Trends in prescriptions of oral medications for psoriasis: A single-center retrospective study

The systemic treatment of psoriasis has changed markedly with the introduction of many novel drugs. However, clinicians have had limited opportunities to evaluate these new therapies. One of the new drugs, apremilast (a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor), was approved in 2017 in Japan. We previously reported oral treatment for psoriasis before the introduction of apremilast. In this study, we investigated the impact of apremilast on oral medication for psoriasis by comparing data obtained before and after apremilast became available. This retrospective study enrolled patients who visited the Department of Dermatology, Fukuoka University Hospital, who were diagnosed with psoriasis and treated with anti-psoriatic oral medications. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1, who first visited our clinic between January 2010 and March 2016; and Group 2, who first visited our clinic between April 2016 and March 2022. The information collected included patient demographics, drug use (apremilast, cyclosporine, methotrexate, and etretinate), and treatment duration. In Group 1 (n = 149 patients), cyclosporine, methotrexate, and etretinate were prescribed to 59.1%, 16.6%, and 24.3% of the patients, respectively. In Group 2 (n = 129 patients), apremilast was prescribed to 52.5% of patients, while the number of prescriptions for cyclosporine and etretinate had decreased to 17.1% and 8.3%, respectively. The number of methotrexate prescriptions did not change significantly. Apremilast, methotrexate, and etretinate had longer continuation rates than cyclosporine in Group 2. In conclusion, apremilast replaced cyclosporine and etretinate mainly because of its better safety profile, whereas methotrexate remained in constant demand in both eras. New oral treatments for psoriasis, such as tyrosine kinase-2 inhibitors, are now in the pipeline, and our data will serve as a control for oral anti-psoriatic medicine before the coming era.

The Association Between Psoriasis and Cardiovascular Diseases

Cardiovascular diseases and psoriasis have been well established as separate entities, however, there is uncertainty with regards to a link between the two diseases. A few environmental, psychological and social factors have been implicated as potential common risk factors that may exacerbate the two diseases, and an array of complex immune and non-immune inflammatory mediators can potentially explain a plausible link. Pharmacotherapy has also played a role in establishing a potential association, especially with the advent of biological agents which directly act on inflammatory factors shared by the two diseases. This review will look at existing evidence and ascertain a potential correlation between the two.

LOOP, a cross-sectional, observational study investigating the clinical specialty setting as a determinant of disease management in psoriatic arthritis: Subgroup analysis results from Japan

Background

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a progressive erosive joint disorder that causes functional impairment; therefore, early diagnosis and management are essential. This study evaluated the association between clinical specialty and the time to management in patients with PsA in Japan.

Methods

This was a subgroup analysis of a cross-sectional, multicenter, observational study that was conducted in 17 countries outside the United States, including 17 sites at 8 institutions in Japan, from June 2016 to October 2017. Data from consecutive patients (age ≥18 years) with a suspected or established diagnosis of PsA on a routine visit to a participating rheumatology/orthopedic or dermatology clinic in Japan were analyzed. The primary endpoints were time from onset of inflammatory musculoskeletal symptoms to PsA diagnosis, PsA diagnosis to first conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD), PsA diagnosis to first biologic DMARD (bDMARD), and first csDMARD to first bDMARD.

Results

Of 109 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of PsA, 39.4% (n = 43) and 60.6% (n = 66) were recruited by rheumatologists/orthopedists and dermatologists, respectively. Most patients were prescribed tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (58.7%) or methotrexate (56.0%). The mean duration from symptom onset to PsA diagnosis was significantly longer (p = 0.044) for patients treated by rheumatologists/orthopedists (70.6 months) than those treated by dermatologists (30.1 months). In the rheumatology/orthopedic and dermatology settings, the mean time from PsA diagnosis to first csDMARD administration was −0.9 and −2.9 months, and from PsA diagnosis to first bDMARD 21.4 and 14.9 months, respectively. The mean duration from administration of first csDMARD to first bDMARD was comparable in the rheumatology/orthopedic (31.8 months) and dermatology (31.5 months) settings.

Conclusions

Treatment approach was slightly different between rheumatology/orthopedic and dermatology setting in clinical practice in Japan, suggesting that an integrated dermo-rheumatologic approach can optimize the management of patients with PsA.

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

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

An appraisal of meta-analysis guidelines: how do they relate to safety outcomes?

Although well developed to assess efficacy questions, meta-analyses and, more generally, systematic reviews, have received less attention in application to safety-related questions. As a result, many open questions remain on how best to apply meta-analyses in the safety setting. This appraisal attempts to: (i) summarize the current guidelines for assessing individual studies, systematic reviews, and network meta-analyses; (ii) describe several publications on safety meta-analytic approaches; and (iii) present some of the questions and issues that arise with safety data. A number of gaps in the current quality guidelines are identified along with issues to consider when performing a safety meta-analysis. While some work is ongoing to provide guidance to improve the quality of safety meta-analyses, this review emphasizes the critical need for better reporting and increased transparency regarding safety data in the systematic review guidelines. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.