Efficacy and safety of oral retinoids in different psoriasis subtypes: a systematic literature review

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.

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.

Practical recommendations for systemic treatment in psoriasis according to age, pregnancy, metabolic syndrome, mental health, psoriasis subtype and treatment history (BETA-PSO: Belgian Evidence-based Treatment Advice in Psoriasis; part 1)

Background

Impressive progress in new therapeutic options has been made for psoriasis. Treatments include topical steroids, phototherapy, conventional, synthetic disease‐modifying drugs and an expanding list of biologics.

Objective

The primary objective of this work was to collect evidence for the creation of practice guidelines for systemic treatment of psoriasis (BETA‐PSO: Belgian Evidence‐based Treatment Advice in Psoriasis).

Methods

Evidence‐based recommendations were formulated using a quasi‐Delphi methodology after a systematic search of the literature and a consensus procedure involving 8 psoriasis experts.

Results

In this part, the use of systemic treatment in different age groups, during pregnancy, in metabolic syndrome, in patients with mental health problems, in different psoriasis subtypes and in previously systemically treated patients treatment is discussed.

Conclusion

Guidance on therapeutic choice in specific clinical situations in psoriasis is provided in order to facilitate the decision‐making in clinical practice.

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.

Pharmacological Management of Pediatric Pustular Psoriasis

Therapeutic management of pustular psoriasis remains a challenge despite the rapid advance in psoriasis research and the development of drugs, especially biologics. Treatment guidelines have been established for pustular psoriasis, but no controlled studies are present for juvenile pustular psoriasis (JPP). Search of the literature reveals that current evidence of JPP treatment is limited to case reports and case series. Among the conventional drugs for JPP, oral retinoid is the most commonly used, yet concerns for growth disturbance exist. Cyclosporine and methotrexate have also been administered as first-line treatment. Etanercept is the first biological agent approved for juvenile plaque psoriasis, followed by adalimumab. However, infliximab is usually recommended for JPP because of the rapidity of onset, despite not being approved for use in pediatric psoriasis patients. More recently, secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, and risankizumab have been approved for adult pustular psoriasis in selected countries. Controlled studies are needed to prove the efficacy and long-term safety of the therapeutic treatments currently used for JPP.

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.

Acitretin inhibits IL-17A-induced IL-36 expression in keratinocytes by down-regulating IκBζ

BACKGROUND

IL-36 plays a critical role in aggravating psoriatic inflammation, which is significantly elevated in generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) compared to psoriasis vulgaris. It is well known that acitretin brings about a rapid and significant effect on the treatment of GPP but not psoriasis vulgaris, whereas the quick therapeutic mechanism of acitretin in GPP has not been fully clarified.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted this study to investigate whether acitretin interferes IL-36 expression in keratinocytes.

METHOD

We used 100 ng/mL IL-17A and/or various doses of acitretin (0, 0.1, 1, 10 μmol/L) to treat cultured HaCaT cells. We performed Real-time quantitative PCR and ELISA to detect gene and protein expression of IL-36 cytokines, real-time quantitative PCR and Western blot to examine IκBζ. Imiquimod (IMQ)-induced psoriasis-like mouse model was established to evaluate effect of gastrointestinal administrated acitretin. Immunohistochemistry was conducted for effect assessment.

RESULTS

Acitretin significantly down-regulated expression of IL-36β and IL-36γ induced by IL-17A stimulation at both gene and protein levels in HaCaT cells. Acitretin alone had no obvious effect on IL-36 expression in keratinocytes. In IMQ + acitretin group, the skin lesion severity was slightly relieved, however, immunohistochemistry showed IL-36β and IL-36γ expression in keratinocytes significantly declined in comparison with IMQ group. IL-17A stimulation induced significantly IκBζ expression in HaCaT cells, which could be inhibited by acitretin.

CONCLUSION

Acitretin inhibits IL-36 expression induced by IL-17A stimulation in keratinocytes by down-regulating IκBζ, and acitretin significantly inhibits keratinocytes-expressed IL-36β and IL-36γ in psoriasis-like mouse model, which reveals a new possible mechanism of the notable and quick therapeutic action of acitretin on GPP.

Pathophysiology of Atopic Dermatitis and Psoriasis: Implications for Management in Children

Atopic dermatitis (AD) and psoriasis are chronic inflammatory skin diseases associated with a significant cutaneous and systemic burden of disease as well as a poor health-related quality of life. Here, we review the complex pathophysiology of both AD and psoriasis and discuss the implications for treatment with current state-of-the-art and emerging topical and systemic therapies. Both AD and psoriasis are caused by a complex combination of immune dysregulation, skin-barrier disruption, genetic factors, and environmental influences. Previous treatments for both diseases were limited to anti-inflammatory agents that broadly suppress inflammation. Emerging insights into relevant pathways, including recognition of the role of T-helper type 2 driven inflammation in AD and T-helper 1 and 17 driven inflammation in psoriasis, have led to a therapeutic revolution. There are a number of novel treatment options available for AD and psoriasis with many more currently under investigation.

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.

Generalized pustular psoriasis induced by systemic steroid dose reduction

Generalized pustular psoriasis, or psoriasis of von Zumbusch, is an acute and severe clinical form of psoriasis, which usually occurs in patients with psoriasis undergoing aggravating factors. In this work, we report the case of a female patient, 70 years old, who developed generalized pustular psoriasis symptoms while reducing the dose of oral corticosteroids, improperly introduced for the treatment of alleged acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis. The differential diagnosis of generalized pustular psoriasis should be made with other pustular dermatoses, such as subcorneal pustulosis, IgA pemphigus and especially with acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis. Personal history of psoriasis and histopathological findings with psoriasiform changes and subcorneal pustule favored the diagnosis. She was treated with acitretin 30 mg / day, progressing to complete regression of the lesions.

Efficacy, safety and drug survival of conventional agents in pediatric psoriasis: A multicenter, cohort study

The data on long-term efficacy, safety and drug survival rates of conventional systemic therapeutics in pediatric psoriasis is lacking. The primary aim of this study is to investigate acitretin, methotrexate, cyclosporin efficacy, safety and drug survival rates in pediatric patients as well as predictors of drug survival. This is a multicenter study including 289 pediatric cases being treated with acitretin, methotrexate and cyclosporin in four academic referral centers. Efficacy, adverse events, reasons for discontinuation, 1, 2- and 3-year drug survival rates, and determinants of drug survival were analyzed. A 75% reduction of Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score or better response rate was obtained in 47.5%, 34.1% and 40% of the patients who were treated with acitretin, methotrexate and cyclosporin, respectively. One-year drug survival rates for acitretin, methotrexate and cyclosporin were 36.3%, 21.1% and 15.1%, respectively. The most significant determinant of drug survival, which diminished over time, was treatment response whereas arthritis, body mass index and sex had no influence. Although all three medications are effective and relatively safe in children, drug survival rates are low due to safety concerns at this age group. Effective disease control through their rational use can be expected to improve survival rates.

Effectiveness and Safety of Acitretin in Children with Plaque Psoriasis: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Acitretin is licensed for and is most commonly used to treat psoriasis. Little information exists about its efficacy and safety in childhood and adolescent psoriasis.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of a group of children and adolescents (<17 years of age) with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis treated with acitretin between 2010 and 2014 at Italian dermatology clinics. Patients were identified through databases or registries.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 18 patients with a median age of 9.5 years at the start of therapy. The median maintenance dosage per day was 0.41 mg/kg. Eight patients (44.4%) achieved complete clearance or good improvement of their psoriasis, defined as improvement from baseline of 75% or more on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index at week 16. Three had three or more courses of treatment with short disease-free intervals. In three patients, acitretin treatment was ongoing at the time of data collection. The mean total duration of treatment in responders was 22.7 months. One patient discontinued treatment because of arthralgia. The remaining nine patients (50%) discontinued treatment because it was ineffective. Mucocutaneous adverse effects occurred in all patients, but did not affect therapy maintenance.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective case series, acitretin was a moderately effective, well-tolerated treatment in children with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Given the small number of patients, statements about long-term safety are not possible.

Current knowledge on psoriasis and autoimmune diseases

Psoriasis is a prevalent, chronic inflammatory disease of the skin, mediated by crosstalk between epidermal keratinocytes, dermal vascular cells, and immunocytes such as antigen presenting cells (APCs) and T cells. Exclusive cellular “responsibility” for the induction and maintenance of psoriatic plaques has not been clearly defined. Increased proliferation of keratinocytes and endothelial cells in conjunction with APC/T cell/monocyte/macrophage inflammation leads to the distinct epidermal and vascular hyperplasia that is characteristic of lesional psoriatic skin. Despite the identification of numerous susceptibility loci, no single genetic determinant has been identified as responsible for the induction of psoriasis. Thus, numerous other triggers of disease, such as environmental, microbial and complex cellular interactions must also be considered as participants in the development of this multifactorial disease. Recent advances in therapeutics, especially systemic so-called “biologics” have provided new hope for identifying the critical cellular targets that drive psoriasis pathogenesis. Recent recognition of the numerous co-morbidities and other autoimmune disorders associated with psoriasis, including inflammatory bowel disease, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and systemic lupus erythematosus suggest common signaling elements and cellular mediators may direct disease pathogenesis. In this review, we discuss common cellular pathways and participants that mediate psoriasis and other autoimmune disorders that share these cellular signaling pathways.

Investigation on Toxicity and Teratogenicity in Rats of a Retinoid-Polyamine Conjugate with Potent Anti-Inflammatory Properties

Previous studies have shown that N(1),N(12)-bis(all-trans-retinoyl)spermine (RASP), a retinoid analog, inhibits RNase P activity and angiogenesis in the chicken embryo chorioallantoic membrane, demonstrates anti-tumor activity on prostate cancer cells, and acts as anti-inflammatory agent, being more effective and less toxic than all-trans retinoic acid. In an attempt to further characterize the biological profile of RASP, we tested its effects on organ toxicity and teratogenicity by daily oral gavage of RASP at a level of 50 mg/Kg of body weight in two generations of rats. We found that this compound does not induce changes to the body growth, the appearance of physical features, and the animal's reflexes. Additionally, no substantial histopathological lesions were found in brain, heart, lung, thymus, liver, thyroid gland, adrenal gland, pituitary gland, kidneys, spleen, skin, femora, prostate, testis, epididymis, vagina, uterus, and ovaries of RASP-treated animals. These results suggest RASP, as a promising lead compound for the treatment of several dermatological disorders and certain cancer types, has apparently minimal toxic side-effects as revealed in this two-generation reproduction study in rats.

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

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

A 36-week retrospective open trial comparing the efficacy of biological therapies in nail psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Nail psoriasis occurs in about 50% of psoriatic patients and can be psychologically devastating since it appears on visible areas. Up to now there is no evidence about what biological drugs is the most effective on nail psoriasis.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of our study was to determine if one of the four biological drugs approved in our country (infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, ustekinumab) is more effective than the others for nail psoriasis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-center, retrospective study was conducted to assess the efficacy of biological therapies in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis with nail involvement. NAPSI was evaluated in all psoriatic patients. Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher's exact tests were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

A global statistically significant improvement in mean NAPSI from baseline to 12, 24 and 36 weeks was observed in all patients. At 12 weeks 27.78% of the patients reach NAPSI 75, at 24 weeks 81.48% and at 36 weeks 88.89%. The improvement in nail psoriasis is not significantly different between groups. An improvement in the mean Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score was also achieved

CONCLUSIONS

Biological therapies have shown to ameliorate psoriatic nail lesions. We did not find any statistically significant differences between the four biological drugs investigated.

Acitretin in psoriasis: an evolving scenario

Acitretin, an active metabolite of etretinate, is the most widely used systemic retinoid in the treatment of psoriasis. There are several unique characteristics of this drug, which set it apart from other options in the therapeutic armamentarium of psoriasis. It is highly efficacious as monotherapy in some specific clinical subtypes of psoriasis. It has dose-sparing effects when used as combination therapy with conventional systemic drugs as well as the biologics. It is a good option for long-term maintenance therapy. Side effects are common but usually mild and can be managed by its proper dosing and monitoring. With appropriate patient selection, gradual dose escalation, and patient counseling, we can deliver good results in psoriasis with this useful drug. This review gives a comprehensive recount of acitretin use in the present era of biologics in psoriasis.

Advances in treating psoriasis

Psoriasis is a T helper (Th)17/Th1-mediated autoimmune disease affecting the skin and joints. So far, distinct traditional oral compounds and modern biologics have been approved in most countries for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis. Yet, the anti-psoriatic therapeutic spectrum is to be extended by a number of novel targeted therapies including biologics and modern oral compounds. The next set of anti-psoriatic biologics targets mainly Th17-associated cytokines such as IL-17 or IL-23. In contrast, modern oral anti-psoriatics, such as dimethyl fumarate (DMF), apremilast or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors interfere with intracellular proteins and affect signaling pathways. Here we summarize the current systemic therapies for psoriasis and their immunological mechanism. The recent advances in psoriasis therapy will help treat our patients efficiently and complete our understanding of disease pathogenesis.

Guidelines for the use of acitretin in psoriasis. Psoriasis Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology

Phototherapy, classic systemic treatments (methotrexate, acitretin, and ciclosporin), and biologic agents (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab) constitute a broad therapeutic arsenal that increases the likelihood of achieving control of severe and extensive disease in patients with psoriasis. Acitretin continues to be a very valuable tool in both monotherapy, in which it is combined with other systemic treatments (classic or biologic), and in sequential therapy. Thanks to its lack of a direct immunosuppressive effect and its ability to achieve a long-term response, acitretin has an important role in the treatment of psoriasis, although this has not always been acknowledged in relevant treatment guidelines. We present consensus guidelines for the use of acitretin in psoriasis drawn up by the Psoriasis Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. These guidelines provide a detailed account of acitretin, including pharmacological properties, indications and contraindications, adverse effects, and factors that should be taken into account to enhance the safe use of this drug. They also propose treatment strategies for use in routine clinical practice. The overall aim of these guidelines is to define the criteria for the use and management of acetretin in psoriasis.

Nail psoriasis: a review

Nail psoriasis is common, occurring in up to half of patients with psoriasis and in 90% of patients with psoriatic arthritis. Left untreated, it may progress to debilitating nail disease, which leads to significant functional impairment. The most common clinical signs of nail psoriasis are nail plate pitting and onycholysis. Other classical signs include oil drop discoloration, subungual hyperkeratosis, and splinter hemorrhages. The modified Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (mNAPSI) can be used to grade the severity of nail psoriasis, while the Nail Psoriasis Quality of Life Scale (NPQ10) is a questionnaire that evaluates the impact of nail psoriasis on the patient's functional status and quality of life. Treatment of nail psoriasis should be individualized according to the patient's preferences, severity of nail changes, and presence of skin and/or joint involvement. Both topical and intralesional therapies are safe and effective treatment modalities for nail disease, but are limited by poor adherence and pain, respectively. Systemic therapy such as oral retinoids may be considered for widespread nail disease causing significant morbidity. Among biologic agents, tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors and T-cell-targeted therapies such as ustekinumab may be useful for refractory severe nail psoriasis.

[Pustular psoriasis]

The pustular forms o f psoriasis make up a heterogeneous entity from a clinical point of view. However, the existence of clinically detectable aseptic pustular lesions is common to all these forms. How they are related to plaque psoriasis, also called psoriasis vulgaris, the most frequent form of psoriasis, and the genetic and molecular mechanisms recently updated in some forms, have renewed interest in these pustular forms, resulting in reconsideration of their place within cutaneous and systemic inflammatory diseases.

Emerging roles for TNIP1 in regulating post-receptor signaling

A vast number of cellular processes and signaling pathways are regulated by various receptors, ranging from transmembrane to nuclear receptors. These receptor-mediated processes are modulated by a diverse set of regulatory proteins. TNFα-induced protein 3-interacting protein 1 is such a protein that inhibits both transduction by transmembrane receptors, such as TNFα-receptor, EGF-R, and TLR, and nuclear receptors' PPAR and RAR activity. These receptors play key roles in regulating inflammation and inflammatory diseases. A growing number of references have implicated TNIP1 through GWAS and expression studies in chronic inflammatory diseases such as psoriasis and rheumatoid arthritis, although TNIP1s exact role has yet been determined. In this review, we aim to integrate the current knowledge of TNIP1s functions with the diseases in which it has been associated to potentially elucidate the role this regulator has in promoting or alleviating these inflammatory diseases.

[Choice of therapy based on clinical setting]

The choice of therapy in psoriasis is a complex multidimensional process based on both patient-related and disease-related factors. Standardisation of inclusion criteria for clinical trials leads to the exclusion of large numbers of patients with special forms of psoriasis or presenting comorbidities that must nevertheless be dealt with in real-life situations. The main patient-related factors affecting choice of therapy are age, pregnancy for women and the desire to father children for men, renal and hepatic failure, the risk of infection and neoplasia, metabolic and both cardiovascular and psychiatric comorbidities, as well as compliance and lifestyle. Disease-related factors affecting choice of therapy include unstable lesions, acral sites (palms, soles, nails, face and scalp), erythrodermic psoriasis, pustular psoriasis, guttate psoriasis and associated psoriatic rheumatism. The therapeutic recommendations set out in this study are based upon a critical analysis of the literature and upon the actual therapeutic practice of the experts.