Topical calcipotriol plus oral fumaric acid is more effective and faster acting than oral fumaric acid monotherapy in the treatment of severe chronic plaque psoriasis vulgaris

Disentangling the complexity of psoriasis in the post-genome-wide association era

In recent years, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been instrumental in unraveling the genetic architecture of complex diseases, including psoriasis. The application of large-scale GWA studies in psoriasis has illustrated several associated loci that participate in the cutaneous inflammation, however explaining a fraction of the disease heritability. With the advent of high-throughput sequencing technologies and functional genomics approaches, the post-GWAS era aims to unravel the functional mechanisms underlying the inter-individual variability in psoriasis patients. In this review, we present the key advances of psoriasis GWAS in under-represented populations, rare, non-coding and structural variants and epistatic phenomena that orchestrate the interplay between different cell types. We further review the gene-gene and gene-environment interactions contributing to the disease predisposition and development of comorbidities through Mendelian randomization studies and pleiotropic effects of psoriasis-associated loci. We finally examine the holistic approaches conducted in psoriasis through system genetics and state-of-the-art transcriptomic analyses, discussing their potential implication in the expanding field of precision medicine and characterization of comorbidities.

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.

Vitamin D Signaling in Psoriasis: Pathogenesis and Therapy

Psoriasis is a systemic, chronic, immune-mediated disease that affects approximately 2–3% of the world’s population. The etiology and pathophysiology of psoriasis are still unknown, but the activation of the adaptive immune system with the main role of T-cells is key in psoriasis pathogenesis. The modulation of the local neuroendocrine system with the downregulation of pro-inflammatory and the upregulation of anti-inflammatory messengers represent a promising adjuvant treatment in psoriasis therapies. Vitamin D receptors and vitamin D-mediated signaling pathways function in the skin and are essential in maintaining the skin homeostasis. The active forms of vitamin D act as powerful immunomodulators of clinical response in psoriatic patients and represent the effective and safe adjuvant treatments for psoriasis, even when high doses of vitamin D are administered. The phototherapy of psoriasis, especially UVB-based, changes the serum level of 25(OH)D, but the correlation of 25(OH)D changes and psoriasis improvement need more clinical trials, since contradictory data have been published. Vitamin D derivatives can improve the efficacy of psoriasis phototherapy without inducing adverse side effects. The anti-psoriatic treatment could include non-calcemic CYP11A1-derived vitamin D hydroxyderivatives that would act on the VDR or as inverse agonists on RORs or activate alternative nuclear receptors including AhR and LXRs. In conclusion, vitamin D signaling can play an important role in the natural history of psoriasis. Selective targeting of proper nuclear receptors could represent potential treatment options in psoriasis.

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.

Phosphodiesterase-4 Inhibition Reduces Cutaneous Inflammation and IL-1β Expression in a Psoriasiform Mouse Model but Does Not Inhibit Inflammasome Activation

Apremilast (Otezla^®) is an oral small molecule phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor approved for the treatment of psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and oral ulcers associated with Behçet’s disease. While PDE4 inhibition overall is mechanistically understood, the effect of apremilast on the innate immune response, particularly inflammasome activation, remains unknown. Here, we assessed the effect of apremilast in a psoriasis mouse model and primary human cells. Psoriatic lesion development in vivo was studied in K5.Stat3C transgenic mice treated with apremilast for 2 weeks, resulting in a moderate (2 mg/kg/day) to significant (6 mg/kg/day) resolution of inflamed plaques after 2-week treatment. Concomitantly, epidermal thickness dramatically decreased, the cutaneous immune cell infiltrate was reduced, and proinflammatory cytokines were significantly downregulated. Additionally, apremilast significantly inhibited lipopolysaccharide- or anti-CD3-induced expression of proinflammatory cytokines in peripheral mononuclear cells (PBMCs). Notably, inflammasome activation and secretion of IL-1β were not inhibited by apremilast in PBMCs and in human primary keratinocytes. Collectively, apremilast effectively alleviated the psoriatic phenotype of K5.Stat3 transgenic mice, further substantiating PDE4 inhibitor-efficiency in targeting key clinical, histopathological and inflammatory features of psoriasis. Despite lacking direct effect on inflammasome activation, reduced priming of inflammasome components upon apremilast treatment reflected the indirect benefit of PDE4 inhibition in reducing inflammation.

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.

Current Landscape of NRF2 Biomarkers in Clinical Trials

The transcription factor NF-E2 p45-related factor 2 (NRF2; encoded by NFE2L2) plays a critical role in the maintenance of cellular redox and metabolic homeostasis, as well as the regulation of inflammation and cellular detoxication pathways. The contribution of the NRF2 pathway to organismal homeostasis is seen in many studies using cell lines and animal models, raising intense attention towards targeting its clinical promise. Over the last three decades, an expanding number of clinical studies have examined NRF2 inducers targeting an ever-widening range of diseases. Full understanding of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of drug candidates rely partly on the identification, validation, and use of biomarkers to optimize clinical applications. This review focuses on results from clinical trials with four agents known to target NRF2 signaling in preclinical studies (dimethyl fumarate, bardoxolone methyl, oltipraz, and sulforaphane), and evaluates the successes and limitations of biomarkers focused on expression of NRF2 target genes and others, inflammation and oxidative stress biomarkers, carcinogen metabolism and adduct biomarkers in unavoidably exposed populations, and targeted and untargeted metabolomics. While no biomarkers excel at defining pharmacodynamic actions in this setting, it is clear that these four lead clinical compounds do touch the NRF2 pathway in humans.

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).

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.

Long-term use of fumaric acid esters for the treatment of psoriasis in daily practice

BACKGROUND

Fumaric acid ester (FAE) is the most commonly prescribed first-line systemic therapy for the treatment of psoriasis in Germany. Although developed in the 1990s, only limited long-term data are available.

METHODS

Data of 200 adult psoriatic patients from 10 study centers were collected in a noninterventional, multicenter, retrospective analysis. The inclusion criteria was treatment with FAE in 2015.

RESULTS

Eighty-two percent of the patients were naive to systemic treatment. Ten percent of all patients had FAE-treatment for 10 years or longer with an average drug survival of 4.32 years. The maintenance dose was ranging from 1-4 120 mg tablets for 87.5% of the patients. In our population, 14% of the patients stopped therapy during the first six month mainly due to gastro-intestinal side effects. No serious side effects were reported. Seventy-eight percent of the patients responded to FAE therapy with improvement of their psoriasis to mild (61%) or clear (17%). The PASI 75 response was achieved in 44% of the patient during long-term treatment without remarkable differences between moderate or severe plaque psoriasis.

CONCLUSION

Our study confirms FAE therapy as a long-term, first-line treatment for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

Prediction of the skin permeability of topical drugs using in silico and in vitro models

The main challenge of topically applied drugs is to overcome the skin barrier to reach the site of action at the concentration needed for efficacy. In the research of new topical drugs, design of molecules with optimized properties for skin penetration is a key factor and assays for its characterization are needed. A group of 20 representative topical molecules of clinical use were studied in two in silico models (Potts & Guy and Barratt), and an in vitro assay with artificial membrane (Skin-PAMPA). A subset of 9 drugs were also evaluated in the Franz cells assay, formulated in a solvent and in a marketed formulation. Each assay allowed us to grade compounds according to their permeability value. Globally good alignments were found for the studied compounds when comparing models, although discrepancies for some compounds such as tazarotene, tacrolimus, ketoconazole and metronidazole were observed. Overall, the studied in silico and the in vitro models are useful tools to support selection and characterization of research compounds in terms of skin permeability.

Psoriasis Pathogenesis and Treatment

Research on psoriasis pathogenesis has largely increased knowledge on skin biology in general. In the past 15 years, breakthroughs in the understanding of the pathogenesis of psoriasis have been translated into targeted and highly effective therapies providing fundamental insights into the pathogenesis of chronic inflammatory diseases with a dominant IL-23/Th17 axis. This review discusses the mechanisms involved in the initiation and development of the disease, as well as the therapeutic options that have arisen from the dissection of the inflammatory psoriatic pathways. Our discussion begins by addressing the inflammatory pathways and key cell types initiating and perpetuating psoriatic inflammation. Next, we describe the role of genetics, associated epigenetic mechanisms, and the interaction of the skin flora in the pathophysiology of psoriasis. Finally, we include a comprehensive review of well-established widely available therapies and novel targeted drugs.

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.

Oral fumaric acid esters for psoriasis: abridged Cochrane systematic review including GRADE assessments

Fumaric acid esters (FAEs) are licensed for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis in Germany but are also used off-label in many other countries. We conducted this systematic review to synthesize the highest-quality evidence for the benefits and risks of FAEs for psoriasis. Our primary outcomes were change in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score and dropout rates due to adverse effects. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of FAEs or dimethylfumarate were included, with no restriction on age or psoriasis subtype. We searched the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, LILACS and five trials registers, and hand searched six conference proceedings. Six RCTs with a total of 544 participants were included, four of which were published only as abstracts or brief reports, limiting study reporting. Five RCTs compared FAEs with placebo, and all demonstrated benefit in favour of FAEs. However, meta-analysis was possible only for PASI 50 response after 12-16 weeks, which was achieved by 64% of participants on FAEs compared with 14% on placebo: risk ratio (RR) 4·55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2·80-7·40; two studies; 247 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in dropout rates due to adverse effects (RR 5·36, 95% CI 0·28-102·12; one study; 27 participants; very low-quality evidence and wide CI). More participants experienced nuisance adverse effects with FAEs (76%) than with placebo (16%) (RR 4·72, 95% CI 2·45-9·08; one study; 99 participants; moderate-quality evidence), mainly abdominal pain, diarrhoea and flushing. One head-to-head study of very low-quality evidence comparing FAEs with methotrexate reported comparable efficacy and dropout rates, although FAEs caused more flushing. The evidence in this review was limited and must be interpreted with caution; studies with better design and outcome reporting are needed.

Psoriasis treatment: Unconventional and non-standard modalities in the era of biologics

Psoriasis is a potentially debilitating inflammatory dermatosis affecting 0.2%-4.8% of the population worldwide causing a significant occupational, personal or psychosocial morbidity to these patients for life. The basic aim of psoriasis therapy is to control the disease to maximum possible extent and improve the patient’s quality of life. Management of triggers for flare-ups, lifestyle modifications, and dietary supplements are often recommended. Intermittent or rotational therapy with frequent alterations in treatment options is usually needed to reduce toxicity of anti-psoriatic drugs in the absence of safer alternatives. Currently, several biological agents categorized as either T-cell targeted (e.g., Alefacept, Efalizumab) or cytokine modulating (e.g., Adalimumab, Infliximab, Etanercept) are available for treating severe psoriasis. However, their high cost is often precluding for most patients. The usefulness of systemic (methotrexate, cyclosporine, acitretin or several other therapeutic agents) or topical (tar, anthralin, corticosteroids or calcipotriol ointments, phototherapy with or without psoralens) therapies has been well established for the management of psoriasis. The literature is also replete with benefits of less used non-standard and unconventional treatment modalities (hydroxycarbamide, azathioprine, leflunomide, mycophenolate mofetil, isotretinoin, fumarates, topical calcineurin inhibitors, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors agonists, statins, sulfasalazine, pentoxifylline, colchicine, grenz ray therapy, excimer laser, climatotherapy and balneophototherapy, peritoneal dialysis, tonsillectomy, ichthyotherapy, etc.). These can be used alternatively to treat psoriasis patients who have mild/minimal lesions, are intolerant to conventional drugs, have developed side effects or achieved recommended cumulative dose, where comorbidities pose unusual therapeutic challenges, or may be as intermittent, rotational or combination treatment alternatives.

Oral fumaric acid esters for psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that can markedly reduce life quality. Several systemic therapies exist for moderate to severe psoriasis, including oral fumaric acid esters (FAE). These contain dimethyl fumarate (DMF), the main active ingredient, and monoethyl fumarate. FAE are licensed for psoriasis in Germany but used off-licence in many countries.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects and safety of oral fumaric acid esters for psoriasis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 7 May 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials. We handsearched six conference proceedings that were not already included in the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of FAE, including DMF monotherapy, in individuals of any age and sex with a clinical diagnosis of psoriasis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Primary outcomes were improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score and the proportion of participants discontinuing treatment due to adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 6 studies (2 full reports, 2 abstracts, 1 brief communication, and 1 letter), with a total of 544 participants. Risk of bias was unclear in several studies because of insufficient reporting. Five studies compared FAE with placebo, and one study compared FAE with methotrexate. All studies reported data at 12 to 16 weeks, and we identified no longer-term studies. When FAE were compared with placebo, we could not perform meta-analysis for the primary outcome of PASI score because the three studies that assessed this outcome reported the data differently, although all studies reported a significant reduction in PASI scores with FAE. Only 1 small study designed for psoriatic arthritis reported on the other primary outcome of participants discontinuing treatment due to adverse effects (2 of 13 participants on FAE compared with none of the 14 participants on placebo; risk ratio (RR) 5.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 102.1; 27 participants; very low-quality evidence). However, these findings are uncertain due to indirectness and a very wide confidence interval. Two studies, containing 247 participants and both only reported as abstracts, allowed meta-analysis for PASI 50, which showed superiority of FAE over placebo (RR 4.55, 95% CI 2.80 to 7.40; low-quality evidence), with a combined PASI 50 of 64% in those given FAE compared with a PASI 50 of 14% for those on placebo, representing a number needed to treat to benefit of 2. The same studies reported more participants achieving PASI 75 with FAE, but we did not pool the data because of significant heterogeneity; none of the studies measured PASI 90. One study reported significant improvement in participants' quality of life (QoL) with FAE, measured with Skindex-29. However, we could not compute the mean difference because of insufficient reporting in the abstract. More participants experienced adverse effects, mainly gastrointestinal disturbance and flushing, on FAE (RR 4.72, 95% CI 2.45 to 9.08; 1 study, 99 participants; moderate-quality evidence), affecting 76% of participants given FAE and 16% of the placebo group (representing a number needed to treat to harm of 2). The other studies reported similar findings or did not report adverse effects fully.One study of 54 participants compared methotrexate (MTX) with FAE. PASI score at follow-up showed superiority of MTX (mean Difference (MD) 3.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 6.92; 51 participants; very low-quality evidence), but the difference was not significant after adjustment for baseline disease severity. The difference between groups for the proportion of participants who discontinued treatment due to adverse effects was uncertain because of imprecision (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.53; 1 study, 51 participants; very low-quality evidence). Overall, the number of participants experiencing common nuisance adverse effects was not significantly different between the 2 groups, with 89% of the FAE group affected compared with 100% of the MTX group (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03; 54 participants; very low-quality evidence). Flushing was more frequent in those on FAE, with 13 out of 27 participants affected compared with 2 out of 27 given MTX. There was no significant difference in the number of participants who attained PASI 50, 75, and 90 in the 2 groups (very low-quality evidence) whereas this study did not measure the effect of treatments on QoL. The included studies reported no serious adverse effects of FAE and were too small and of limited duration to provide evidence about rare or delayed effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that FAE are superior to placebo and possibly similar in efficacy to MTX for psoriasis; however, the evidence provided in this review was limited, and it must be noted that four out of six included studies were abstracts or brief reports, restricting study reporting. FAE are associated with nuisance adverse effects, including flushing and gastrointestinal disturbance, but short-term studies reported no serious adverse effects.

Fumaric acid esters in the management of psoriasis

Fumaric acid esters (FAE) are small molecules with immunomodulating, anti-inflammatory, and anti-oxidative effects. FAE were introduced as a systemic psoriasis treatment in 1959 and empirically developed further between 1970 and 1990 in Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. The development of FAE as psoriasis treatment did not follow the traditional drug development phases. Nonetheless, in 1994 FAE were approved in Germany for the treatment of severe plaque psoriasis. FAE are currently one of the most commonly used treatments in Germany, and FAE are increasingly being used as an unlicensed treatment in several other European countries. To date, six randomized controlled trials and 29 observational studies have evaluated FAE in a combined total of 3,439 patients. The efficacy and safety profile of FAE is favorable. About 50%–70% of patients achieve at least 75% improvement in psoriasis severity after 16 weeks of treatment. Common adverse events of FAE include gastrointestinal complaints and flushing symptoms, which lead to treatment discontinuation in up to 40% of patients. Lymphocytopenia, eosinophilia, and proteinuria are commonly observed during FAE treatment, but rarely require treatment discontinuation. The long-term safety profile of continuous FAE treatment is favorable without an increased risk for infections, malignancies, or other serious adverse events. There are no known drug-interactions for FAE. The 2009 European evidence-based S3-guidelines on psoriasis treatment recommend FAE and suggest it as a first-line systemic treatment for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. This review is aimed to give an overview of FAE treatment in the management of psoriasis.

Fumaderm® in daily practice for psoriasis: dosing, efficacy and quality of life

BACKGROUND

Patients with psoriasis suffer from chronic skin disease and impaired quality of life. With a prevalence of 1-3% of the population, psoriasis is one of the most common chronic inflammatory autoimmune diseases. Fumaric acid esters (Fumaderm(®)) are approved for the treatment of psoriasis in Germany, but regular Fumaderm therapy with six tablets per day is often limited due to adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

This observational study recorded data on quality of life, treatment efficacy and drug dosing in patients suffering from psoriasis treated with Fumaderm under conditions of daily practice in 78 dermatological centres.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this prospective, multicentre, noninterventional trial we included adult patients with severe plaque psoriasis under outpatient conditions receiving Fumaderm according to the current summary of product characteristics for systemic treatment of psoriasis. At baseline and after 3, 6 and 12 months the dosing regimen under daily conditions, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and clinical efficacy with the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) were documented.

RESULTS

A total of 249 patients were included. The mean DLQI score at study entry was 9·95; the mean PASI was 16·8. The average treatment dose of Fumaderm was 2·8 tablets daily. More than 70% of patients were treated with one to three tablets daily and < 30% were treated with a dose ranging from four to six tablets daily. DLQI and PASI improved in the entire study population by 67·2% and 66·6%, respectively. Specifically, when analysing patients who started Fumaderm within 4 weeks before baseline the mean DLQI score decreased from 11·8 to 2·9 (75% reduction) and the mean PASI score from 19·84 to 7·35 after 12 months (63% improvement).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first field study analysing the use of Fumaderm and the improvement of quality of life in patients with psoriasis under daily outpatient conditions. The improvement of DLQI obtained with Fumaderm was comparable with the improvement observed in patients with psoriasis treated with modern biologics. Importantly, in most patients with good clinical response, the treatment dose was one to three tablets daily.

Which antipsoriatic drug has the fastest onset of action? Systematic review on the rapidity of the onset of action

The time necessary for a treatment to become effective is crucial for patients and physicians but has been largely neglected in the reporting and comparison of clinical trials in dermatology. The aim of this systematic review is to determine the time until the onset of action (TOA) of systemic agents approved for moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Primary outcome is the TOA defined as the weighted mean time until 25% of the patients achieved a psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) 75 response. Among the biologics, infliximab has the shortest TOA (3.5 weeks), followed by ustekinumab (high dose 4.6/low dose 5.1 weeks/not weight adapted), adalimumab (4.6 weeks), etanercept (high dose 6.6/low dose 9.5 weeks), and alefacept (high dose 15.4 weeks/low dose: no data). Among the conventional treatments, good data are available for cyclosporine A (CsA; TOA: 6.0 weeks) and limited data are found for methotrexate (MTX; TOA: high dose 3.2/low dose 9.9 weeks). No data are available for fumaric acid esters and retinoids. This systematic review provides clinically relevant information on the onset of action of antipsoriatic agents, although the data currently available allow only a limited assessment. Psoriasis trials should consider including TOA as an additional outcome measure.

Fumaric acid esters in dermatology

Fumaric acid esters (FAE) are substances of interest in dermatology. FAE exert various activities on cutaneous cells and cytokine networks. So far only a mixture of dimethylfumarate (DMF) and three salts of monoethylfumarate (MEF) have gained approval for the oral treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque-type psoriasis in Germany. DMF seems to be the major active component. There is evidence that FAE are not only effective and safe in psoriasis but granulomatous non-infectious diseases like granuloma annulare, necrobiosis lipoidica and sarcoidosis. In vitro and animal studies suggest some activity in malignant melanoma as well.

S3 - Guidelines on the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris (English version). Update

Psoriasis vulgaris is a common and often chronic inflammatory skin disease. The incidence of psoriasis in Western industrialized countries ranges from 1.5% to 2%. Patients afflicted with severe psoriasis vulgaris may experience a significant reduction in quality of life. Despite the large variety of treatment options available, surveys have shown that patients still do not received optimal treatments. To optimize the treatment of psoriasis in Germany, the Deutsche Dermatologi sche Gesellschaft (DDG) and the Berufsverband Deutscher Dermatologen (BVDD) have initiated a project to develop evidence-based guidelines for the management of psoriasis. They were first published in 2006 and updated in 2011. The Guidelines focus on induction therapy in cases of mild, moderate and severe plaque-type psoriasis in adults including systemic therapy, UV therapy and topical therapies. The therapeutic recommendations were developed based on the results of a systematic literature search and were finalized during a consensus meeting using structured consensus methods (nominal group process).

Guidelines of care for the management of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: section 4. Guidelines of care for the management and treatment of psoriasis with traditional systemic agents

Psoriasis is a common, chronic, inflammatory, multisystem disease with predominantly skin and joint manifestations affecting approximately 2% of the population. In this fourth of 6 sections of the guidelines of care for psoriasis, we discuss the use of traditional systemic medications for the treatment of patients with psoriasis. Treatment should be tailored to meet individual patients' needs. We will discuss in detail the efficacy and safety, and offer recommendations for the use of the 3 most commonly used, and approved, traditional systemic agents: methotrexate, cyclosporine, and acitretin. We will also briefly discuss the available data for the use of azathioprine, fumaric acid esters, hydroxyurea, leflunomide, mycophenolate mofetil, sulfasalazine, tacrolimus, and 6-thioguanine in psoriasis.

Efficacy and safety of fumaric acid esters in the long-term treatment of psoriasis--a retrospective study (FUTURE)

BACKGROUND

This study collected data on the safety and efficacy of fumaric acid esters (FAE; Fumaderm) in the long-term treatment of psoriasis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were included at 163 dermatological centers if they either had been treated continuously with FAE for at least 24 months, or for 36 months with interruptions of no longer than 6 months. Data were reported from baseline, after 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 or more months of therapy. Safety parameters were monitored and the severity of skin symptoms was assessed by "Physician's Global Assessment" (PGA) and "Psoriasis Area and Severity Index" (PASI).

RESULTS

984 patients were included with a mean duration of 44 months of continuous treatment. The percentage of patients documented as markedly improved or clear was 67 % after six months, 78 % after 24 months, and 82 % after 36 months of therapy. Improvement was similar in patients with moderate and severe disease. Changes of laboratory parameters were usually insignificant and did not require a modification of FAE treatment in more than 90 % of the cases.

CONCLUSIONS

In the long-term treatment of patients with moderate and severe psoriasis FAE show a good and sustained clinical efficacy combined with a favorable safety profile.

Evidence-based (S3) guidelines for the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris

Psoriasis vulgaris is a common and often chronic inflammatory skin disease. The incidence of psoriasis in Western industrialized countries ranges from 1 to 2%. Patients afflicted with severe psoriasis vulgaris may experience a significant reduction in quality of life. Despite the large variety of treatment options available, patient surveys have revealed lack of satisfaction with the efficacy of available treatments and a high rate of non-compliance. To optimize the treatment of psoriasis in Germany, the Deutsche Dermatologische Gesellschaft (DDG) and the Berufsverband Deutscher Dermatologen (BVDD) initiated a project to develop evidence-based guidelines for the management of psoriasis. These resulting Guidelines focus on induction therapy in cases of mild, moderate, and severe plaquetype psoriasis in adults. The Guidelines include evidence-based evaluation of the efficacy of all currently available therapeutic options in Germany. In addition, they offer detailed information on how best to administer the various treatments and give information on contraindications, adverse drug reactions, and drug interactions as well as estimates of practicability and cost. The Guidelines were developed following the recommendations of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft wissenschaftlicher medizinischer Fachgesellschaften (AWMF). The therapeutic recommendations were developed by an expert group and finalized during interdisciplinary consensus conferences.

German evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of Psoriasis vulgaris (short version)

Psoriasis vulgaris is a common and chronic inflammatory skin disease which has the potential to significantly reduce the quality of life in severely affected patients. The incidence of psoriasis in Western industrialized countries ranges from 1.5 to 2%. Despite the large variety of treatment options available, patient surveys have revealed insufficient satisfaction with the efficacy of available treatments and a high rate of medication non-compliance. To optimize the treatment of psoriasis in Germany, the Deutsche Dermatologische Gesellschaft and the Berufsverband Deutscher Dermatologen (BVDD) have initiated a project to develop evidence-based guidelines for the management of psoriasis. The guidelines focus on induction therapy in cases of mild, moderate, and severe plaque-type psoriasis in adults. The short version of the guidelines reported here consist of a series of therapeutic recommendations that are based on a systematic literature search and subsequent discussion with experts in the field; they have been approved by a team of dermatology experts. In addition to the therapeutic recommendations provided in this short version, the full version of the guidelines includes information on contraindications, adverse events, drug interactions, practicality, and costs as well as detailed information on how best to apply the treatments described (for full version, please see Nast et al., JDDG, Suppl 2:S1-S126, 2006; or http://www.psoriasis-leitlinie.de ).

The evaluation of psoriasis therapy with biologics leads to a revision of the current view of the pathogenesis of this disorder

Psoriasis is a common chronic, recurring skin disease that is characterised by typical macroscopic and microscopic skin alterations. It is widely accepted that the immune system plays an important role in the pathogenesis of this disorder. Since the early 1990s, the dominant role of a subpopulation of T cells, so-called T1 cells, and their prominent cytokine IFN-gamma has been assumed in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. Surprisingly, the comparison of the therapeutic success of treatments with recombinant proteins directed against defined immunological structures shows that those that directly affect T cells (alefacept, efalizumab, Hu-max-CD4, OKTcdr4a) were clearly less effective than those targeting TNF-alpha (etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab). For this reason, the authors critically re-evaluated the view of psoriasis pathogenesis and postulate that in the majority of patients the T1 cells do not play a dominant role in the clinical, visible stage of this disease.

Fulfilling an Unmet Need in Psoriasis

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease of the skin affecting approximately 2% of the world's population. Traditional systemic treatments, including methotrexate, ciclosporin, psoralen plus UVA (PUVA), oral retinoids and fumaric acid esters, are widely used for severe disease and are effective in the short term. Severe psoriasis is a chronic disease and patients and physicians have expressed concerns about possible harm from organ toxicity, such as skin cancer (PUVA), hyperlipidaemia (retinoids), renal (ciclosporin) or hepatotoxicity (methotrexate). Long-term monitoring is required and may not detect early organ damage. The pathophysiology of psoriasis remains to be clarified, but advances toward the understanding of the immunological basis of psoriasis have uncovered the involvement of immunological pathways; for example, the role of tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha, T cell proliferation and T cell activation, and migration to the epidermis. This advancement in knowledge combined with developments in recombinant technologies has led to the development of target-specific therapies. Biological agents are defined as proteins that can be extracted from animal tissue or produced via recombinant DNA technologies and possess pharmacological activity. Adalimumab, alefacept, infliximab, efalizumab and etanercept are examples of biological agents currently used for the treatment of psoriasis. Some of these are also therapy for other autoimmune conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn's disease. These biological agents are effective in psoriasis but raise new safety concerns. Information on the safety of biological agents in conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn's disease can not be directly extrapolated to psoriasis. An increased incidence of lymphomas has been postulated to be associated with etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab; serious infections, such as tuberculosis, have also been reported with these three biologicals, all of which target TNF-alpha. Demyelinating disorders, such as multiple sclerosis, have been reported with some biologicals as has congestive heart failure. Alefacept, because of its mechanism of action of lowering the number of active T cells, is associated with low T cell counts. Efalizumab has been associated with thrombocytopenia and haemolytic anaemia. Data on the safety of >2.5 years' continuous treatment with efalizumab are reassuring and a valuable beginning to understanding the role and risk of harm of long-term therapy for a chronic disease. Longer follow-up studies and safety databases, for each of the biologicals used in psoriasis, are needed to ensure both prolonged efficacy and minimal risk of harm.

Traditional therapies in the management of moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis: an assessment of the benefits and risks

Psoriasis is a chronic, recurrent disease that affects between 1% and 3% of the population. Patients with moderate to severe disease generally require phototherapy (e.g. narrowband ultraviolet B radiation), photochemotherapy (oral psoralen plus ultraviolet A radiation) or systemic agents (e.g. ciclosporin, methotrexate, oral retinoids, fumaric acid esters) to control their disease adequately. In general, these therapeutic modalities have proven to be highly effective in the treatment of psoriasis. However, potentially serious toxicities can limit their long-term use. Given that there is no standard therapeutic approach for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, the benefits and risks of phototherapy, photochemotherapy and systemic therapy must be weighed carefully for each patient, and treatment individualized accordingly. This review summarizes the benefits and risks of traditional, nonbiological therapies for moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis.

Disseminated granuloma annulare--treatment with fumaric acid esters

BACKGROUND

The therapy of disseminated granuloma annulare has often limited success. Treatment of granuloma annulare with fumaric acid esters (FAE) has recently been reported to be effective in 2 patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of a systemic therapy with FAE in consecutive patients with disseminated granuloma annulare.

METHODS

Eight patients with disseminated granuloma annulare were treated with FAE in tablet form according to the standard therapy regimen used in psoriasis. The colour and the elevation of the skin lesions were assessed by a visual analogue scale before and after therapy.

RESULTS

Systemic therapy with FAE induced a significant clinical improvement in elevation and colour of skin lesions, with remission in 3 and partial remission in 4 patients. One patient remained unchanged. Side-effects associated with the therapy were seen in 6 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Systemic therapy with FAE can be effective in patients suffering from disseminated forms of granuloma annulare, but side-effects of FAE have to be taken into consideration.