.5%, and 9.0% in adalimumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab cohorts, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients on guselkumab showed trends toward better persistence and higher remission rates relative to other biologics. Finding patients who may be in remission suggests potential disease modification with current agents.

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.

Considerations for safety in the use of systemic medications for psoriasis and atopic dermatitis during the COVID-19 pandemic

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is responsible for at least 2 546 527 cases and 175 812 deaths as of April 21, 2020. Psoriasis and atopic dermatitis (AD) are common, chronic, inflammatory skin conditions, with immune dysregulation as a shared mechanism; therefore, mainstays of treatment include systemic immunomodulating therapies. It is unknown whether these therapies are associated with increased COVID-19 susceptibility or worse outcomes in infected patients. In this review, we discuss overall infection risks of nonbiologic and biologic systemic medications for psoriasis and AD and provide therapeutic recommendations. In summary, in patients with active infection, systemic conventional medications, the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib, and biologics for psoriasis should be temporarily held until there is more data; in uninfected patients switching to safer alternatives should be considered. Interleukin (IL)-17, IL-12/23, and IL-23 inhibitors are associated with low infection risk, with IL-17 and IL-23 favored over IL-12/23 inhibitors. Pivotal trials and postmarketing data also suggest that IL-17 and IL-23 blockers are safer than tumor necrosis factor alpha blockers. Apremilast, acitretin, and dupilumab have favorable safety data and may be safely initiated and continued in uninfected patients. Without definitive COVID-19 data, these recommendations may be useful in guiding treatment of psoriasis and AD patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

Comparison of cumulative clinical benefits of biologics for the treatment of psoriasis over 16 weeks: Results from a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cumulative clinical improvement and speed of improvement are important to psoriasis patients.

OBJECTIVE

Compare cumulative benefits of biologics over 12 to 16 weeks in the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis.

METHODS

A systematic literature review identified phase III trial data on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) responses for biologics during 12 and 16 weeks of treatment. Cumulative clinical benefit, measured by the area under the curve for PASI ≥75% improvement (PASI 75), ≥90% improvement (PASI 90), and 100% improvement (PASI 100), was compared using the network meta-analysis and Bayesian methodology on the relative probability of achieving percentage of maximum area under the curve.

RESULTS

Among biologics approved for psoriasis treatment, anti-interleukin-17 biologics demonstrated consistently greater cumulative clinical benefits on PASI 75, PASI 90, and PASI 100 over the 12- or 16-week period than anti-interleukin-23 and other biologics. For biologics with 12-week data, ixekizumab and brodalumab showed greater cumulative benefits for PASI 75, PASI 90, and PASI 100 than secukinumab, followed by guselkumab, infliximab, adalimumab, ustekinumab, and etanercept. Ixekizumab showed greater cumulative benefits than all other biologics reporting 16-week data.

LIMITATIONS

Recently approved biologics were not included.

CONCLUSION

Ixekizumab (at 12 weeks and 16 weeks) and brodalumab (at 12 weeks) had greater cumulative clinical benefit than all of other biologics studied.

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

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

Sustained long-term efficacy and safety of adalimumab in paediatric patients with severe chronic plaque psoriasis from a randomized, double-blind, phase III study

BACKGROUND

Adalimumab (ADA) (Humira^® , AbbVie Inc., U.S.A.) is approved by the European Medicines Agency for children aged ≥ 4 years with severe plaque psoriasis.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of ADA in children with severe plaque psoriasis.

METHODS

Results are presented from the 52-week long-term extension (LTE) of the randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, phase III trial, in children with severe plaque psoriasis (results from prior periods have been published). Patients aged ≥ 4 and < 18 years were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to ADA 0·8 mg kg^-1 (40 mg maximum) or 0·4 mg kg^-1 (20 mg maximum) every other week or to methotrexate (MTX) 0·1-0·4 mg kg^-1 (25 mg maximum) weekly. The 16-week initial treatment (IT) period was followed by a 36-week withdrawal period and a 16-week retreatment period. Patients could enter the LTE at prespecified time points to receive ADA 0·8 mg kg^-1 (blinded or open label) or ADA 0·4 mg kg^-1 (blinded), or to remain off treatment. Efficacy is reported for patient groups according to doses received in the IT and LTE periods.

RESULTS

Of the 114 patients randomized in the IT period, 108 entered the LTE (n = 36 in each group); 93 received ADA 0·8 mg kg^-1 . Efficacy (≥ 75% improvement from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) was maintained or improved from entry to the end of the LTE: MTX(IT)/ADA 0·8(LTE) 31-86% of patients; ADA 0·4(IT)/0·4 or 0·8(LTE) 28-47%; ADA 0·8(IT)/0·8(LTE) 50-72%. No serious infections occurred in the LTE.

CONCLUSIONS

After 52 weeks of long-term ADA treatment in children aged 4-18 years with severe plaque psoriasis, disease severity was reduced and maintained or further improved, as demonstrated by efficacy outcomes. No new safety risks were identified. What's already known about this topic? The results from the first three periods of this phase III trial in children aged 4-18 years with severe plaque psoriasis suggest that adalimumab is a safe and efficacious treatment option in this population. What does this study add? This is the first study to evaluate long-term treatment of adalimumab in children with severe psoriasis, and the first to evaluate switching from methotrexate to adalimumab in this population.

Diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for plaque psoriasis - Brazilian Society of Dermatology

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects 1.3% of the Brazilian population. The most common clinical manifestations are erythematous, scaling lesions that affect both genders and can occur on any anatomical site, preferentially involving the knees, elbows, scalp and genitals. Besides the impact on the quality of life, the systemic nature of the disease makes psoriasis an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, especially in young patients with severe disease. By an initiative of the Brazilian Society of Dermatology, dermatologists with renowned clinical experience in the management of psoriasis were invited to form a work group that, in a partnership with the Brazilian Medical Association, dedicated themselves to create the Plaque Psoriasis Diagnostic and Treatment Guidelines. The relevant issues for the diagnosis (evaluation of severity and comorbidities) and treatment of plaque psoriasis were defined. The issues generated a search strategy in the Medline-PubMed database up to July 2018. Subsequently, the answers to the questions of the recommendations were devised, and each reference selected presented the respective level of recommendation and strength of scientific evidence. The final recommendations for making up the final text were worded by the coordinators.

Psoriasis in moderate grave plaque - immunobiological treatment

The Guidelines Project, an initiative of the Brazilian Medical Association, aims to combine information from the medical field in order to standardize producers to assist the reasoning and decision-making of doctors. The information provided through this project must be assessed and criticized by the physician responsible for the conduct that will be adopted, depending on the conditions and the clinical status of each patient.

Infiltration of T Cells into a Three-Dimensional Psoriatic Skin Model Mimics Pathological Key Features

Psoriasis is an autoimmune chronic dermatosis that is T cell-mediated, characterized by epidermal thickening, aberrant epidermal differentiation and inflammatory infiltrates, with a dominant Th1 and Th17 profile. Additional in vitro models are required to study the complex interactions between activated T cells and skin cells, and to develop new, more effective treatments. We have therefore sought to model this psoriatic inflammation by the generation of tissue-engineered immunocompetent tissues, and we have investigated the response of activated T-cell infiltration in models produced with lesional psoriatic skin cells on major hallmarks of psoriasis. The immunocompetent lesional skin model displayed a delayed onset of epidermal differentiation, an hyperproliferation of the basal keratinocytes, a drastic increase in the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines, and a disturbed expression of key transcription factors, as observed in lesional plaques, suggesting a crucial importance of combining the pathological phenotype of cutaneous cells to T cells in order to generate a relevant model for psoriasis. Finally, we found this skin model to be responsive to methotrexate treatment, making it a valuable tool for drug development.

A multicenter retrospective case-control study on Suspension of TNF-inhibitors and Outcomes in Psoriatic patients (STOP study)

BACKGROUND

There is limited information on patients undergoing withdrawal after long-term treatment with anti-TNF alpha drugs and their clinical evolution during the post-interruption period in real-life settings. The purpose of the present retrospective case-control study was to provide a clearer insight into the clinical management of psoriatic patients with adequate response to long-term adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab treatment once these biologic agents are interrupted.

METHODS

A total of 270 patients undergoing anti-TNF alpha agents discontinuation and 253 controls treated with a continuous regimen were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the change in disease activity in each study group over six months (or until treatment of psoriatic recurrence) as measured by the PASI score every month. Then, we evaluated the rate of and time to relapse, the rate of clinical worsening (PASI≥5) and the clinical variables influencing the loss of response.

RESULTS

Our study showed that about 50% of patients achieving a long-term and optimal response to the aforementioned anti-TNF alpha agents did not experience any relapse over a 6-month follow-up period after withdrawal. We also observed that subjects displaying a complete remission (PASI=0) at anti-TNF alpha therapy withdrawal experienced less frequently disease worsening and/or relapse compared to subjects having a PASI>0.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings confirmed that all three anti-TNF alpha agents tend to retain their effectiveness upon re-administration in case of recurrence, even if they have been previously used for long time.

How Long Does the Benefit of Biologics Last? An Update on Time to Relapse and Potential for Rebound of Biologic Agents for Psoriasis

The biologic agents vary considerably in terms of their long-term duration of effect. Using the definitions provided by the National Psoriasis Foundation Medical Board, the objective of this review was to compare all biologic agents with respect to time to relapse and potential for rebound. Overall, alefacept had the longest off-treatment benefit (29.9 weeks in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index [PASI] 75 responders), followed by ustekinumab (22 weeks), infliximab (19.5 weeks), adalimumab (18 weeks), etanercept (12.1 weeks in PASI 50 responders), and, lastly, efalizumab (9.6 weeks). Rebound was reported commonly for efalizumab (14%) and, extremely rarely, for etanercept (0.002%).

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.

Patient Satisfaction with Psoriasis Therapies: An Update and Introduction to Biologic Therapy

Background:

Psoriasis is a chronic, immune-mediated skin condition that often requires lifelong treatment. Many patients report dissatisfaction with traditional nonbiologic therapies because they are ineffective for their psoriasis, are associated with side effects, or impact negatively on quality of life.

Objectives:

The aim of this article is to review the effect on patient quality of life of traditional nonbiologic psoriasis therapies and to discuss the impact of biologic psoriasis therapies on patient satisfaction.

Methods:

A review of the literature is presented.

Results:

Traditional nonbiologic psoriasis therapies can negatively impact quality of life due to a variety of factors including inconvenience and toxicity. Biologic agents have been developed that target the immunopathogenesis of psoriasis. Based on favorable efficacy and safety results in clinical trials, some of these agents are now approved for clinical use. Evidence suggests that patients receiving biologic therapies experience significant improvements in health-related quality of life.

Conclusion:

Biologic agents offer new hope for patients with psoriasis that their chronic condition can be controlled in a manner that improves their quality of life and may lead to high levels of satisfaction with their treatment.

Integrating Biologic Agents into Management of Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: A Consensus of the Canadian Psoriasis Expert Panel

Background:

Approximately 2% of people worldwide have psoriasis, with as many as 1 million people with psoriasis in Canada alone.1,2 The severity of psoriasis ranges from mild to severe. It can lead to substantial morbidity and psychological stress and have a profound negative impact on patient quality of life.3,4 Although available therapies reduce therapies reduce the extent and severity of the disease and improve quality of life,3 reports have indicated a patient preference for more aggressive therapy and a dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of current treatment options.5

Objective:

A Canadian Expert Panel, comprising Canadian dermatologists, convened in Toronto on 27 February 2004 to reach a consensus on unmet needs of patients treated with current therapies and how to include the pending biologic agents in and improve the current treatment algorithm for moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Current treatment recommendations suggest a stepwise strategy starting with topical agents followed by phototherapy and then systemic agents.3,6,7 The Panel evaluated the appropriate positioning of the biologic agents, once approved by Health Canada, for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

Methods:

The Panel reviewed available evidence and quality of these data on current therapies and from randomized, controlled clinical trials.8–14 Subsequently, consensus was achieved by small-group workshops followed by plenary discussion.

Results:

The Panel determined that biologic agents are an important addition to therapies currently available for moderate-to-severe psoriasis and proposed an alternative treatment algorithm to the current step wise paradigm.

Conclusion:

The Panel recommended a new treatment algorithm for moderate-to-severe psoriasis whereby all appropriate treatment options, including biologic agents, are considered together and patients' specific characteristics and needs are taken into account when selecting the most appropriate treatment option.

Successful Treatment of von Zumbusch Pustular Psoriasis with Infliximab

Background:

Von Zumbusch pustular psoriasis is a severe, generalized form of psoriasis. Patients may also suffer from systemic complications, such as fever, arthropathy, congestive heart failure, and infections, which can ultimately prove fatal. Generalized pustular psoriasis can often be recalcitrant, making treatment difficult.

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the efficacy of infliximab in treating generalized pustular psoriasis.

Methods:

Four consecutively admitted patients with generalized pustular psoriasis were treated with infliximab 5 mg/kg intravenous infusion. ResultsAfter treatment with infliximab, white blood cell count, sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, and vital signs normalized in all 4 patients within 24 h of the infusion. PASI scores on discharge had improved in all 4 patients.

Conclusion:

All 4 patients with generalized pustular psoriasis had rapid and positive responses to infliximab without any significant side effects. This experience adds support to the use of infliximab for generalized pustular psoriasis.

Biologic Therapeutics in the Treatment of Psoriasis. Part 1: Review

Background:

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease principally mediated by activated T cells, which release proinflammatory cytokines with reactive epidermal changes in the skin, producing the characteristic lesions of psoriasis. New research into possible treatment options has been inspired by increased understanding of the pathophysiology of psoriasis and advances in immunology and molecular biology permitting the development of targeted, highly active biologic agents.

Objective:

The aim of this article is to review the efficacy and safety of five biologic therapeutics in the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis and to provide practical guidelines for integration of these agents in the management of psoriasis.

Methods:

We searched MEDLINE (1966–2005) for articles containing the key words: alefacept, efalizumab, etanercept, infliximab, and adalimumab and searched recent conference abstracts.

Results:

Emerging immunotherapeutic agents (fusion proteins, recombinant cytokines, fusion toxins, or antibodies) target T cells or cytokines responsible for plaque formation that is characteristic of psoriasis. Alefacept is the first biologic to be approved in both the United States and Canada. More recently, efalizumab and etanercept and infliximab have been approved in the United States and Canada for plaque-type psoriasis. Adalimumab is currently in phase III clinical trials.

Conclusion:

These novel biologics offer an intriguing and effective treatment option for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.

Re-Induction as a Possible Alternative Modality of Dose Escalation of Infliximab: A Prospective Evaluation in a Small Series of Psoriatic Patients

Infliximab is an anti-tumour necrosis factor-alpha chimeric monoclonal antibody which is highly effective in psoriasis, as well as in other indications. In clinical practice, some patients may require dose escalation to overcome a reduction of the extent and/or duration of response during regular maintenance treatment, possibly due to the loss of stable serum concentrations of the drug. Common strategies of dose escalation are the increase of dose per infusion and the decrease of interval between infusions. Here we report the results of re-induction therapy with infliximab used as a dose escalation strategy in 9 patients whose psoriasis relapsed during maintenance treatment with infliximab 5 mg/kg every 8 weeks. Re-induction was well tolerated and capable of restoring response in 8 of these patients.

Infliximab Monotherapy for Refractory Psoriasis: Preliminary Results

Tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha plays an important role in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. Infliximab is an anti-TNF-alpha chimeric monoclonal antibody, which is licensed for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn's disease. Some reports have shown the efficacy of infliximab, either in monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate, for the treatment of psoriatic arthropathy and psoriasis.

The efficacy and tolerability of infliximab monotherapy was evaluated in 29 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, unresponsive to conventional treatments. Fourteen patients suffered from concomitant arthropathy. Patients received intravenous infliximab, 5mg/kg, at weeks 0, 2, and 6. After this 3-dose-induction regimen, patients were followed-up at monthly intervals and retreated with a single-dose infusion in case of relapse of signs and symptoms. Clinical assessment was performed using the psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) to monitor psoriasis activity; pruritus and joint pain were assessed on a scale of 0 to 3. A marked improvement of skin lesions and subjective symptoms was noted in the majority of patients; an excellent reduction of PASI score (⩾75%) was observed in 13.8% of cases at week 2, 71.4% at week 6 and 78.6% at week 10. During the follow-up period, some patients maintained satisfactory clinical results without requiring any additional infusions. In general, skin lesions showed a trend towards a more prolonged and sustained improvement as compared with subjective symptoms. Treatment was well tolerated and no serious adverse events occurred.

Efficacy and safety of biologics in the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis: a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

We conducted a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials in moderate-to-severe psoriasis treated with biological agents, with a follow-up of 10-14 weeks. Overall, 41 studies, with mean Jadad score of 4.4, and 15,586 patients were included. For the efficacy outcomes PASI 50, 75 and 90 our findings are not conclusive to point what biological agent has the greatest response in short term follow-up. There were no statistical differences between placebo and biologics for the occurrence of infections and serious adverse events. Ustekinumab 45 mg showed lower withdrawal due to adverse events compared with the placebo. Based on data available up to now, it is not possible to determine which biological agent is the best for PASI 50, 75 or 90 after 10-14 weeks of treatment. At the same follow-up, overall safety seems to be the same for all biological agents and Ustekinumab 45 mg the most well tolerated drug. To better understand efficacy and safety, indirect meta-analysis comparing drug-to-drug is required since randomized placebo-controlled trials may not be feasible.

Infliximab treatment of psoriasis in supervised infusion centers: case management experience

Psoriasis is a systemic chronic inflammatory disease that affects 1-3% of the world's population. Knowledge of the pathogenesis of psoriasis, particularly in the understanding of the role of T cells and tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα), and advances in immunology have led to the development of biological agents, which, due to their great effectiveness, speed of response and good tolerability, have revolutionized patient management. One of these is infliximab, a human chimeric immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody composed of human antibody constant regions and murine variable regions that was developed specifically to target TNFα. The six cases presented in this series highlight the feasibility, efficacy and safety of infliximab for psoriasis when administered in a variety of patients in several infusion centers across Spain. All six patients showed improvement in their psoriasis after the initiation of infliximab and no significant tolerability issues or injection site reactions were reported, despite the presence of several comorbid conditions or patient characteristics that traditionally reduce the efficacy of psoriasis treatments. This suggests that while the management of psoriasis patients with comorbid conditions and various unfavorable prognostic characteristics requires a multidisciplinary approach to ensure the patient obtains the best therapeutic response, infliximab is an effective and well tolerated treatment in these patients.

Long-term durability and dose escalation patterns in infliximab therapy for psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Infliximab often requires dose escalation to maintain response. Studies regarding long-term durability and dose escalation patterns for psoriasis are few.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate dose escalation patterns in psoriatic patients to identify factors of lack of optimal response to infliximab.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study included 93 patients (216.3 patient-years) treated with infliximab for psoriasis. Kaplan-Meier analysis assessed drug durability.

RESULTS

A median infliximab dose of 5.42 mg/kg/mo (range: 2.71-10.83) for a mean of 28 months was administered. Two thirds of patients received a dose escalation. Concurrent methotrexate extended duration of therapy (by a mean ± SD of 19.5 ± 8.1 months, P = .034), including time until first dose escalation (by a mean ± SD of 12.0 ± 6.1 months, P = .037), and failure (by a mean ± SD of 20.7 ± 6.7 months, P = .034). Patients who increased the infusion frequency before increasing the dose remained on infliximab 8.4 months longer than those who first increased the dose (P = .045). Four patients experienced adverse events; 2 required discontinuation.

LIMITATIONS

Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, infliximab levels, and antibody titers were not measured.

CONCLUSIONS

Dose escalation optimizes durability of infliximab. The probability of maintaining response is enhanced by concomitant methotrexate and increasing the infusion frequency before increasing the dose.

Prevalence and management of panic attacks during infliximab infusion in psoriatic patients

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is a chronic, inflammatory skin disease associated with anxiety and depression. Infliximab (IFX) is a human/mouse chimeric anti-TNF-α antibody effective in the treatment of psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of panic disorders in psoriatic patients during IFX infusions.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed on patients affected with psoriasis who were treated with IFX from 2002 to 2011 at a single center. Panic disorders were defined using the clinical criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition. A population of dermatological patients under treatment with IVG, rituximab, apheresis, intravenous corticosteroids and antibiotics was considered as the control group.

RESULTS

A total of 141 patients were evaluated. Of these, 6 (4.25%) experienced panic attacks during the infusion; 16 (11.3%) had a medical history of panic attack and of those 5/16 (31%) experienced panic attacks during IFX infusion. In the control group panic attacks were not recorded.

CONCLUSION

We describe 6 cases of patients in whom panic attacks were triggered by IFX infusion. Premedication with oral benzodiazepine and a slow rate of infusion is recommended.

[Treatment of psoriasis by methotrexate in the era of biotherapies: a study in 21 Tunisian patients]

INTRODUCTION

We present here results of methotrexate, in term of efficacy and tolerance, administrated in 21 Tunisian patients with severe psoriasis.

METHODS

It was a retrospective study conducted between january 2002 and december 2009 in the department of dermatology of Charles Nicolle Hospital of Tunis. We have included 21 patients with severe psoriasis treated by methotrexate.

RESULTS

Patients were 53 year-middle aged with a sex-ratio = 6. Psoriasis evolved for a mean of 10 years (1month-60 years). Patients had: plaque psoriasis (n = 18, 85.8%) with 63% body surface involvement, erythrodermic psoriasis (n = 2, 9.5%) and psoriatic arthritis (n = 1, 4.7%). Methotrexate was orally administrated at an initial dose of 5-7.5 mg/week. The maximum dose was of 7.5 mg-12.5 mg/week. Complete remission was achieved in 62% of cases and partial remission in 28.5% of cases. Haematological and hepatic toxicities were observed in 2 patients (9.5%). Mean remission period was of 14 months (3 months-3 years). Seven patients had severe relapses.

CONCLUSION

Our study concluded to the efficacy of methotrexate in severe psoriasis with a high rate and long term remission, despite lower doses than those classically used in the literature.

Off-label biologic regimens in psoriasis: a systematic review of efficacy and safety of dose escalation, reduction, and interrupted biologic therapy

OBJECTIVES

While off-label dosing of biologic treatments may be necessary in selected psoriasis patients, no systematic review exists to date that synthesizes the efficacy and safety of these off-label dosing regimens. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate efficacy and safety of off-label dosing regimens (dose escalation, dose reduction, and interrupted treatment) with etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab, and alefacept for psoriasis treatment.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

We searched OVID Medline from January 1, 1990 through August 1, 2011 for prospective clinical trials that studied biologic therapy for psoriasis treatment in adults. Individual articles were screened for studies that examined escalated, reduced, or interrupted therapy with etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab, or alefacept.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 23 articles with 12,617 patients matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the systematic review. Data were examined for primary and secondary efficacy outcomes and adverse events including infections, malignancies, cardiovascular events, and anti-drug antibodies. The preponderance of data suggests that continuous treatment with anti-TNF agents and anti-IL12/23 agent was necessary for maintenance of disease control. Among non-responders, dose escalation with etanercept, adalimumab, ustekinumab, and alefacept typically resulted in greater efficacy than standard dosing. Dose reduction with etanercept and alefacept resulted in reduced efficacy. Withdrawal of the examined biologics led to an increase in disease activity; efficacy from retreatment did not result in equivalent initial response rates for most biologics. Safety data on off-label dosing regimens are limited.

CONCLUSION

Dose escalation in non-responders generally resulted in increased efficacy in the examined biologics used to treat moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Continuous treatment with anti-TNF agents and anti-IL12/23 agent results in superior efficacy over interrupted therapy. The decision to use off-label dosing needs to account for both benefits and risks and be individualized to patients' disease severity, quality of life, and existence of comorbidities.

In vitro screening for putative psoriasis-specific antigens among wheat proteins and peptides

BACKGROUND

Patients with psoriasis who had raised IgG and/or IgA antigliadin antibodies showed clinical improvement in a trial with a gluten-free diet. The selection of patients for the diet treatment was based on the presence of specific antibodies, i.e. the result of humoral immunity.

OBJECTIVES

As psoriasis is now considered to be a T cell-mediated disease we decided to challenge peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) in vitro from randomly selected patients with well-defined wheat proteins/peptides to explore the possibility of identifying a specific antigen with T cell activating properties in a subgroup of patients.

METHODS

PBMCs from 37 patients (20 female and 17 male; mean age 49years) and 37 healthy controls (12 female and 25 male; mean age 57years) were included. Not all patients participated in all experiments. The PBMCs were exposed in vitro with the following wheat proteins/peptides in various concentrations: total albumins, 0·28 α-amylase inhibitor and the synthetic peptides, p31-43, p57-68 and p62-75, based on coeliac-active sequences of α-gliadin. The proliferative response was measured as counts per minute after the cells had been pulsed with methyl-(3) H-thymidine.

RESULTS

Albumin, α-amylase inhibitor, p31-43 and p57-68 elicited a significant response in both patients and controls but showed no differences between the groups. The response induced by the α-amylase inhibitor was higher than that induced by the albumin fraction and the p31-43 and p57-68 peptides. At a concentration of 25μgmL(-1) , five of 36 patients with psoriasis responded positively to the p62-75 peptide and none of the 33 controls, using a stimulation index of 2·4 as the cut-off level (P<0·05). These five patients did not show clinical features that differed from the remaining patients. Among the responding patients the relative number of CD4+ cells increased in some but not all after in vitro challenge with the albumins, 0·28 α-amylase inhibitor, and p62-75. These antigens could also induce in vitro the expression of the homing antigen cutaneous lymphocyte antigen (CLA) in a few patients and controls.

CONCLUSIONS

The wheat protein antigens, especially the p62-75 peptide, might be of interest in a subgroup of patients with psoriasis.

Infliximab for the treatment of plaque psoriasis

Infliximab is a monoclonal antibody that targets tumor necrosis factor-α (TNFα). It is used in the treatment of a number of inflammatory disorders including severe plaque psoriasis. TNFα is thought to have a major role in psoriasis by promoting an inflammatory infiltrate into the skin and inducing keratinocyte proliferation and preventing keratinocyte apoptosis, which directly contributes to the characteristic plaque skin lesions. Based on four randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials and nine open-label uncontrolled trials of the use of infliximab in plaque psoriasis, it was found that infliximab is a highly efficacious, rapid, sustainable, and relatively safe therapy. Yet as with any biologic, caution is recommended in its use as infusion reactions, lupus-like syndromes, infections, malignancies including lymphomas, as well as other rare events have been reported.

Biological drugs targeting the immune response in the therapy of psoriasis

Chronic plaque psoriasis affects more than 2% of world population, has a chronic recurrent behavior, gives a heavy burden to the patients’ quality of life, and hence remains a huge medical and social problem. The clinical results of conventional therapies of psoriasis are not satisfactory. According to the current knowledge of the molecular and cellular basis of psoriasis, it is defined as an immune-mediated chronic inflammatory and hyperproliferative skin disease. A new generation of biological drugs, targeting molecules and cells involved into perturbed pro-inflammatory immune response in the psoriatic skin and joints, has been recently designed and applied clinically. These biological agents are bioengineered proteins such as chimeric and humanized antibodies and fusion proteins. In particular, they comprise the antitumor necrosis factor-α agents etanercept, infliximab, and adalimumab, with clinical efficacy in both moderate-severe psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, and the anti-CD11a efalizumab with selective therapeutic action exclusively in the skin. Here, we overview recent findings on the molecular pathways relevant to the inflammatory response in psoriasis and present our clinical experience with the drugs currently employed in the dermatologic manifestations, namely etanercept, infliximab, and efalizumab. The growing body of clinical data on the efficacy and safety of antipsoriasis biological drugs is reviewed as well. Particular focus is given to long-term safety concerns and feasibility of combined therapeutic protocols to ameliorate clinical results.

Adverse effects of biologics: a network meta-analysis and Cochrane overview

BACKGROUND

Biologics are used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many other conditions. While the efficacy of biologics has been established, there is uncertainty regarding the adverse effects of this treatment. Since serious risks such as tuberculosis (TB) reactivation, serious infections, and lymphomas may be common to the biologics but occur in small numbers across the various indications, we planned to combine the results from biologics used in many conditions to obtain the much needed risk estimates.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the adverse effects of tumor necrosis factor blocker (etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, certolizumab), interleukin (IL)-1 antagonist (anakinra), IL-6 antagonist (tocilizumab), anti-CD28 (abatacept), and anti-B cell (rituximab) therapy in patients with any disease condition except human immunodeficiency disease (HIV/AIDS).

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and open-label extension (OLE) studies that studied one of the nine biologics for use in any indication (with the exception of HIV/AIDS) and that reported our pre-specified adverse outcomes were considered for inclusion. We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE (to January 2010). Identifying search results and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate. For the network meta-analysis, we performed mixed-effects logistic regression using an arm-based, random-effects model within an empirical Bayes framework.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 163 RCTs with 50,010 participants and 46 extension studies with 11,954 participants. The median duration of RCTs was six months and 13 months for OLEs. Data were limited for tuberculosis (TB) reactivation, lymphoma, and congestive heart failure. Adjusted for dose, biologics as a group were associated with a statistically significant higher rate of total adverse events (odds ratio (OR) 1.19, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.30; number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) = 30, 95% CI 21 to 60) and withdrawals due to adverse events (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.64; NNTH = 37, 95% CI 19 to 190) and an increased risk of TB reactivation (OR 4.68, 95% CI 1.18 to 18.60; NNTH = 681, 95% CI 143 to 14706) compared to control.The rate of serious adverse events, serious infections, lymphoma, and congestive heart failure were not statistically significantly different between biologics and control treatment. Certolizumab pegol was associated with significantly higher risk of serious infections compared to control treatment (OR 3.51, 95% CI 1.59 to 7.79; NNTH = 17, 95% CI 7 to 68). Infliximab was associated with significantly higher risk of withdrawals due to adverse events compared to control (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.91; NNTH = 12, 95% CI 8 to 28). Indirect comparisons revealed that abatacept and anakinra were associated with a significantly lower risk of serious adverse events compared to most other biologics.  Although the overall numbers are relatively small, certolizumab pegol was associated with significantly higher odds of serious infections compared to etanercept, adalimumab, abatacept, anakinra, golimumab, infliximab, and rituximab; abatacept was significantly less likely than infliximab and tocilizumab to be associated with serious infections.  Abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept and golimumab were significantly less likely than infliximab to result in withdrawals due to adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, in the short term biologics were associated with significantly higher rates of total adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events and TB reactivation. Some biologics had a statistically higher association with certain adverse outcomes compared to control, but there was no consistency across the outcomes so caution is needed in interpreting these results.There is an urgent need for more research regarding the long-term safety of biologics and the comparative safety of different biologics. National and international registries and other types of large databases are relevant sources for providing complementary evidence regarding the short- and longer-term safety of biologics. 

Anti-infliximab antibody status and its relation to clinical response in psoriatic patients: A pilot study

Although the mechanisms underlying the loss of response to infliximab are not completely understood, the formation of antibodies to infliximab (ATI) are thought to play a role. The aim of this study was to investigate the presence of ATI in psoriatic patients and to evaluate its relationship to the clinical response. Fifteen patients with psoriasis were treated with infliximab (5 mg/kg) every 8 weeks after an initial three-dose induction treatment. An enzyme linked immunosorbent assay kit was used for analyzing the presence of ATI in sera. Effectiveness assessments included the change in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) compared with study entry. Five (33.3%) patients developed ATI. While 5.9 +/- 3.2 infliximab infusions achieved a fall in the PASI score from a mean of 20.4 +/- 8.3 to 5.3 +/- 2.4 in ATI-negative patients, these values changed from 23.3 +/- 11 to 10 +/- 4.9 after 9 +/- 5.2 infusions in ATI-positive patients. Our results suggested that ATI measured in psoriatic patients are of clinical importance. Therefore, monitoring for the induction of ATI and rescue strategies should be developed to avoid or to maintain a delay in ATI development.

Assessment of the psoriatic transcriptome in a large sample: additional regulated genes and comparisons with in vitro models

To further elucidate molecular alterations in psoriasis, we performed a gene expression study of 58 paired lesional and uninvolved psoriatic and 64 control skin samples. Comparison of involved psoriatic (PP) and normal (NN) skin identified 1,326 differentially regulated transcripts encoding 918 unique genes (549 up- and 369 downregulated), of which over 600 are to our knowledge previously unreported, including S100A7A, THRSP, and ELOVL3. Strongly upregulated genes included SERPINB4, PI3, DEFB4, and several S100-family members. Strongly downregulated genes included Wnt-inhibitory factor-1 (WIF1), beta-cellulin (BTC), and CCL27. Enriched gene ontology categories included immune response, defense response, and keratinocyte differentiation. Biological processes regulating fatty acid and lipid metabolism were enriched in the down-regulated gene set. Comparison of the psoriatic transcriptome to the transcriptomes of cytokine-stimulated cultured keratinocytes (IL-17, IL-22, IL-1alpha, IFN-gamma, TNF-alpha, and OSM) showed surprisingly little overlap, with the cytokine-stimulated keratinocyte expression representing only 2.5, 0.7, 1.5, 5.6, 5.0, and 1.9% of the lesional psoriatic dysregulated transcriptome, respectively. This comprehensive analysis of differentially regulated transcripts in psoriasis provides additional insight into the pathogenic mechanisms involved and emphasizes the need for more complex yet tractable experimental models of psoriasis.

Induction and exacerbation of psoriasis with TNF-blockade therapy: a review and analysis of 127 cases

BACKGROUND

There are reports of rare adverse effects of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, including infections, malignancies, and induction of autoimmune conditions. Intriguing, are cases of induction or exacerbation of psoriasis in conjunction with TNF inhibitor therapy, given that they are approved for treatment of the same condition.

OBJECTIVE

Published cases of psoriasis occurring during anti-TNF therapy were analyzed, including overviews of proposed etiologies and treatment recommendations.

METHODS

A literature search using Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed was performed for articles published between January 1990 and September 2007 to collect reported cases of psoriasis in patients receiving therapy with TNF blocking agents.

RESULTS

A total of 127 cases were identified: 70 in patients on infliximab (55.1%), 35 with etanercept (27.6%), and 22 with adalimumab (17.3%). Females comprised 58% of cases; mean age of reported patients was 45.8 years, and the time from initiation of treatment to onset of lesions averaged 10.5 months. These patients suffered from a number of primary conditions, with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and Crohn's disease accounting for the vast majority. Palmoplantar pustular psoriasis was observed in 40.5% of the cases, with plaque-type psoriasis in 33.1%, and other types comprising the remainder. Topical corticosteroids were the most commonly employed treatment modality but led to resolution in only 26.8% of cases in which they were employed solely. Switching to a different anti-TNF agent led to resolution in 15.4% of cases. Cessation of anti-TNF therapy with systemic therapy led to resolution in 64.3% of cases.

CONCLUSION

More information and cases are needed. Biopsies of TNF-blockade-induced lesions may reveal what cytokines and cell types drive the development of these lesions. Additionally, there is a need to develop an algorithm to treat this paradoxical side effect of therapy with TNF-blockers.

[Efficacy of TNF-alpha antagonists for plaque-type psoriasis: a systematic review and graphical presentation]

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies investigating the efficacy of TNF-alpha antagonists in moderate-to-severe plaque-type psoriasis have been published. We present a graphic synthesis of efficacy data based on a systematic review of the published studies.

METHODS

The Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library bibliographic databases were searched for studies based on the following selection criteria: 1. Original studies, 2. Using infliximab, etanercept or adalimumab as the sole systemic treatment for plaque-type cutaneous psoriasis, 3. Minimum follow-up of 10 weeks, 4. Use of the PASI75 index (improvement of at least 75% from baseline PASI score) as an endpoint. Twenty-one articles were selected and PASI75 scores and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated at three, six and 12 months.

RESULTS

At M3, success rates were about 80% with infliximab and adalimumab once-weekly, around 50% with etanercept 50mg twice-weekly and adalimumab fortnightly; and 30% with etanercept 25mg twice-weekly. Maintenance regimens after three months ensured success rates above 50% with all three treatments, although the long-term results were based on fewer studies.

CONCLUSION

Our graphic synthesis and tolerance data for the three drugs should guide clinicians in their therapeutic choices in moderate-to-severe plaque-type psoriasis. Additional studies with better reporting of loss to follow-up are needed to better assess the long-term efficacy of these drugs.

Infliximab in the treatment of plaque type psoriasis

Psoriasis is a chronic and immunomediated skin disease characterized by erythematous scaly plaques. Psoriasis affects approximately 1% to 3% of the Caucasian population. Tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) is a proinflammatory cytokine that plays a critical role in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. Infliximab is an anti-TNF-α drug widely used for the treatment of plaque type psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Controlled clinical trials demonstrated that infliximab is characterized by a high degree of clinical response in moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Moreover infliximab showed rapid efficacy in nail psoriasis which represents a therapeutic challenge for dermatologists and a relevant source of distress for patients with plaque psoriasis. This anti-TNF-α has an encouraging safety profile, especially as long as physicians are watchful in prevention and early diagnosis of infections and infuse reactions. The efficacy, tolerability and safety profiles suggest infliximab as a suitable anti-psoriatic drug in the long-term treatment of a chronic disease such as plaque-type psoriasis.

[Biologic therapies in the treatment of psoriasis]

Psoriasis impairs significantly the quality of life. Systemic treatments have inconstant efficiency and dose-dependant toxicity. Since 2004, four biologic therapies - infliximab, etanercept, éfalizumab and adalimumab - are approved in Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, with failure, intolerance or contra-indication to at least 2 "classical" systemic treatments, including phototherapy, methotrexate and ciclosporin. The estimated rate of patients reaching PASI75 at month 3 are as follow: about 80% under infliximab (classical W0-W2-W6 regimen); about 33% and 50% under etanercept, respectively, 25 and 50mg, twice weekly; about 25% under éfalizumab (1mg/kg, weekly); about 70% under adalimumab (40mg, every other week). The 12-month efficiency of biologic therapies in psoriasis is poorly documented. The long term (5-year or more) safety of biologic therapies is not documented. New biologic therapies are under investigation in the treatment of psoriasis: ustekinumab (CNTO-1275), ABT-874, certolizumab (CDP-870), golimumab (CNTO-148). Ustekinumab is approved in Europe since January 2009.