A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the addition of methotrexate to etanercept in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis

Discontinuation of anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha treatment owing to blood test abnormalities, and cost-effectiveness of alternate blood monitoring strategies

BACKGROUND

There is no evidence base to support the use of 6-monthly monitoring blood tests for the early detection of liver, blood and renal toxicity during established anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the incidence and risk factors of anti-TNFα treatment cessation owing to liver, blood and renal side-effects, and to estimate the cost-effectiveness of alternate intervals between monitoring blood tests.

METHODS

A secondary care-based retrospective cohort study was performed. Data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) were used. Patients with at least moderate psoriasis prescribed their first anti-TNFα treatment were included. Treatment discontinuation due to a monitoring blood test abnormality was the primary outcome. Patients were followed-up from start of treatment to the outcome of interest, drug discontinuation, death, 31 July 2021 or up to 5 years, whichever came first. The incidence rate (IR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of anti-TNFα discontinuation with monitoring blood test abnormality was calculated. Multivariate Cox regression was used to examine the association between risk factors and outcome. A mathematical model evaluated costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with increasing the length of time between monitoring blood tests during anti-TNFα treatment.

RESULTS

The cohort included 8819 participants [3710 (42.1%) female, mean (SD) age 44.76 (13.20) years] that contributed 25 058 person-years (PY) of follow-up and experienced 125 treatment discontinuations owing to a monitoring blood test abnormality at an IR of 5.85 (95% CI 4.91-6.97)/1000 PY. Of these, 64 and 61 discontinuations occurred within the first year and after the first year of treatment start, at IRs of 8.62 (95% CI 6.74-11.01) and 3.44 (95% CI 2.67-4.42)/1000 PY, respectively. Increasing age (in years), diabetes and liver disease were associated with anti-TNFα discontinuation after a monitoring blood test abnormality [adjusted hazard ratios of 1.02 (95% CI 1.01-1.04), 1.68 (95% CI 1.00-2.81) and 2.27 (95% CI 1.26-4.07), respectively]. Assuming a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained, no monitoring was most cost-effective, but all extended periods were cost-effective vs. 3- or 6-monthly monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-TNFα drugs were uncommonly discontinued owing to abnormal monitoring blood tests after the first year of treatment. Extending the duration between monitoring blood tests was cost-effective. Our results produce evidence for specialist society guidance to reduce patient monitoring burden and healthcare costs.

Safety of biologic therapy in combination with methotrexate in moderate to severe psoriasis: a cohort study from the BIOBADADERM registry

BACKGROUND

Safety is an important consideration in decisions on treatment for patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis and the study of drug safety is the main purpose of the BIOBADADERM registry. The combination of a biologic agent and a conventional systemic drug [generally methotrexate (MTX)] is a common treatment in clinical practice. However, there is a paucity of evidence from real-world practice on the safety of such combination regimens in the treatment of psoriasis.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this study was to ascertain whether the use of regimens combining biologic drugs with MTX in the management of moderate-to-severe psoriasis increases the risk of adverse events (AEs) or serious AEs (SAEs). We compared monotherapy using tumour necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin (IL)-17 and IL-23 inhibitors with the use of the same drugs in combination with MTX.

METHODS

Using data from the BIOBADADERM registry, we compared biologic monotherapies with therapies that were combined with MTX. We estimated adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) using a random effects Poisson regression with 95% confidence intervals for all AEs, SAEs, infections and serious infections and other AEs by system organ class.

RESULTS

We analysed data from 2829 patients and 5441 treatment cycles, a total of 12 853 patient-years. The combination of a biologic with MTX was not associated with statistically significant increases in overall risk of AEs or SAEs in any treatment group. No increase in the total number of infections or serious infections in patients receiving combined therapy was observed for any group. However, treatment with a TNF inhibitor combined with MTX was associated with an increase in the incidence of gastrointestinal AEs (aIRR 2.50, 95% CI 1.57-3.98; P < 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of AEs and SAEs was not significantly increased in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis receiving different classes of biologic drugs combined with MTX compared with those on biologic monotherapy.

A Systematic Review Evaluating the Effectiveness of Several Biological Therapies for the Treatment of Skin Psoriasis

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin illness that has the potential to manifest at any stage of life, it is most frequently observed in early adulthood. Biological drugs have significantly transformed the landscape of psoriasis treatment through the provision of focused therapy, which effectively mitigates inflammation and regulates the overproduction of skin cells. Notwithstanding the accessibility of these biological drugs, rigorous evaluations that juxtapose their safety and efficacy profiles are necessary. The objective of this study is to conduct a thorough investigation of the relative efficacy of these drugs in alleviating psoriasis symptoms and increasing the quality of life for patients by synthesizing the existing evidence. A comprehensive review was conducted to evaluate and compare the safety and effectiveness of different biochemical medicines utilized in the management of psoriasis. In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations, the review process was conducted among the available studies. A search was conducted across electronic databases, such as Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase, utilizing a combination of keywords and Mesh phrases pertaining to psoriasis, biological medications, and particular names of pharmaceuticals. In total, 475 studies were ascertained by the preliminary search of the database. After eliminating duplicate research, 358 distinct studies remained. After meticulous screening of titles and abstracts against the predefined inclusion criteria, 281 papers were deemed ineligible and thus excluded. For final inclusion, the whole texts of the remaining 77 studies were evaluated. Forty additional papers were removed during the full-text evaluation for a variety of reasons, including improper research design, or insufficient outcome data. Finally, 37 studies were included in this systematic review since they satisfied all inclusion criteria. The results of the current systematic review showed that all biological medications showed high efficacy in the treatment of skin psoriasis compared with placebo based on the clinical assessment outcomes using different tools such as PASI.

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

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

Real-World Experience of Methotrexate in the Treatment of Skin Diseases: an Italian Delphi Consensus

BACKGROUND

After decades of use, methotrexate displays an established safety and efficacy profile in both in-hospital and outpatient settings. Despite its widespread use, there is surprisingly little clinical evidence to guide daily practice with methotrexate in dermatology.

OBJECTIVES

To provide guidance for clinicians in daily practice for areas in which there is limited guidance.

METHODS

A Delphi consensus exercise on 23 statements was carried out on the use of methotrexate in dermatological routine settings.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on statements that cover six main areas: (1) pre-screening exams and monitoring of therapy; (2) dosing and administration in patients naïve to methotrexate; (3) optimal strategy for patients in remission; (4) use of folic acid; (5) safety; and (6) predictors of toxicity and efficacy. Specific recommendations are provided for all 23 statements.

CONCLUSIONS

In order to optimize methotrexate efficacy, it is essential to optimize treatment using appropriate dosages, carrying out a rapid drug-based step-up on a treat-to-target strategy and preferably using the subcutaneous formulation. To manage safety aspects appropriately, it is essential to evaluate patients' risk factors and carry out proper monitoring during the course of treatment.

Genome-wide association analysis of anti-TNF-α treatment response in Chinese patients with psoriasis

Background: TNF-α inhibitors are effective biological agents for treating psoriasis, but the treatment responses differ across patients. This study aimed to identify genetic biomarkers of anti-TNF-α response in Chinese psoriasis patients using a genome-wide association approach.

Methods: We recruited two independent cohorts of Chinese psoriasis patients administered etanercept biosimilar (with or without methotrexate). We identified 61 and 87 good responders (PASI improvement ≥75%), 19 and 10 poor responders (PASI improvement <50%) after 24 weeks treatment in the two cohorts, respectively. Then we performed genome-wide association studies (GWAS) on anti-TNF-α response in each cohort independently, followed by a fixed-effects inverse-variance meta-analysis in the 148 good and 29 poor responders.

Results: We tested genetic associations with >3 million genetic variants in either cohort. Meta-analysis identified significant associations within seven loci at p < 10⁻⁵, which also showed consistent association evidence in the two cohorts. These seven loci include rs2431355 (OR = 6.65, p = 4.46 × 10⁻⁷, IQGAP2-F2RL2 on 5q13.3), rs11801616 (OR = 0.11, p = 1.75 × 10⁻⁶, SDC3 on 1p35.2), rs3754679 (OR = 0.17, p = 7.71 × 10⁻⁶, CNOT11 on 2q11.2), rs13166823 (OR = 0.09, p = 3.71 × 10⁻⁶, IRF1-AS1 on 5q31.1), rs10220768 (OR = 5.49, p = 1.48 × 10⁻⁶, NPAP1 on 15q11.2), rs4796752 (OR = 5.56, p = 1.49 × 10⁻⁶, KRT31 on 17q21.2), and rs13045590 (OR = 0.08, p = 9.67 × 10⁻⁷, CTSZ on 20q13.3). Of the seven SNPs, six SNPs showed significant eQTL effect (p < 1 × 10⁻⁶) for several genes in multiple tissues.

Conclusion: These results suggest novel biological mechanisms and potential biomarkers for the response to anti-TNF therapies. These findings warrant further validation.

Interleukin-17 Inhibitor Combination Therapies for the Treatment of Psoriasis: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Although biologics are highly effective in the treatment of psoriasis, some patients consistently fail monotherapy. For these patients, combination therapy is commonly employed. However, evidence-based recommendations for combination therapy in the treatment of psoriasis with interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitors are currently lacking. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a systematic review of existing literature discussing the efficacy and safety of IL-17 inhibitors in combination with other therapeutic modalities in the treatment of psoriasis.

METHODS OF LITERATURE SEARCH

By way of a search of PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases in March 2021, we identified peer-reviewed articles with data on the safety and/or efficacy of IL-17 inhibitor combination therapies in adults with psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis (PsA). A modified version of the 2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Scheme was utilized for assessing study quality.

RESULTS

Twenty-four articles with a total of 3,154 patients met inclusion/exclusion criteria. These articles comprised six post-hoc/subgroup analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), four uncontrolled clinical trials, three case series, and 11 case reports that provided data on IL-17 inhibitor therapy in combination with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs), apremilast, acitretin, topical therapy, phototherapy, and/or medications for comorbid diseases.

LIMITATIONS

Our results are limited by the lack of data from RCTs.

CONCLUSION

Although cDMARDs are often used in psoriasis combination therapies, the current literature suggests concomitant cDMARDs with IL-17 inhibitor therapy provides no added benefit compared to IL-17 inhibitor monotherapy. However, IL-17 inhibitor in combination with apremilast or acitretin shows efficacy and safety in case series/reports and may allow for a reduction in medication dosing and/or frequency, thereby minimizing costs and adverse events. Future RCTs investigating IL-17 inhibitor therapy in combination with acitretin or apremilast are warranted.

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.

Real-World Biologic Adherence, Persistence, and Monotherapy Comparisons in US Patients with Psoriasis: Results from IBM MarketScan® Databases

INTRODUCTION

Limited real-world data are available comparing multiple biologics on their adherence, persistence, and the use of concomitant biologics in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis in clinical practice. The objective was to compare persistence of and adherence to ixekizumab (IXE) treatment, as monotherapy or with concomitant medication, versus patients receiving other commonly prescribed biologics.

METHODS

Patients who newly initiated IXE, adalimumab (ADA), etanercept (ETN), secukinumab (SEC), or ustekinumab (UST) in IBM MarketScan^® databases with diagnosis of psoriasis were identified. Treatment comparisons on medication persistence, adherence, and monotherapy were based on balanced samples after inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).

RESULTS

A higher proportion of patients receiving IXE had had previous biologic therapies (50.3%) versus other biologics (ADA: 9.1%, ETN: 10.9%, SEC: 33.9%, UST: 19.7%). Patients treated with IXE showed statistically (p < 0.001) greater persistence than patients treated with SEC, ADA, UST, or ETN at both 1-year follow-up and up to 3 years of follow-up. Adherence for patients treated with IXE was significantly (p < 0.001) higher compared to ADA, ETN, and UST at both 1-year follow-up and up to 3 years of follow-up. There was no significantly higher adherence in patients treated with IXE compared to those treated with SEC at 1-year follow-up, but IXE had higher adherence than SEC (p < 0.05) at 1-3 year follow-up. IXE showed longer time on monotherapy than ADA (p < 0.001), ETN (p < 0.001), SEC (p < 0.05), and UST (p < 0.001) for both 1-year and 1-3 year follow-up. Sensitivity analyses on persistence, adherence, and monotherapy with further model adjustments after IPTW confirmed the findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with IXE were more persistent on and adherent to treatment and remained on monotherapy longer compared to those on all other commonly prescribed biologics combined or with individual biologics.

Certolizumab Pegol in Japanese Patients with Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis: Effect of Demographics and Baseline Disease Characteristics on Efficacy

Introduction

We present certolizumab pegol (CZP) efficacy data across patient demographic and baseline disease characteristic subgroups from a phase 2/3 trial investigating CZP treatment in Japanese patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (PSO; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03051217).

Methods

Patients were randomised 1:2:2 to placebo once every 2 weeks (Q2W), CZP 400 mg Q2W and CZP 200 mg Q2W (400 mg weeks 0, 2 and 4) for 16 weeks. Patients who achieved ≥ 50% reduction in their baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 50) score at week 16 continued therapy to week 52. PASI 75/90 (75% and 90% reduction, respectively) and Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1 responder rates at weeks 16 and 52 were reported for patient demographic and baseline disease characteristic subgroups, including body mass index (BMI), PASI, disease duration and prior biologic use. Non-responder imputation was used.

Results

Of the randomised patients, 2/26 patients in the placebo group, 47/53 patients in the CZP 400 mg Q2W group and and 39/48 patients in the CZP 200 mg Q2W group completed week 52. In the subgroups evaluated, week 16 efficacy was generally maintained through week 52. At week 52, PASI 75 was achieved by 84.2, 85.7 and 80.0% of patients receiving CZP 400 mg Q2W in the low (15.0–23.7 kg/m²)/intermediate (> 23.7–27.4 kg/m²)/high (> 27.4–47.0 kg/m²) BMI subgroups, respectively, and by 77.8, 70.6 and 69.2%, respectively of patients treated with CZP 200 mg Q2W. PASI 75 at week 52 was achieved by 92.9, 75.0 and 84.2% of patients receiving CZP 400 mg Q2W in the low (12.0–18.0)/intermediate (> 18.0–27.0)/high (> 27.0–67.2) baseline PASI subgroups, respectively, and by 85.0, 58.3 and 68.8% of patients receiving CZP 200 mg Q2W, respectively. Similar responses were observed across other subgroups evaluated for both CZP doses in PASI 75/90 and PGA 0/1.

Conclusion

Clinically meaningful improvements in signs and symptoms of PSO were maintained through week 52 for CZP dosed at 400 mg Q2W or 200 mg Q2W, across patient subgroups. In general, a numerically greater response was observed for patients receiving CZP 400 mg Q2W versus those receiving CZP 200 mg Q2W across patient subgroups.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03051217.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13555-021-00645-2.

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

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

Psoriasis treatment patterns and outcomes with ixekizumab in a real-world setting: results from a single US dermatology referral practice

OBJECTIVE

To assess treatment patterns of Ixekizumab (IXE) and evaluate the speed of onset and long-term clinical and quality-of-life outcomes among a subset of patients who switched from adalimumab (ADA) and secukinumab (SEC) to IXE in a real-world setting.

METHOD

A retrospective chart review study was conducted at a single US dermatology referral center.

RESULT

153 patients were included in the study, 69.3% of patients were biologic-experienced. ADA was the most commonly used biologic prior to IXE initiation. 66.7% of patients remained on IXE at the study end. 47.7% of patients received concomitant methotrexate, and usage decreased consistently after 1 month. IXE treatment duration was longer among patients who were early responders (achieved sPGA (0,1) at 1 month) vs. non-early responders. 69.4% and 43.3% of patients who switched from ADA and SEC to IXE achieved sPGA (0,1) by week 4, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patients who switched to IXE, specifically from ADA or SEC, had rapid treatment response as well as desirable long-term outcomes. IXE persistence was longer among early responders than non-early responders. Concomitant usage of methotrexate prior to switching to IXE and as a concomitant bridging treatment was reduced after IXE initiation while the proportion of patients achieving treatment targets remained high.

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.

Are biologics combined with methotrexate better than biologics monotherapy in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

To investigate if the combination of biologics with methotrexate (MTX) would have better performance than biological monotherapy in clinical efficiency and safety for the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA)， a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) searched from the Pubmed, Cochrane Library, and Embase was conducted. Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) responses (including PASI 50, 75, and 90), and proportion of patients with Physician's Global Assessment Scale (sPGA) scored 0 or 1, were used for psoriasis assessment. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20/50/70 responder indices were used to assess the efficiency for treating PsA. The incidences of adverse events and antidrug antibodies' development were also recorded. A total of 15 studies with 4221 patients were included in this study. Three of the 15 RCTs were categorized as low risk of bias, nine studies as unclear, and three as high. Significant greater improvement in the combination group than monotherapy group for psoriasis was observed at week 12, week 24, and week 48, with no increased risk of severe adverse events and drug withdrawals due to adverse events. There was no significant difference in the comparison of clinical efficiency for the treatment of PsA at week 24. In conclusion, biologics plus MTX made better performance on improving the clinical efficiency for the treatment of psoriasis when compared with biologic monotherapy, without a difference in tolerability. However, this combination cannot improve the clinical efficiency of PsA treatment and more studies are warranted to elucidate relevant problems.

Long-term safety of combination treatment with methotrexate and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α antagonists versus TNF-α antagonists alone in psoriatic patients

Methotrexate, a folic acid analog, is the conventional systemic anti-psoriatic agent most commonly chosen for combination with biologics in the treatment of psoriasis. Real-world long-term safety data of this combination versus biologic treatment alone in dermatological practice are sparse. Here, we present results of a comparative retrospective study of laboratory dynamics and adverse events in psoriatic patients receiving a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α antagonist (adalimumab or etanercept) with and without concomitant methotrexate (176 treatment courses, mean duration of 629 days). Co-treatment with methotrexate significantly (P < 0.05) correlated with a decrease of leukocyte, neutrophil and erythrocyte counts and an increase of glutamate pyruvate transaminase (GPT) (Pearson correlation, n > 148). The relative risk for a Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade 1-2 laboratory adverse event was significantly elevated to 1.11 for anemia and 1.16 for a GPT increase if the patients received concomitant methotrexate at the time the laboratory test was performed. Combination treatment was given for equal or more than 30% of the time (MTX_≥30% ) during 12% of the treatment courses. During these treatment courses, dynamics of leukocyte (-8.1%), neutrophil (-8.1%), erythrocyte (-3.2%) counts and GPT (+16.9%) from baseline to average under treatment were significantly more pronounced. CTCAE grade 3-4 laboratory adverse events occurred in 9.5% and 5.2% of treatment courses with and without MTX_≥30% , respectively (p = 0.70), and affected transaminases in 90% of the cases. Methotrexate was discontinued due to CTCAE grade 3-4 laboratory adverse events in 4.25% of the treatment courses with MTX of 30% or more. Elevated baseline γ-glutamyl transferase levels significantly predicted the occurrence of CTCAE grade 3-4 laboratory adverse events and should trigger investigations for pre-existing liver disease or alcohol abuse. In conclusion, our comparative data supplement previous short-term studies and support a tolerable long-term safety profile of the combination treatment. However, given the additional toxicities and low evidence for benefits, alternative options such as biologic monotherapy or switching to a different biologic should be considered in a dermatological setting.

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.

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

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

Safety considerations with combination therapies for psoriasis

Introduction: Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that waxes and wanes, and long-term remission can be difficult to achieve regardless of disease severity. Currently, numerous treatment options are available for psoriasis including steroid and non-steroid topical agents, phototherapy, oral systemic agents, and biologics, with many more therapeutic agents under development.Areas covered: This article will review various combination therapy strategies such as rotational therapy and sequential therapy and describe a variety of safe and effective combination therapies for the treatment of psoriasis. Two or more agents with different mechanisms of action and safety profiles can be used to achieve and/or maintain adequate disease control while minimizing the toxicity of treatments. Combination therapy can also be used when a single agent is not enough for treating recalcitrant disease. Choosing a combination regimen that maximizes safety and efficacy while considering patient usability and compliance can be a challenge.Expert opinion: Given the various treatment options currently available for psoriasis and more agents under development, combination therapy will continue to be a valuable treatment strategy for any patient with psoriasis. It is crucial for clinicians to carefully consider the fine balance between safety and efficacy when combining various therapeutic agents.

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.

Japanese guidance for use of biologics for psoriasis (the 2019 version)

As the first biologics for psoriasis in Japan, infliximab and adalimumab, anti-tumor necrosis factor-α antibodies, became available in the field of dermatology in 2010, followed by ustekinumab, an anti-interleukin (IL)-12/IL-23p40 antibody, which was launched in Japan in 2011. Since 2015, three IL-17 inhibitors of secukinumab and ixekizumab, anti-IL-17A antibodies, and brodalumab, an anti-IL-17 receptor antibody, and two anti-IL-23p19 antibodies of guselkumab and risankizumab, have also been launched. It is important for physicians to select appropriate biologic therapy for each psoriatic patient after due consideration of disease factors, treatment factors and patient background factors, sharing such information with patients. The following can be listed as points to be considered for the selection of biologics: drug effects (e.g. strength of effectiveness, time to onset of effectiveness, effectiveness against arthritis, primary failure, secondary failure), safety (e.g. infections, administration-related reactions and relationships with other comorbidities), convenience for patients (e.g. hospital visit intervals, self-injection, maintenance therapy at clinics, feasibility of drug discontinuation/re-administration) and payment (medical costs) borne by patients. This guidance has been prepared with the aim of allowing dermatologists experienced in the treatment of psoriasis to use biologics appropriately according to the circumstances of individual patients after consideration of the above-mentioned factors.

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

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

Apremilast Coadministered with Secukinumab for Safe and Effective Control of Psoriasis with Resultant Reduction of Maintenance Dose of the Biologic

Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory condition, affecting 2–3% of the population. In recent years, advent of biologics, including secukinumab, have been a major advancement in the management of difficult-to-treat plaque psoriasis. However, high cost of biologics is often a deterrent, especially for Indian socioeconomic condition. Apremilast is an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor that is safe for use along with many other systemic therapies of psoriasis, including biologics. We report two cases of psoriasis on secukinumab therapy for long duration with good response to therapy. Later, addition of apremilast, allowed halving the dose of secukinumab with maintenance of improvement.

Etanercept and Methotrexate as Monotherapy or in Combination for Psoriatic Arthritis: Primary Results From a Randomized, Controlled Phase III Trial

Objective

To examine the efficacy of methotrexate monotherapy relative to etanercept monotherapy and the value of combining methotrexate and etanercept for the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Methods

In this double‐blind study, 851 patients with PsA were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment arms, as follows: oral methotrexate (20 mg) plus subcutaneous placebo given weekly (n = 284), subcutaneous etanercept (50 mg) plus oral placebo given weekly (n = 284), or subcutaneous etanercept (50 mg) plus oral methotrexate (20 mg) given weekly (combination therapy; n = 283). The American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20) response and Minimal Disease Activity (MDA) response at week 24 were the primary end point and key secondary end point, respectively. Other measures of inflammatory arthritis, radiographic progression, and nonarticular disease manifestations were also assessed.

Results

Patients with PsA had a mean ± SD age of 48.4 ± 13.1 years, and the mean ± SD duration of PsA was 3.2 ± 6.3 years (median 0.6 years). ACR20 and MDA response rates at week 24 were significantly greater in patients who received etanercept monotherapy compared with those who received methotrexate monotherapy (ACR20, 60.9% versus 50.7% of patients [P = 0.029]; MDA, 35.9% versus 22.9% of patients [P = 0.005]), and both were significantly greater in the combination therapy group compared with the methotrexate monotherapy group at week 24 (ACR20, 65.0% versus 50.7% of patients [P = 0.005]; MDA, 35.7% versus 22.9% of patients [P = 0.005]). Other secondary outcomes (ACR50 and ACR70 response rates, proportions of patients achieving a Very Low Disease Activity score, and PsA disease activity scores) showed between‐group differences that were consistent with the primary and key secondary end point results. Furthermore, patients in both etanercept treatment arms showed less radiographic progression at week 48 compared with patients who received methotrexate monotherapy. Outcomes were similar in the combination therapy and etanercept monotherapy groups, except for some skin end points. No new safety signals were seen.

Conclusion

Etanercept monotherapy and combination therapy with etanercept and methotrexate showed greater efficacy than methotrexate monotherapy in patients with PsA, according to the ACR and MDA response rates and extent of radiographic progression at follow‐up. Overall, combining methotrexate and etanercept did not improve the efficacy of etanercept.

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.

Systematic review of the real-world evidence of adalimumab safety in psoriasis registries

Long-term safety of adalimumab in psoriasis clinical studies has been established. The objective of this research was to review real-world evidence of adalimumab safety from registries of adult patients with psoriasis treated in clinical practice. Databases (BIOSIS Previews, Current Contents Search, Derwent Drug File, EMBASE, EMBASE Alert, EMCare, MEDLINE, SciSearch) were searched for psoriasis registries with adalimumab safety data. Eligible papers were English language manuscripts (conference abstracts excluded) from psoriasis registries presenting safety data for adult patients with psoriasis receiving adalimumab. The incidence and rate (events/100 patient-years [PY]) of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs) and AEs of special interest are reported. Abstracts of 425 publications were screened, and 401 publications excluded (208 conference abstracts; 193 papers). Remaining manuscripts were fully screened; 14 were excluded (no adalimumab data, n = 10; no safety data, n = 2; no on-treatment data, n = 1; not English, n = 1), and 10 selected. Overall rates of AEs (4273 [22.2/100PY]) and SAEs (827 [4.3/100PY]) were reported in the ESPRIT registry (N = 6059). Rates of infections (7.7-14.7/100PY) and serious infections (<0.6-2.0/100PY) were reported in four studies. Cardiovascular-related events were reported in three studies: ≤0.1/100PY per major cardiac event in ESPRIT, <0.5/100PY major cardiac events in PsoBest and serious cardiovascular events in two patients (<1%) in DERMBIO. Malignancies were reported in three studies (any malignancy, 0.9/100PY; malignancies excluding non-melanoma skin cancer [NMSC], <0.6/100PY; NMSC, 0.6-<0.5/100PY). These findings suggest that real-world safety of adalimumab is consistent across different psoriasis registries, which supports the existing long-term safety profile of adalimumab from clinical studies.

Management of Psoriatic Arthritis: Turkish League Against Rheumatism (TLAR) Expert Opinions

Objectives

This study aims to establish the first national treatment recommendations by the Turkish League Against Rheumatism (TLAR) for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) based on the current evidence.

Patients and methods

A systematic literature review was performed regarding the management of PsA. The TLAR expert committee consisted of 13 rheumatologists and 12 physical medicine and rehabilitation specialists experienced in the treatment and care of patients with PsA from 22 centers. The TLAR recommendations were built on those of European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2015. Levels of evidence and agreement were determined.

Results

Recommendations included five overarching principles and 13 recommendations covering therapies for PsA, particularly focusing on musculoskeletal involvement. Level of agreement was greater than eight for each item.

Conclusion

This is the first paper that summarizes the recommendations of TLAR as regards the treatment of PsA. We believe that this paper provides Turkish physicians dealing with PsA patients a practical guide in their routine clinical practice.

Obesity and response to anti-tumor necrosis factor-α agents in patients with select immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate the association between obesity and response to anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF) agents, through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Through a systematic search through January 24, 2017, we identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies in adults with select immune-mediated inflammatory diseases-inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthropathies (SpA), psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA)-treated with anti-TNF agents, and reporting outcomes, stratified by body mass index (BMI) categories or weight. Primary outcome was failure to achieve clinical remission or response or treatment modification. We performed random effects meta-analysis and estimated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Based on 54 cohorts including 19,372 patients (23% obese), patients with obesity had 60% higher odds of failing therapy (OR,1.60; 95% CI,1.39-1.83;I2 = 71%). Dose-response relationship was observed (obese vs. normal BMI: OR,1.87 [1.39-2.52]; overweight vs. normal BMI: OR,1.38 [1.11-1.74],p = 0.11); a 1kg/m2 increase in BMI was associated with 6.5% higher odds of failure (OR,1.065 [1.043-1.087]). These effects were observed across patients with rheumatic diseases, but not observed in patients with IBD. Effect was consistent based on dosing regimen/route, study design, exposure definition, and outcome measures. Less than 10% eligible RCTs reported outcomes stratified by BMI.

CONCLUSIONS

Obesity is an under-reported predictor of inferior response to anti-TNF agents in patients with select immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. A thorough evaluation of obesity as an effect modifier in clinical trials is warranted, and intentional weight loss may serve as adjunctive treatment in patients with obesity failing anti-TNF therapy.

Can etanercept treatment failure in moderate-to-severe psoriasis be overcome by addition of low-dose methotrexate? A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Loss of efficacy is a major anticipated shortcoming of utilizing etanercept and other biologic agents for treating moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

PURPOSE

To investigate the addition of low-dose methotrexate as a means to increase etanercept drug survival.

METHODS

Eleven patients with severe psoriasis were switched to a combination of etanercept with low-dose methotrexate therapy, after a primary or secondary failure with etanercept treatment as a monotherapy. Time period for cessation of combined treatment and side effects were documented. The effect of previous methotrexate treatment was investigated.

RESULTS

Six men and five women were included in the study. The patients had moderate-to-severe psoriasis with a mean baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) of 29 (median 25). Median duration of etanercept monotherapy was 12 months. Median duration of combined treatment was 13 months. Combined treatment was discontinued in three patients due to side effects. Previous failure of methotrexate monotherapy did not alter the duration of the combined treatment.

CONCLUSION

Addition of low-dose methotrexate may rescue etanercept therapy after failure of etanercept monotherapy in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Redefining the therapeutic objective in psoriatic patients candidates for biological therapy

The advances in psoriasis management currently allow achieving a good control of the disease. In particular, with the latest developed molecules, available evidence suggests that it is possible to pose an ambitious therapeutic goal, such as a Dermatology Life Quality Index 0/1, a Physician Global Assessment 0/1, or a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 90/100 response. However, patients often fail to achieve the complete clearance of their cutaneous lesions or the improvement of disease factors that impair their quality of life. To optimize the treatment of psoriasis, it is not enough to define precisely the therapeutic objective, but also to adapt the therapeutic strategy to make the necessary modifications in case of not achieving it at the time point (at the end of the induction phase, or every 3-6 months) to be agreed with the patient (the so-called treat-to-target approach). In the present report, based on the Delphi methodology, 11 dermatologists from the Spanish Psoriasis Group addressed key issues that could be involved in the achievement and maintenance of the therapeutic goals of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. The document provides 27 consensus statements intended to support clinical decision-making by healthcare professionals for patients who might be candidates to receive biologic therapy.

Drug survival of biologic treatments in psoriasis: a systematic review

Drug survival measures the length of time until discontinuation of a drug. The length of time a patient remains on a biologic drug is impacted by several factors such as tolerability, side effects, safety profile and effectiveness. To evaluate the long-term drug survival, data of the most commonly prescribed biologic medications used in the treatment of psoriasis, a systematic review was conducted. A literature search using PubMed, the Cochrane Library and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from January 1 2010 to October 28 2016 identified 3734 abstracts. Of which, 36 publications with over 40,000 patients met the inclusion criteria. The median overall drug survival for ustekinumab, adalimumab, infliximab and etanercept was 38.0, 36.5, 26.6 and 24.7 months, respectively. The mean annual drug survival rate of TNF inhibitors was 70%, 57%, 51%, 45% and 41% at years-1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively. The 5-year mean annual drug survival rate of ustekinumab was 87%, 78%, 70%, 71% and 51%, respectively. Based on our findings, ustekinumab appears to have a longer drug survival with lower rates of discontinuation compared to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

The Inflammatory Response in Psoriasis: a Comprehensive Review

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory autoimmune disease characterized by an excessively aberrant hyperproliferation of keratinocytes. The pathogenesis of psoriasis is complex and the exact mechanism remains elusive. However, psoriasis is thought to result from a combination of genetic, epigenetic, and environmental influences. Recent studies have identified that epigenetic factors including dysregulated DNA methylation levels, abnormal histone modification and microRNAs expressions are involved in the development of psoriasis. The interplay of immune cells and cytokines is another critical factor in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. These factors or pathways include Th1/Th2 homeostasis, the Th17/Treg balance and the IL-23/Th17 axis. Th17 is believed particularly important in psoriasis due to its pro-inflammatory effects and its involvement in an integrated inflammatory loop with dendritic cells and keratinocytes, contributing to an overproduction of antimicrobial peptides, inflammatory cytokines, and chemokines that leads to amplification of the immune response. In addition, other pathways and signaling molecules have been found to be involved, including Th9, Th22, regulatory T cells, γδ T cells, CD8(+) T cells, and their related cytokines. Understanding the pathogenesis of psoriasis will allow us to develop increasingly efficient targeted treatment by blocking relevant inflammatory signaling pathways and molecules. There is no cure for psoriasis at the present time, and much of the treatment involves managing the symptoms. The biologics, while lacking the adverse effects associated with some of the traditional medications such as corticosteroids and methotrexate, have their own set of side effects, which may include reactivation of latent infections. Significant challenges remain in developing safe and efficacious novel targeted therapies that depend on a better understanding of the immunological dysfunction in psoriasis.

Optimizing adalimumab treatment in psoriasis with concomitant methotrexate (OPTIMAP): study protocol for a pragmatic, single-blinded, investigator-initiated randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The introduction of anti-tumor necrosis factor medications has revolutionized the treatment of psoriasis with achievement of treatment goals (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score 75, remission) that are not usually met with conventional systemics. Nevertheless, some patients continue to experience persistent disease activity or treatment failure over time. Strategies to optimize treatment outcomes include the use of concomitant methotrexate, which has demonstrated beneficial effects on pharmacokinetics and treatment efficacy in psoriasis and other inflammatory diseases.

METHODS

This is an investigator-initiated, multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) designed to compare the combination treatment of adalimumab and methotrexate with adalimumab monotherapy in patients with psoriasis. The primary outcome is adalimumab drug survival at week 49. Other outcomes include improvement in disease severity and quality of life, tolerability, and safety. Moreover, anti-adalimumab antibodies and adalimumab serum concentrations will be measured and correlations between genotypes and clinical outcomes will be assessed. Patient recruitment started in March 2014. Up to now, 36 patients have been randomized. Many more patients have been (pre)screened. A total of 93 patients is desired to meet an adequate sample size. In our experience, the main limitation for recruitment is prior adalimumab therapy and intolerability or toxicity for methotrexate in the past.

DISCUSSION

OPTIMAP is the first RCT to examine combination therapy with adalimumab and methotrexate in a psoriasis population. With data derived from this study we expect to provide valuable clinical data on long-term treatment outcomes. These data will be supported by assessment of the impact of concomitant methotrexate on adalimumab pharmacokinetics. Furthermore, the influence of several single nucleotide polymorphisms on adalimumab response will be analyzed in order to support the development of a more personalized approach for this targeted therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NTR4499 . Registered on 7 April 2014.

Psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis: Is all inflammation the same?

OBJECTIVES

To review the pathophysiology, co-morbidities, and therapeutic options for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis in order to further understand the similarities and differences in treatment paradigms in the management of each disease. New targets for individualized therapeutic decisions are also identified with the aim of improving therapeutic outcome and reducing toxicity.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Using the PubMed database, we searched literature published from 2000 to 2015 using combinations of the key words "psoriasis," "psoriatic arthritis," "rheumatoid arthritis," "pathogenesis," "immunomodulation," and "treatment."

INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA

This was a non-systematic review and there were no formal inclusion and exclusion criteria.

DATA EXTRACTION

Abstracts identified in the search were screened for relevance and articles considered appropriate evaluated further. References within these selected articles were also screened. Information was extracted from 198 articles for inclusion in this report.

DATA SYNTHESIS

There was no formal data synthesis. Articles were reviewed and summarized according to disease area (psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis).

HEADLINE RESULTS

The pathophysiology of psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis involves chronic inflammation mediated by pro-inflammatory cytokines. Dysfunction in integrated signaling pathways affecting different constituents of the immune system result in varying clinical features in the three diseases. Co-morbidities, including cardiovascular disease, malignancies, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease are increased. Increased understanding of the immunopathogenesis allowed development of targeted treatments; however, despite a variety of potentially predictive genetic, protein and cellular biomarkers, there is still significant unmet need in these three inflammatory disorders.

A dermatologist guide to immunogenicity

Dermatologists should be aware that autoantibody formation may occur after the initiation of biologic therapy. This phenomenon has been referred to as immunogenicity and biologic fatigue. Because of this, patients may experience loss of clinical efficacy to a particular drug. To combat this phenomenon, low-dose immunomodulators may be used in hopes of preventing autoantibodies. We review the current literature and provide a basic treatment algorithm for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.