Ustekinumab improves nail disease in patients with moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis: results from PHOENIX 1

Nail Psoriasis: Clinical Features and Severity Assessment

The nail is an important characteristic in the context of psoriasis. Nail psoriasis exhibits several clinical manifestations. Since the development of the Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI) score assessment tool for evaluating the severity of nail psoriasis, nail matrix symptoms such as pitting, leukonychia, crumbling, and red spots have been observed in the lunula. Nail bed symptoms include onycholysis, subungual hyperkeratosis, oil spots, and splinter hemorrhage. However, Beau's lines and nail fold psoriasis, which are not included in this assessment tool, should be considered essential symptoms for indicating the activity of nail psoriasis. Although NAPSI is the most widely used tool for assessing the severity of nail psoriasis, it has uncontrolled limitations. Although other assessment tools have been developed, none have successfully replaced the NAPSI. In clinical trials for nail psoriasis, the NAPSI is used in various forms, such as improvement rates, changes in the mean NAPSI score, and achievement rates of NAPSI 75. Consequently, caution is warranted when interpreting the clinical trial results related to nail psoriasis improvement.

Treatment of Nail Psoriasis

Nail psoriasis is associated with significant disease burden, negative impact on quality of life, and potential progression to psoriatic arthritis. Initiating timely and appropriate treatment is of the utmost importance, especially because nail disease may be more resistant to therapies than cutaneous psoriasis. This article reviews available intralesional, topical, and systemic treatment options for nail psoriasis, and discusses efficacy and safety of studied agents. Also reviewed are consensus treatment guideline recommendations. An updated algorithm to aid physicians in selection of specific treatment options is provided.

Signaling pathways and targeted therapies for psoriasis

Psoriasis is a common, chronic, and inflammatory skin disease with a high burden on individuals, health systems, and society worldwide. With the immunological pathologies and pathogenesis of psoriasis becoming gradually revealed, the therapeutic approaches for this disease have gained revolutionary progress. Nevertheless, the mechanisms of less common forms of psoriasis remain elusive. Furthermore, severe adverse effects and the recurrence of disease upon treatment cessation should be noted and addressed during the treatment, which, however, has been rarely explored with the integration of preliminary findings. Therefore, it is crucial to have a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms behind psoriasis pathogenesis, which might offer new insights for research and lead to more substantive progress in therapeutic approaches and expand clinical options for psoriasis treatment. In this review, we looked to briefly introduce the epidemiology, clinical subtypes, pathophysiology, and comorbidities of psoriasis and systematically discuss the signaling pathways involving extracellular cytokines and intracellular transmission, as well as the cross-talk between them. In the discussion, we also paid more attention to the potential metabolic and epigenetic mechanisms of psoriasis and the molecular mechanistic cascades related to its comorbidities. This review also outlined current treatment for psoriasis, especially targeted therapies and novel therapeutic strategies, as well as the potential mechanism of disease recurrence.

Efficacy and Safety of Nail Psoriasis Targeted Therapies: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Nail changes are frequent clinical findings in patients with cutaneous psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, often causing significant impairments in quality of life. Numerous targeted therapies have been previously studied for treatment of nail psoriasis, however, newer agents have not been captured in prior systematic reviews. With over 25 new studies published since 2020, the landscape of nail psoriasis systemic treatments is rapidly evolving, warranting analysis of recently approved therapies.

METHODS

An updated systematic review of all PubMed and OVID database studies assessing efficacy and safety of targeted therapies for nail psoriasis was performed, with the goal of incorporating clinical data of recent trials and newer agents, namely brodalumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies reporting at least one of the nail psoriasis clinical appearance outcomes (Nail Psoriasis Severity Index, modified Nail Psoriasis Severity Index).

RESULTS

A total of 68 studies on 15 nail psoriasis targeted therapeutic agents were included. Biological agents and small molecule inhibitors included TNF-alpha inhibitors (adalimumab, infliximab, etanercept, certolizumab, golimumab), IL-17 inhibitors (ixekizumab, brodalumab, secukinumab), IL-12/23 inhibitors (ustekinumab), IL-23 inhibitors (guselkumab, risankizumab, tildrakizumab), PDE-4 inhibitors (apremilast), and JAK inhibitors (tofacitinib). These agents all demonstrated statistically significant improvements in nail outcome scores, compared with placebo or with baseline values, at weeks 10-16 and weeks 20-26, with some studies assessing efficacy up to week 60. Safety data for these agents were acceptable and consistent with known safety profiles within these timepoints, with nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, injection site reactions, headache, and diarrhea being the most reported adverse events. Specifically, the newer agents, brodalumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab, showed promising outcomes for treatment of nail psoriasis on the basis of current data.

CONCLUSION

Numerous targeted therapies have shown significant efficacy in improving nail findings in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Data from head-to-head trials have shown greater efficacy of ixekizumab over adalimumab and ustekinumab, as well as brodalumab over ustekinumab, while prior meta-analyses have demonstrated superiority of ixekizumab and tofacitinib to other included agents at various assessed timepoints. Further studies on the long-term efficacy and safety of these agents, as well as randomized controlled trials involving comparison with placebo arms, are needed to fully analyze differences in efficacy of newer agents compared with previously established therapies.

Efficacy of guselkumab in difficult-to-treat psoriasis regions: Data from VOYAGE 1 and VOYAGE 2 Asian subpopulations

Patients with psoriasis were randomized to guselkumab, placebo or adalimumab in the VOYAGE 1 and VOYAGE 2 studies. In this post hoc analysis, difficult-to-treat psoriasis regions in the Asian subpopulation for both the guselkumab and adalimumab groups were compared with placebo at week 16 and the active treatment groups were compared at week 24. Endpoints included patients achieving scores of 0 or 1 (clear or near clear) or 0 (clear) on the scalp-specific Investigator's Global Assessment (ss-IGA), Physician's Global Assessment of the hands and/or feet (hf-PGA), and fingernail PGA (f-PGA), and percentage improvement in target Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI) score through week 24. Efficacy was also assessed by prior biologic experience at baseline. A total of 199 eligible Asian patients were included. The proportion of patients achieving "clear" or "near clear" with guselkumab was superior to adalimumab at week 24 for scalp psoriasis ss-IGA (Asian patients, 72 [85.7%] vs 35 [67.3%], P = 0.004), hands and/or feet psoriasis hf-PGA (29 [82.9%] vs 16 [61.5%], P = 0.054), and similar for fingernail psoriasis f-PGA (28 [63.6%] vs 17 [54.8%], P = 0.412). Guselkumab mean improvements in NAPSI were comparable to adalimumab (39.9% vs 35.9%, P = 0.618). Overall, the complete clearance response of scalp, and hands and/or feet at week 24 occurred in a greater proportion of patients in the guselkumab group, irrespective of baseline biologic status (treatment-naïve or treatment-experienced). Guselkumab was superior to adalimumab for the treatment of scalp, and hands and/or feet psoriasis, and proportionally higher for fingernail psoriasis. Findings were comparable to the global study population.

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.

Literature Overview of the Relation Between Psoriasis and Alzheimer

The most common type of dementia disease is Alzheimer, which placing a heavy burden on the healthcare system all over the world. At the same time, psoriasis is also one of the most common health problems, as a skin disease. Alzheimer's disease (AD) is more often in patients with psoriasis than in the general people. Several evidence has proved the relation between AD and psoriasis through immune-mediated pathophysiologic processes. This review aims to summary the potential relation between AD and psoriasis, and provide suggestions based on the relationship at the same time. Neurologists, dermatologists should pay attention to the relationship between Alzheimer's disease and psoriasis. Dermatology and neurology need referral each other when it is necessary.

Safety of current systemic therapies for nail psoriasis

INTRODUCTION

A discussion of safety of systemic treatments for nail psoriasis is lacking, particularly in reference to approval of new therapies assessed for nail outcomes. A review of safety profiles for agents commonly utilized for treatment of nail psoriasis is warranted to help inform treatment choices. The PubMed database was searched on 5 April 20235 April 2023, with articles discussing safety of nail psoriasis systemic therapies identified and reviewed.

AREAS COVERED

Systemic treatments for nail psoriasis include biologic therapies (tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors, interleukin-17 inhibitors, interleukin-23 inhibitors, interleukin-12/23 inhibitors), small molecule inhibitors (apremilast, tofacitinib), and oral systemic immunomodulators (methotrexate, cyclosporine, acitretin), each with unique safety profiles and considerations. Herein, we discuss adverse events, contraindications, drug-drug interactions, screening/monitoring guidelines, as well as utilization for special populations, including pregnant, older, and pediatric patients.

EXPERT OPINION

The advent of targeted therapies, including biologic treatments and small molecule inhibitors, has revolutionized outcomes for nail psoriasis patients, but warrant review and monitoring for potential adverse events. Oral systemic immunomodulators have demonstrated moderate efficacy for nail psoriasis treatment, but are notable for frequent contraindications and drug-drug interactions. Further study of these agents and their use in special populations is needed to elucidate safety profiles for long-term use.

Off-label uses of ustekinumab

Ustekinumab (brand name Stelara®) is a human interleukin-12 and -23 antagonist and has been indicated for the treatments of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. This review aims to synthesize and interpret the literature evaluating the off-label uses of ustekinumab. We performed searches in PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov for clinical trials, observational studies, case series, and case reports evaluating label uses of ustekinumab. Studies evaluated the efficacy of ustekinumab for the following conditions: other types of psoriasis (expect plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis), pityriasis rubra pilaris, hidradenitis suppurativa, atopic dermatitis, pyoderma gangrenosum, et al. Based on the available literature, ustekinumab appears to be a potential treatment choice for many other diseases. However, more clinical trials data are needed to adequately assess the safety and efficacy of ustekinumab for the treatment of these conditions.

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.

Choosing the Appropriate Target for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis: TNFα, IL-17, IL-23 or JAK Inhibitors?

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a highly heterogenous disease. Apart from arthritis and psoriasis, other manifestations can also occur, including enthesitis, dactylitis, axial-, nail-, eye- and bowel- involvement. Comorbidities are also frequent in the setting of PsA, with cardiovascular disease and mental-health disorders being the most frequent. The Rheumatologist's arsenal has many different treatment options for treating PsA. Despite their effectiveness, there are some differences in terms of efficacy and safety that might affect clinician's decision for one or the other drug. Comparing biologic DMARDs and JAK-inhibitors, one could say that they have similar effectiveness in terms of musculoskeletal manifestations. However, anti-IL-17 and anti-IL-23 drugs seem to be more effective for skin manifestations. In contrast, JAK-inhibitors and etanercept might be less effective for these manifestations. Inflammatory bowel disease and uveitis are non-responsive to etanercept and anti-IL-17 drugs. As regards to comorbidities, data are scarce, but future studies will shed light on possible differential effect of bDMARDs or JAK-inhibitors. Safety is always an important drive for choosing the appropriate treatment. Infections are the most common adverse event of these drugs. Etanercept and anti-IL-17 drugs are safer for patients having latent tuberculosis, while herpes zoster is more common in individuals receiving JAK-inhibitors. Finally, venous thromboembolism risk, should be taken into account when JAK-inhibitors are used. In this review, we comparatively present, as outlined above, the various aspects that could affect the choice of the appropriate bDMARD or JAK-inhibitor for the treatment of a PsA patient.

Bibliometric Trends in Nail Psoriasis Research Publications

Introduction

Bibliometric analysis provides an objective assessment of current research patterns and highlights the impact of selected publications in any given scientific discipline.

Methods

We sought to provide information about dynamic research trends in nail psoriasis by analyzing the 50 most cited articles on this topic, which were identified utilizing the Scopus citation database.

Results

The median number of citations was 79 (range, 60-337) per article. Publication dates ranged from 1969 to 2020, while the majority of articles (46%) were published between 2000 and 2009. The top 50 highly cited articles were published in 19 different journals, with a median impact factor of 5.248 (range, 1.022-16.102). The British Journal of Dermatology published the greatest number of highly cited articles (n = 9). Most publications were original articles, and most cited research topics included medical treatment and correlation of nail psoriasis with psoriatic arthritis. Most publications originated from the USA and UK, while Phoebe Rich and Dennis McGonagle were the two most contributing authors.

Conclusion

This analysis provides information about emerging bibliometric trends and may guide future research in the field of nail psoriasis.

Novel transdermal device for delivery of triamcinolone for nail psoriasis treatment

ABSTRACT Introduction: Nail psoriasis treatment is challenging due to difficult drug delivery and systemic therapy toxicities. Self-dissolvable microneedle patches embedded with corticosteroids offers a potentially rapid, minimally invasive drug delivery platform with good efficacy and minimal adverse side effects. Methods: We conducted a 4-month prospective randomised controlled trial. Subjects with psoriatic nails were randomised to receive microneedle device delivered topical steroids on one hand and control treatment (topical Daivobet gel) on the other. Two independent dermatologists blinded to the treatment assignment scored their Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI) during visits at baseline, 2 and 4 months. All treatment was discontinued after 2 months. Average NAPSI score on each hand was analysed. Results: A total of 25 participants were recruited, aged 22 to 73 years. Majority were Chinese (72%), followed by Indian and Malay. There was equal randomisation of treatment to the left and right nail. While there was a rapid significant improvement in average NAPSI score for the control arm at 2 months, the treatment arm had a greater, more sustained improvement of the NAPSI score at 4 months. The average NAPSI score improved for both treatment and control group at 4 months compared to baseline. However, only the NAPSI value improvement in the controls at 2 months compared to baseline was statistically significant (P=0.0039). No severe adverse effects were reported. Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first prospective randomised control trial comparing microneedle technology against conventional topical steroids in nail psoriasis treatment. Our findings demonstrate microneedle technology is as efficacious as topical therapy. Keywords: Microneedle, nail, psoriasis

Recommendations of the Mexican College of Rheumatology for the management of psoriatic arthritis

Psoriatic arthritis is a chronic systemic inflammatory disease that affects the skin, musculoskeletal structures and other organs and systems compromising functionality, quality of life and reducing the life expectancy of patients. It is a complex disease that requires specialist and timely care and management. The alternatives for treating the manifestations of psoriatic arthritis have increased and the effect of the different agents on specific manifestations has been clarified in recent studies. Therefore, we should incorporate the available evidence to build a strategy for the treatment of these patients. The Mexican College of Rheumatology selected a committee to evaluate these different alternatives and make recommendations.

METHODS

The study group included 16 rheumatologists and 3 certified dermatologists, selected from different health institutions and regions of the country. An executive committee was formed to coordinate the meetings and a committee of experts selected the literature search criteria, prepared the research questions, rated the quality of the evidence, and produced the recommendations in the different disease domains based on the GRADE methodology.

RESULTS

24 updated recommendations were generated for the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis. The recommendations establish the role of the drugs currently available in our country. The importance of adequate disease control is emphasized, individualizing the level of involvement of each patient in each of the six domains potentially affected by the disease. In addition, the sequence in the choice of treatments available for each domain is established, based on their efficacy, safety profile and accessibility.

CONCLUSIONS

With this consensus document, it will be possible to improve the care of patients with psoriatic arthritis. The recommendations were generated based on the best available information and in consideration of the Mexican health system.

The Relationship Between Alzheimer's Disease and Skin Diseases: A Review

Alzheimer's disease is the most common type of dementia placing a heavy burden on the healthcare system worldwide. Skin diseases are also one of the most common health problems. Several skin diseases are associated with Alzheimer's disease through different mechanisms. This review summarizes the relationship between Alzheimer's disease and several types of skin diseases, including bullous pemphigoid, hidradenitis suppurativa, psoriasis, skin cancer, and cutaneous amyloidosis, and provides suggestions based on these associations. Neurologists, dermatologists, and general practitioners should be aware of the relationship between Alzheimer's disease and skin diseases. Dermatology/neurology consultation or referral is necessary when needed.

Use of Biologics in the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Plantar Psoriasis

Psoriasis is a common inflammatory disorder with potentially severe systemic and dermatologic consequences. As traditional treatments for this condition fail, biologics are emerging as the next promising therapy for moderate-to-severe cases, especially for the lower extremity. This review examines current research on monoclonal antibodies that target specific cytokines including interleukin-23 (IL-23), IL-12, tumor necrosis factor alpha, and IL-17 involved in pathologic inflammatory processes.

Challenge of Nail Psoriasis: An Update Review

Nail psoriasis is a refractory disease that affects 50-79% skin psoriasis patients and up to 80% of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The pathogenesis of nail psoriasis is still not fully illuminated, although some peculiar inflammatory cytokines and chemokines seems to be the same as described in psoriatic skin lesions. Psoriatic nail involving matrix can cause pitting, leukonychia, red spots in lunula, and nail plate crumbling, while nail bed involvement can result in onycholysis, oil-drop discoloration, nail bed hyperkeratosis, and splinter hemorrhages. The common assessment methods of evaluating nail psoriasis includes Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI), Nail Assessment in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (NAPPA), Nail Psoriasis Quality of life 10 (NPQ10), and so on. Treatment of nail psoriasis should be individualized according to the number of involving nail, the affected site of nail and presence of skin and/or joint involvement. Generally, topical therapies are used for mild nail psoriasis, while biologic agents such as etanercept are considered for severe nail disease and refractory nail psoriasis. Even though the current literature has shown some support for the pathogenesis, clinical presentation, or therapies of nail psoriasis, systemic review of this multifaceted disease is still rare to date. We elaborate recent developments in nail psoriasis epidemiology, pathogenesis, anatomy, clinical manifestation, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and therapies to raise better awareness of the complexity of nail psoriasis and the need for early diagnosis or intervention.

Nail Psoriasis: A Review of Effective Therapies and Recommendations for Management

Nail psoriasis has a prevalence that ranges from 10 to 82% and can significantly impact the quality of life of patients. Nail psoriasis is one of the most challenging areas to treat, and multiple therapies have been explored. Topical and injectable therapies are recommended for few-nail disease. Systemic therapies, including biologics, can be considered for patients with multiple and resistant nail disease, impaired quality of life, and severe skin and joint involvement, due to their long-term efficacy. Although outcome data are difficult to compare, interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitors may have superior short-term efficacy when compared to IL-23 inhibitors and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha inhibitors, although long-term efficacy is similar to TNF-alpha inhibitors. IL-23 inhibitors and TNF-alpha inhibitors have a similar efficacy for nail psoriasis.

Comparison of guidelines for the use of Ustekinumab for psoriasis in the United States, Europe, and the United Kingdom: A critical appraisal and comprehensive review

The aim of this review is to compare and contrast evidence-based clinical practice guidelines from global dermatological organizations for the use of ustekinumab in psoriasis. Clinical practice guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology, National Psoriasis Foundation, British Association of Dermatologists, and European S3 were reviewed and compared. Practice guidelines from the three dermatological organizations are similar with regards to treatment dosage and initiation but differ in their recommendations for baseline screening and interval laboratory monitoring, treatment in patients undergoing surgery or receiving live vaccines, and treatment contraindications. Ustekinumab is an effective and well-tolerated systemic treatment for patients with psoriasis and should be considered in the line of therapy that dermatologists discuss with their patients. Consideration should be given to evidence-based practice guidelines of global dermatology organizations to effectively guide treatment decisions in patients with psoriasis.

Recommendations of the Mexican College of Rheumatology for the management of psoriatic arthritis

Psoriatic arthritis is a chronic systemic inflammatory disease that affects the skin, musculoskeletal structures and other organs and systems compromising functionality, quality of life and reducing the life expectancy of patients. It is a complex disease that requires specialist and timely care and management. The alternatives for treating the manifestations of psoriatic arthritis have increased and the effect of the different agents on specific manifestations has been clarified in recent studies. Therefore, we should incorporate the available evidence to build a strategy for the treatment of these patients. The Mexican College of Rheumatology selected a committee to evaluate these different alternatives and make recommendations.

METHODS

The study group included 16 rheumatologists and 3 certified dermatologists, selected from different health institutions and regions of the country. An executive committee was formed to coordinate the meetings and a committee of experts selected the literature search criteria, prepared the research questions, rated the quality of the evidence, and produced the recommendations in the different disease domains based on the GRADE methodology.

RESULTS

24 updated recommendations were generated for the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis. The recommendations establish the role of the drugs currently available in our country. The importance of adequate disease control is emphasized, individualizing the level of involvement of each patient in each of the six domains potentially affected by the disease. In addition, the sequence in the choice of treatments available for each domain is established, based on their efficacy, safety profile and accessibility.

CONCLUSIONS

With this consensus document, it will be possible to improve the care of patients with psoriatic arthritis. The recommendations were generated based on the best available information and in consideration of the Mexican health system.

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.

Pulse-Dye Laser Followed by Betamethasone-Calcipotriol and Fractional Ablative CO2-Laser-Assisted Delivery for Nail Psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Nail psoriasis is a common and potentially debilitating condition for which no effective and safe nonsystemic therapy is currently available. Recently, laser-assisted drug delivery (LADD) is being increasingly used to facilitate transcutaneous penetration of topical treatments.

OBJECTIVES

We set to assess the efficacy and safety of combined pulse-dye laser and fractional CO2 laser-assisted betamethasonecalcipotriol gel delivery for the treatment of nail psoriasis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective, intrapatient comparative study in a series of 22 patients with bilateral fingernail psoriasis. Nails on the randomized hand were treated with 3 monthly sessions of pulse-dye laser to the proximal and lateral nail folds followed by fractional ablative CO2 laser to the nail plate. Between treatments and one month following the last treatment, the participants applied betamethasone propionate-calcipotriol gel once daily to the nail plate. Clinical outcome was ascertained using nails photography, the Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI) and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Seventeen completed the study. Three participants withdrew from the study because of treatment-associated pain. Treatment was associated with a statistically significant improvement of the NAPSI scale (p < .002). Patient satisfaction was high.

CONCLUSION

Combined PDL and fractional ablative CO2-LADD of betamethasone-calcipotriol gel should be considered for the treatment of nail psoriasis.

Toenail Psoriasis during Ustekinumab Therapy: Results and Limitations

Background

Nail psoriasis is a common clinically significant symptom of psoriasis. However, few studies have focused on the characteristics and course of toenail psoriasis.

Objective

To investigate the treatment response of toenail psoriasis during a 52-week period of ustekinumab use.

Methods

Patients were evaluated using the Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI) at every injection visit. NAPSI score changes throughout the treatment were analyzed. The treatment response in each toenail and each NAPSI characteristic was also analyzed.

Results

A total of 22 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis with concomitant toenail psoriasis were examined. Several characteristics such as ridging or onychomycosis that mimic psoriasis or hinder the evaluation were identified. NAPSI significantly improved during the treatment (p<0.05). The big and second toes were significantly improved after 52 weeks of ustekinumab treatment (p<0.05). Pitting and oil-drop discoloration were the only two characteristics that showed significant changes post-treatment (p<0.05).

Conclusion

Ustekinumab proved to be efficacious in treating toenail psoriasis. Because of the factors that hinder the NAPSI scoring, only NAPSI scores of the first and second toes can be used.

Nail Psoriasis: Diagnosis, Assessment, Treatment Options, and Unmet Clinical Needs

OBJECTIVE

An estimated 40-50% of patients with psoriasis (PsO) have psoriatic nail disease, which is associated with and directly contributes to a greater clinical burden and worse quality of life in these patients. In this review, we examine how recent advances in the use of new diagnostic techniques have led to improved understanding of the link between nail and musculoskeletal manifestations of psoriatic disease (PsD; e.g., enthesitis, arthritis) and we review targeted therapies for nail PsO (NP).

METHODS

We performed a literature search to identify which systemic therapies approved for the treatment of PsO and/or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have been evaluated for the treatment of NP, either as a primary or secondary outcome. A total of 1546 articles were identified on February18, 2019, and evaluated for relevance.

RESULTS

We included findings from 66 articles on systemic therapies for the treatment of NP in PsD. With several scoring systems available for the evaluation of psoriatic nail disease, including varied subtypes and application of the Nail Psoriasis Area Severity Index, there was a high level of methodological heterogeneity across studies.

CONCLUSION

NP is an important predictor of enthesitis, which is associated with the early stages of PsA; therefore, it is important for rheumatologists and dermatologists to accurately diagnose and treat NP to prevent nail damage and potentially delay the onset and progression of joint disease. Further research is needed to address the lack of both standardized NP scoring systems and well-defined treatment guidelines to improve management of PsD.

Management of Nail Psoriasis

Nail psoriasis is a chronic nail disorder that requires personalized treatment. General prophylactic measures are suggested for all patients. Topical treatment is considered when treating a few-nail disease, with involvement of 3 or fewer nails, without joint involvement and without (or with mild) skin psoriasis. The ideal formulation should be ointment, solution, or foam. When moderate to severe skin psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis coexists, systemic treatment is suggested. This also should be considered when more than 3 nails are affected or significant impairment of quality of life is present. Conventional systemic agents, biologics, and small molecules are highly efficacious.

Nail Psoriasis in Older Adults: Intralesional, Systemic, and Biological Therapy

Psoriasis may affect the skin, scalp, joints, and nails and is common in older adults. Intramatrical injections with triamcinolone acetonide are safe and effective in older individuals. Conventional systemic medications are relatively effective, but side effects, including laboratory abnormalities and drug interactions, are particularly common among older adults. Biologic medications have shown excellent efficacy in treating nail psoriasis. Their safety profile is favorable, but data assessing long-term safety are lacking. Randomized controlled trials in older adults exclusively are necessary to develop evidence-based treatment guidelines in this population.

Efficacy of Systemic Treatments of Nail Psoriasis: A Systemic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance: Nail involvement is a common condition in patients with psoriasis. The treatment of nail psoriasis is considered challenging and is often left untreated by physicians. Objective: To assess the efficacy of current systemic treatments on nail psoriasis. Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for relevant articles from inception to September 1, 2020. Included articles were restricted to English language and human studies. Study Selection: This was a systematic literature review with meta-analysis. Thirty-five random control trials that evaluated systemic therapies for nail psoriasis were selected in the systemic review. Among them, we retained 14 trials for meta-analysis. Data Extraction and Synthesis: This study was conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. All steps were performed by two independent investigators, and any disagreements were resolved by a third investigator. Meta-analysis of aggregated study data was conducted to assess therapeutic efficacy. The use of random-effects model was based on high heterogeneity as a variable endpoint in different studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: Therapeutic effects on nail psoriasis were expressed in terms of effect sizes with 95% CIs. Results: We included 35 random control trials (RCTs) in this systemic review. At baseline, a high prevalence (62.1%) of nail psoriasis was confirmed. The meta-analysis included 14 trials highlighting that biologic and small-molecule therapies were effective in treating nail psoriasis with variable effect size magnitudes [-0.89 (-1.10, -0.68), I ² = 84%]. In particular, tofacitinib and ixekizumab showed the most significant scale of effect size magnitudes in treating nail psoriasis (-1.08 points and -0.93 points, respectively). We also found that a higher dose of tofacitinib and ixekizumab had similar effectiveness, and anti-IL-17 agents seem to be superior in effectiveness compared to anti-TNF-α therapies in the treatment of nail psoriasis. However, these results must be displayed carefully as variable endpoints in different studies. Conclusions and Relevance: This study provides a comprehensive overview of systemic treatments for nail psoriasis. For patients with psoriatic nail damage who are candidates of systemic therapies, the priority should be given to administering biologic and small-molecule therapies, especially anti-IL-17 drugs.

Small molecule inhibitors and biologics in treating nail psoriasis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Various systemic immunomodulating therapies have been investigated to treat nail psoriasis, but the efficacy remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of small molecule inhibitors and biologics in treating nail psoriasis.

METHODS

Eligible studies in online databases were identified until March 10, 2020. To assess the efficacy of small molecule inhibitors and biologics, network meta-analyses with surface under the cumulative ranking curve of improvement in nail score at 10 to 16 and at 24 to 26 weeks, as well as 100% improvement of Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI), were performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies with a total of 13 treatment arms involving 15,673 patients with nail psoriasis were included. An network meta-analysis showed that tofacitinib (weighted mean difference, 56.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 35.87-77.48) and ixekizumab (weighted mean difference, 59.40; 95% CI, 45.87-72.93) presented the most improvement of nail score at 10 to 16 weeks and 24 to 26 weeks, respectively. For 100% improvement of the Nail Psoriasis Severity Index, ixekizumab showed the best efficacy among all treatments (odds ratio, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.74-5.10).

LIMITATIONS

Insufficiency of eligible data and no long-term follow-up data.

CONCLUSION

Tofacitinib and ixekizumab presented the best efficacy for treating nail psoriasis in 10 to 16 weeks and 24 to 26 weeks, respectively.

A Systematic Review With Network Meta-Analysis of the Available Biologic Therapies for Psoriatic Disease Domains

Introduction: Several new treatments have been developed for psoriatic disease, an inflammatory condition that involves skin and joints. Notwithstanding, few studies have made direct comparisons between treatments and therefore it is difficult to select the ideal treatment for an individual patient. The aim of this systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) was to analyze available and approved biologic therapies for each domain of psoriatic disease: skin, peripheral arthritis, axial arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, and nail involvement. Methods: Data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. A systematic review was performed using the MEDLINE database (July 2020) using PICO criteria. Bayesian NMA was conducted to compare the clinical efficacy of biological therapy in terms of the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR, 24 weeks) and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI, 10-16 weeks). Results: Fifty-four RCTs were included in the systematic review. Due to the design of the RCTs, namely, outcomes and time points, network meta-analysis was performed for skin and peripheral arthritis domains. For the skin domain, 30 studies reporting PASI100 were included. The peripheral arthritis domain was analyzed through ACR70 in 12 studies. From the therapies approved for both domains, secukinumab and ixekizumab were the ones with the highest probability of reaching the proposed outcomes. There is a lack of outcome uniformization in the dactylitis, enthesitis, and nail domains, and therefore, an objective comparison of the studies was not feasible. Nevertheless, secukinumab was the treatment with the best compromise between the number of studies in each domain and the results obtained in the different outcomes. Conclusion: Secukinumab and ixekizumab were the treatments with the highest probability of reaching both PASI100 and ACR70 outcomes. Due to the lack of a standard evaluation of outcomes of the other psoriatic disease domains, a network meta-analysis for all the domains was not possible to perform.

Secukinumab shows high and sustained efficacy in nail psoriasis: 2.5-year results from the randomized placebo-controlled TRANSFIGURE study

BACKGROUND

Secukinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively neutralizes interleukin-17A, a cornerstone cytokine in psoriasis, has shown long-lasting efficacy and safety in the complete spectrum of psoriasis manifestations.

OBJECTIVES

To report the long-term (2·5-year) efficacy and safety of secukinumab in nail psoriasis.

METHODS

TRANSFIGURE, a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre phase IIIb study in 198 patients, investigated secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg in patients with moderate-to-severe nail psoriasis.

RESULTS

At week 16, the primary endpoint Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI) was met, demonstrating superiority of secukinumab to placebo. The effect was sustained over 2·5 years with a large benefit for nail clearance, with mean NAPSI improvement of -73·3% and -63·6% with secukinumab 300 mg and 150 mg, respectively. At 2·5 years, secukinumab demonstrated sustained clinically significant reductions in total mean Nail Assessment in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (NAPPA) quality-of-life (QoL) scores of -52·4% and -18·1%, and 70% and 71% of patients achieved a weighted NAPPA Patient Benefit Index global score of ≥ 2 with secukinumab 300 mg and 150 mg, respectively. Patients showed considerable improvements in the EuroQol 5-Dimension health status questionnaire at 2·5 years, reporting a decrease in pain and discomfort. No new safety findings were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Secukinumab demonstrated strong and clinically meaningful efficacy for up to 2·5 years in nail psoriasis, with significant sustained QoL improvements and a favourable safety profile.

Inflammatory nail conditions. Part 1: nail changes in psoriasis

Nail changes are visible in a variety of inflammatory dermatoses. The commonest dermatological condition with nail manifestations is chronic plaque psoriasis. This two-part article reviews the nail signs in psoriasis in Part 1, and the nail changes in cutaneous lichen planus and alopecia areata in Part 2. It provides a brief summary of the salient points in the clinical features, management and prognosis of these entities, with practical recommendations that may be beneficial to all dermatologists.

Small Molecules and Biologics in the Treatment of Nail Psoriasis

Nail psoriasis (PsO) is a disorder with profound impact on patients' quality of life. Several challenges and unmet needs remain in the treatment of nail PsO. Introduction of biologics and small molecules in the treatment of nail PsO has allowed for rapid control of the disease and high efficacy. The aim of this review was to present the published studies on nail PsO therapy with biologics and small molecules and illuminate the results in the studies where the design and outcome evaluation had nail PsO in the forefront.

Ixekizumab and Ustekinumab Efficacy in Nail Psoriasis in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: 52-Week Results from a Phase 3, Head-to-Head Study (IXORA-S)

Introduction

Patients with plaque psoriasis often have nail psoriasis, which is difficult to treat. Ixekizumab (IXE) and ustekinumab (UST) are biologics with established efficacy in nail psoriasis. We present post hoc data from a head-to-head trial of IXE and UST (IXORA-S) to examine the efficacy in nail psoriasis in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis over 52 weeks.

Methods

In IXORA-S,  randomised patients received IXE (N = 136) or UST (N = 166) per label for 52 weeks. Eighty-four (61.8%) and 105 (63.3%) of the patients treated with IXE or UST, respectively, had baseline fingernail psoriasis (Nail Psoriasis Severity Index [NAPSI] > 0); of these, 54 (64.3%) and 63 (60.0%) patients, respectively, had significant baseline fingernail psoriasis (defined as NAPSI ≥ 16 with ≥ 4 fingernails involved). The proportion of patients achieving NAPSI = 0, a NAPSI score change from baseline and correlations in Psoriasis Area of Severity Index (PASI) and NAPSI improvement over 52 weeks were examined.

Results

Progressive improvement occurred in both treatment groups over 52 weeks. Statistically significantly more patients achieved NAPSI = 0 with IXE versus UST by week 16–20, and the proportions continued to increase through week 52 among patients with baseline nail psoriasis (61.9 vs. 28.6%, respectively; P < 0.001), including those with significant nail psoriasis (57.4 vs. 17.5%, respectively; P < 0.001). Similar results were observed for NAPSI score improvement from baseline to week 52. Interestingly, the presence of nail psoriasis was associated with lower skin response with UST but not with IXE.

Conclusions

Ixekizumab was superior to UST in the clearance of nail psoriasis, with earlier improvement continued through 52 weeks regardless of baseline nail severity.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier; NCT02561806.

Increased risk of Alzheimer's disease in patients with psoriasis: a nationwide population-based cohort study

Although the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is unclear, neuroinflammation appears to play a role in its development. Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that has recently been found to genetically overlap with AD. We aimed to investigate the risk of AD in patients with psoriasis. Subjects with psoriasis (n = 535,927) and age- and sex-matched controls without psoriasis (at a 5:1 ratio; n = 2,679,635) who underwent ≥3 health examinations between 2008 and 2014 were included, drawn from the Korean National Health Insurance System database. There were 50,209 cases of AD (1.87%) in controls without psoriasis and 11,311 cases (2.11%) in patients with psoriasis, and the median follow-up was 3.35 years. In a multivariable-adjusted model, patients with psoriasis showed a significantly increased risk of AD (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.07–1.12, p < 0.0001) compared to controls without psoriasis. Among patients with psoriasis, the risk of AD was significantly increased in psoriasis patients not receiving systemic therapy compared to those receiving systemic therapy (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08–1.12 vs. hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI: 0.90–1.09, p < 0.0001). The incidence of AD was significantly increased in patients with psoriasis compared to control subjects without psoriasis. Of note, systemic treatment for psoriasis was associated with a reduced risk of AD.

In psoriasis treatment, greater improvement in skin severity predicts greater improvement in nail severity

BACKGROUND

Nail are important for both function and esthetic appearance and although they represent a small body surface area, dermatologic disorders affecting the nails can have a detrimental effect to the patient. Deciding on the best systemic antipsoriatic drug to treat nail psoriasis can be difficult due to the lack of nail data on their Food and Drug Administration-approved labels, as well as the variety of scoring systems used for nail psoriasis.

METHODS

We performed a literature review and included randomized control trials or articles based on randomized control trials for different systemic antipsoriatic drugs. Only articles and studies utilizing Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI) or target NAPSI as outcome measures were included. Data was taken directly from articles, directly from clincaltrials.gov or directly from data on file at various pharmaceutical companies.

RESULTS

Data for NAPSI and PASI were collected for 10 antipsoriatic drugs including three oral medications and seven biologic agents. We found that NAPSI or target NAPSI was strongly predicted based on the change in PASI and duration of treatment (R² = 0.71, p = .0002). PASI alone (R² = 0.52, p = .001) and duration alone (R² = 0.21, p = .07) predict NAPSI response.

CONCLUSION

According to this model, there is a relationship between skin and nail response, with improvement in nails correlating with improvement in skin and longer duration of treatment.

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.

From genome-wide association studies to rational drug target prioritisation in inflammatory arthritis

Early identification of genetically validated drug targets can increase the chances of successful late-stage drug development. 81 high-quality genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in diseases related to inflammatory arthritis have been curated into the GWAS catalogue; however, translation of genetic findings from GWAS into rational drug target discovery has been poor. No human genetic findings have completely driven drug development for inflammatory arthritis; however, genetic associations have partly driven the development of abatacept (CTLA-4-Ig) in rheumatoid arthritis and secukinumab (anti-IL-23R) in ankylosing spondylitis. Roadblocks to progress exist, including little knowledge of the genetic architecture and regulatory mechanisms underlying associations, and the need to identify gene regulatory networks and assess target tractability. New opportunities are arising that could maximise the informativeness of GWAS for drug target validation. Genetic variants can be linked to core genes by using functional genomics and then to peripheral genes interconnected to core genes using network information. Moreover, identification of crosstalk between biological pathways might highlight key points for therapeutic intervention.

Efficacy of Guselkumab Compared With Adalimumab and Placebo for Psoriasis in Specific Body Regions: A Secondary Analysis of 2 Randomized Clinical Trials

Importance

Psoriasis of the scalp, palms and/or soles, and nails is challenging to treat.

Objective

To evaluate the effect of guselkumab on psoriasis in specific body regions.

Design, Setting, and Participants

VOYAGE 1 and VOYAGE 2 were, double-blind, placebo- and adalimumab-controlled studies of guselkumab conducted at 101 and 115 global sites, respectively, from November 3, 2014, to May 19, 2016. Patients had moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score ≥12, Investigator's Global Assessment [IGA] score ≥3, and ≥10% body surface area with psoriasis). This post hoc data analysis was performed from February 10 through November 15, 2017.

Exposures

Patients were randomized to guselkumab, 100 mg (weeks 0 and 4, then every 8 weeks); placebo followed by guselkumab, 100 mg, starting at week 16; or adalimumab (80 mg [week 0] and 40 mg [week 1, then every 2 weeks]).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Efficacy was assessed through week 24. End points included numbers of patients achieving scores of 0 or 1 (clear or near clear) or 0 (clear) on the scalp-specific IGA (ss-IGA), Physician's Global Assessment of the hands and/or feet (hf-PGA), and fingernail PGA (f-PGA) and percentage of improvement in target Nail Psoriasis Severity Index score.

Results

Of 1829 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 43.6 [12.4] years; 1300 [71.1%] male, 1498 [81.9%] white), 1576 (86.2%) had psoriasis of the scalp; 501 (27.4%), palms and/or soles; and 1049 (57.4%), fingernails. At baseline, 1512 (82.7%), 461 (25.2%), and 928 (50.7%) patients had a score of 2 or higher on the ss-IGA, hf-PGA, and f-PGA, respectively, and were included in the analysis. Guselkumab was superior to placebo based on the proportion of patients achieving an ss-IGA score of 0 or 1 (560 [81.8%] vs 43 [12.4%]) at week 16 and to adalimumab (582 [85.0%] vs 329 [68.5%]) at week 24 (both P < .001); 479 (69.9%) in the guselkumab group vs 270 (56.3%) in the adalimumab group achieved an ss-IGA score of 0 (all P < .001). An hf-PGA score of 0 or 1 was achieved by 154 patients (75.5%) in the guselkumab group vs 15 (14.2%) in the placebo group at week 16 and 164 (80.4%) in the guselkumab group vs 91 (60.3%) in the adalimumab group at week 24; 153 (75.0%) in the guselkumab group vs 76 (50.3%) in the adalimumab group achieved an hf-PGA score of 0 (all P < .001). An f-PGA score of 0 or 1 was achieved by 196 patients (46.7%) in the guselkumab group vs 32 (15.2%) in the placebo group at week 16 (P < .001) and 252 (60.0%) in the guselkumab group vs 191 (64.3%) in the adalimumab group at week 24 (P = .11); 115 (27.4%) in the guselkumab group vs 83 (27.9%) in the adalimumab group achieved an f-PGA score of 0 (P = .63).

Conclusions and Relevance

Compared with adalimumab, guselkumab was associated with significant improvement in psoriasis on the scalp and palms and/or soles; magnitude of improvement in fingernails did not differ between treatments. These results may help dermatologists make treatment decisions for patients with psoriasis in difficult-to-treat body regions.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02207231 and NCT02207244.

Determination of IL-23 Pharmacokinetics by Highly Sensitive Accelerator Mass Spectrometry and Subsequent Modeling to Project IL-23 Suppression in Psoriasis Patients Treated with Anti-IL-23 Antibodies

The pro-inflammatory cytokine interleukin (IL)-23 is a key modulator of the immune response, making it an attractive target for the treatment of autoimmune disease. Correspondingly, several monoclonal antibodies against IL-23 are either in development or approved for autoimmune indications such as psoriasis. Despite being a clinical validated target, IL-23 pharmacokinetics (e.g., IL-23 synthesis and elimination rates) and the degree of target suppression (i.e., decrease in free "active" IL-23) associated with clinical efficacy are not well understood, primarily due to its ultra-low circulating levels and the lack of sensitive and accurate measurement methods. In the current work, this issue was overcome by using accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) to measure the concentration and pharmacokinetics of human recombinant [¹⁴C]-IL-23 following an intravenous trace-dose in cynomolgus monkeys. IL-23 pharmacokinetic parameters along with clinical drug exposure and IL-23 binding affinities from four different anti-IL-23 antibodies (ustekinumab, tildrakizumab, guselkumab, and risankizumab) were used to build a pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) model to assess the time course of free IL-23 over one year in psoriasis patients following different dosing regimens. The predicted rank order of reduction of free IL-23 was consistent with their reported rank order of Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 100 scores in clinical efficacy trials (ustekinumab < tildrakizumab < guselkumab < risankizumab), thus demonstrating the utility of highly sensitive AMS for determining target pharmacokinetics to inform PK/PD modeling and assessing target suppression associated with clinical efficacy.

Psoriatic arthritis for dermatologists

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) affects up to one-third of patients with psoriasis. It is the major comorbidity of psoriasis because of the likelihood that loss of function and permanent disability will develop if initiation of treatment is delayed. Dermatologists are uniquely positioned to recognize early signs of PsA and be the first-line healthcare practitioners to detect PsA in patients with psoriasis. PsA can affect six clinical domains: peripheral arthritis, dactylitis, enthesitis, psoriasis, psoriatic nail disease, and axial disease. However, not every patient will have involvement of all domains and the domains affected can change over time. Complicating the diagnosis is the condition's similarity with other arthritic diseases and potential heterogeneity. In this article, we provide practical guidance for dermatologists for detecting PsA in patients with psoriasis. We also review the available treatment options by each clinical domain of PsA and give advice on how to interpret the results of PsA clinical trials. Through early recognition of PsA in patients with psoriasis and initiation of proper treatment, dermatologists can help to prevent PsA disease progression, irreversible joint damage, and resultant permanent disability, and improve quality of life.

Joint AAD-NPF guidelines of care for the management and treatment of psoriasis with biologics

Psoriasis is a chronic, inflammatory multisystem disease that affects up to 3.2% of the US population. This guideline addresses important clinical questions that arise in psoriasis management and care, providing recommendations based on the available evidence. The treatment of psoriasis with biologic agents will be reviewed, emphasizing treatment recommendations and the role of the dermatologist in monitoring and educating patients regarding benefits as well as associated risks.

Recommendations for the definition, evaluation, and treatment of nail psoriasis in adult patients with no or mild skin psoriasis: A dermatologist and nail expert group consensus

Nail involvement in psoriasis is common, and the severity of it does not always parallel the intensity of cutaneous disease. We created a consensus group, of which the aim was to provide practical recommendations for the treatment of nail psoriasis in patients without skin psoriasis or with mild skin lesions with no indication for a systemic treatment. This collaborative process was conducted by an international panel of dermatologists with special expertise in nail disorders, using formal consensus methods. During this process, the panel strived to establish an agreement regarding the definition of nail psoriasis, the severity of nail psoriasis, and treatment response. Treatment recommendations are provided regarding nail psoriasis severity and matrix or bed involvement. Few-nail disease was considered as nail psoriasis affecting ≤3 nails. In the case of matrix involvement only, intralesional steroid injections were considered the treatment of choice. Topical steroids alone or in combination with topical vitamin D analogues were suggested for nail psoriasis limited to the nail bed. For the systemic treatment of nail psoriasis acitretin, methotrexate, cyclosporine, small molecules, and biologics may be employed.

A Review for Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners on the Considerations for Diagnosing and Treating Psoriatic Arthritis

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a clinically heterogeneous form of progressive inflammatory arthritis that affects up to 30% of patients with psoriasis. The rapid rate of progression associated with PsA makes early-disease diagnosis and treatment crucial to patients' quality of life and long-term health. With the aim of providing clinical guidance to physician assistants and nurse practitioners, this article gives an overview of the different PsA clinical domains, including peripheral arthritis, axial disease, enthesitis, dactylitis, skin disease, and nail dystrophy, which should be considered as part of diagnosis and treatment strategies. The efficacy of different therapies across these PsA domains is reviewed within the context of current PsA treatment guidelines while considering more recent data on newly approved therapies for PsA.Funding: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., East Hanover, NJ, USA.

Therapeutics for Adult Nail Psoriasis and Nail Lichen Planus: A Guide for Clinicians

Nail psoriasis (NP) and nail lichen planus (NLP) can be limiting, stigmatizing and difficult to treat. Dermatologists commonly treat psoriasis and lichen planus but when associated onychodystrophy is present or is an isolated finding, some develop apprehension. The goal of this review is to develop therapeutic ladders to be used as a guide for the management of NP and NLP in everyday clinical practice. Evidence-based therapies for NP are robust and range from topical treatments to conventional systemic therapies (i.e., methotrexate, cyclosporine), new oral agents (i.e., apremilast and tofacitinib), and biologics. The literature for treatment of NLP is severely limited, with therapy mainly consisting of topical, intralesional, or systemic corticosteroids or methotrexate.

Underdiagnosed and undertreated psoriasis: Nuances of treating psoriasis affecting the scalp, face, intertriginous areas, genitals, hands, feet, and nails

Psoriasis of the scalp, face, intertriginous areas, genitals, hands, feet, and nails is often underdiagnosed, and disease management can be challenging. Despite the small surface area commonly affected by psoriasis in these locations, patients have disproportionate levels of physical impairment and emotional distress. Limitations in current disease severity indices do not fully capture the impact of disease on a patient's quality of life, and, combined with limitations in current therapies, many patients do not receive proper or adequate care. In this review, we discuss the clinical manifestations of psoriasis in these less commonly diagnosed areas and its impact on patient quality of life. We also examine clinical studies evaluating the effectiveness of therapies on psoriasis in these regions. This article highlights the need to individualize treatment strategies for psoriasis based on the area of the body that is affected and the emerging role of biologic therapy in this regard.

Reporting of outcomes in randomized controlled trials on nail psoriasis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Harmonization of outcome measures is needed to increase the value of clinical trials on nail psoriasis.

OBJECTIVES

To provide the first step in core outcome set (COS) development for nail psoriasis.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to identify outcome instruments and corresponding outcome domains used in (ongoing) randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

Identified outcome domains included clinical signs, quality of life, symptoms and delivery of care. The Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI) was the most commonly used measure to assess clinical signs (74% of studies). Other outcome instruments used included the Nail Area Severity score, composite fingernail score, a Physician's Global Assessment, individual nail features or a combination of these. Heterogeneity in type and reporting (e.g. NAPSI 50, NAPSI 75) of outcome instruments was high and characteristics were often insufficiently reported. In total 43% of studies assessed quality of life, with 3% of studies using a nail psoriasis-specific tool. Assessment of symptoms and delivery of care was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Heterogeneity in the type and reporting of nail psoriasis outcome instruments needs to be addressed in the process towards COS development. Sufficient reporting of instrument characteristics should be encouraged. As nail psoriasis is generally assessed secondarily to psoriasis of the skin or joints, collaboration between different research groups in COS development is needed.