Comparative therapeutic evaluation of different topicals and narrow band ultraviolet B therapy combined with systemic methotrexate in the treatment of palmoplantar psoriasis

An Institution Based Cross-Sectional Observational Aetiological Study Correlating the Clinico-Pathological Findings in Patients Presenting with Acquired Palmoplantar Keratoderma

Background

Palmoplantar keratoderma (PPK) is a heterogeneous group of hereditary or acquired disorders characterised by excessive epidermal thickening of the palms and soles. Proper knowledge about the aetiology of the disease and clinico-demographic profile helps in planning management and predicting outcomes.

Aims and Objective

To determine the prevalence of different dermatoses and describe their clinico-histological correlation in acquired palmoplantar keratoderma.

Materials and Methods

An institution-based cross-sectional study conducted after obtaining Ethics-Committee permission and consent from participants. Patients of any age or gender presenting with acquired PPK were recruited. The calculated sample size was 67 by using the prevalence rate (p) of 22.2%, allowable error (L) of 10%, the confidence level of 95% (z = 1.96), and an infinite population size of 20,000. Patients were evaluated by taking demographic and clinical data in a pre-designed case record form, necessary laboratory investigations and histopathological examination that wereevaluated by three blinded experts. The pooled data were analysed with statistical software.

Results

Among the 67 participants, Psoriasis was diagnosed clinically in 39 (58.2%) and histologically in 7 (10.4%), Lichen planus (LP) clinically in 16 (23.9%) and histologically in 9 (13.4%), Pityriasis rubra pilaris (PRP) in 8 (11.9%) patients clinically and 7 (10.4%) histologically and Hyperkeratotic eczema (HKE) in 4 (6%) clinically and 43 (64.2%) histopathologically. There was very poor inter-rater agreement (Kappa = 0.148, SE 0.0047, 95% CI 0.057 to 0.24). The clinico-pathological correlation was found to be agreeable in 17.9% Psoriasis, 56.2% LP and 87.5% PRP. HKE was commonly misdiagnosed as Psoriasis in 65.1% of patients.

Conclusion

Hyperkeratotic lesions of the palm and sole often present with overlapping clinical features and a skin biopsy has to be done to aid in diagnosis.

Limitation

Stratification of the clinical expertise of clinicians was done during the analysis.

Methotrexate monotherapy versus methotrexate and apremilast combination therapy in the treatment of palmoplantar psoriasis: A prospective, randomised, assessor-blinded, comparative study

Background

Palmoplantar psoriasis is a chronic debilitating condition which significantly impairs quality of life.

Objectives

To assess the efficacy and safety of the combination of apremilast and methotrexate compared with methotrexate monotherapy in the treatment of palmoplantar psoriasis. Also, to study the impact on treatment on the Dermatology Life Quality Index and Palmoplantar Quality of Life Index.

Methods

A total of 64 patients were randomised to two groups in a 1:1 ratio - Group A received both methotrexate and apremilast in combination, while Group B received only methotrexate, for 16 weeks. The primary endpoints were the mean score of Modified Palmoplantar Psoriasis Area and Severity Index at week 16, the proportion of patients achieving modified palmoplantar psoriasis area severity index-75 and/or Palmoplantar Psoriasis Physician Global Assessment score 0/1 at week 16.

Results

A significantly higher proportion of patients in Group A achieved Modified Palmoplantar Psoriasis Area and Severity Index-75 at week 16 (43% in Group A vs 30% in Group B). The Modified Palmoplantar Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score was significantly lower in the combination group at week 16 (4.03 ± 2.05 in Group A and 5.89 ± 2.31 in Group B, P-value = 0.002). About 80% of patients in the combination group with baseline Palmoplantar Psoriasis Physician Global Assessment ≥3 achieved Palmoplantar Psoriasis Physician Global Assessment 0/1 compared to 60% in Group B. The combination group showed a significantly higher reduction in Dermatology Life Quality Index and Palmoplantar Quality of Life Index scores compared to the methotrexate alone group (P-value = 0.025). No notable adverse events were observed.

Limitation

The limitations of the study were single blinding, small sample size and a lack of longer follow up to assess the rate of relapse. We did not account for attrition during sample size calculation. Also, due to the paucity of data regarding the use of apremilast in palmoplantar psoriasis, definitive comparisons could not be made with previous studies.

Conclusion

The combination of apremilast and methotrexate has superior efficacy and a similar safety profile as compared to methotrexate monotherapy for the treatment of moderate to severe palmoplantar psoriasis.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Apremilast and Methotrexate in Patients with Palmoplantar Psoriasis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Placebo-controlled studies have reported the efficacy of apremilast in the management of palmoplantar psoriasis but studies comparing efficacy with a conventional agent are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article was to  compare the efficacy and safety of apremilast and methotrexate in patients with palmoplantar psoriasis.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, active-controlled, observer-blinded clinical trial, conducted at a psoriasis clinic of a tertiary care institute in India from 1 July, 2019 to 1 June, 2020, 84 patients with palmoplantar psoriasis were randomized (1:1) to receive either methotrexate (0.4 mg/kg/week orally) or apremilast (30 mg twice daily). The treatment protocol was continued for 16 weeks or until achieving a ≥ 75% improvement in the Modified Palmoplantar Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (m-PPPASI 75), whichever was earlier. Changes in m-PPPASI and Dermatology Life Quality Index scores from baseline, the proportion of patients achieving m-PPPASI 75, and adverse events were assessed.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients were included (76 palmoplantar psoriasis and 8 palmoplantar pustulosis). The mean age (standard deviation) was 44.5 (12.9) years and 53 (63%) were women. The m-PPPASI score [median (interquartile range)] after 16 weeks of treatment showed a significant improvement from baseline in both apremilast [- 6.3 (10.9), p < 0.001] and methotrexate groups [- 8.5 (9.9), p < 0.001]. The estimated median difference between the groups was - 1.2 (p = 0.39, 95% confidence interval - 4.2 to 2.1). At 16 weeks, m-PPPASI 75 was achieved by 14/42 (33%) and 17/42 (41%) patients in the apremilast and methotrexate groups, respectively (p = 0.49). A significant reduction in the Dermatology Life Quality Index score [median (interquartile range)] was observed in both groups [apremilast: - 3.0 (6.0), p < 0.001; methotrexate: - 3.0 (6.3), p < 0.001] with an estimated median difference of 0.0 (p = 0.99, 95% confidence interval - 1.0 to 2.0). The proportion of patients experiencing adverse events was comparable (p = 0.49).

CONCLUSIONS

Apremilast showed a comparable efficacy and safety profile to methotrexate in the management of palmoplantar psoriasis.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

CTRI/2019/06/019830, date of registration: 24 June, 2019; trial registered prospectively.

Interventions for chronic palmoplantar pustulosis

BACKGROUND

Palmoplantar pustulosis is a chronic inflammatory disease in which sterile, relapsing pustules appear on the palms and soles, possibly in conjunction with other symptoms. The previous Cochrane Review on this topic was published in 2006, before biological treatments were extensively used.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for chronic palmoplantar pustulosis to induce and maintain complete remission.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to March 2019: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of the included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered RCTs including people with palmoplantar pustulosis or chronic palmoplantar pustular psoriasis assessing topical therapy, systemic therapy, combinations of topical or systemic therapies, or non-pharmacological therapies compared with placebo, no intervention, or each other.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our outcomes included 'Proportion of participants cleared or almost cleared', 'Proportion of participants with adverse effects serious or severe enough to cause withdrawal', 'Proportion of participants with at least 50% improvement in disease severity', and 'Proportion of participants with adverse effects'.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 37 studies (1663 participants; mean age 50 years (range 34 to 63); 24% males). These studies reported condition severity differently. Around half of the included trials stated the setting (hospitals, community clinics, or both). More than half of the studies were at high risk of bias in at least one domain. Our included studies assessed mainly systemic treatments (retinoids, ciclosporin, biologics, etretinate + PUVA (combination of psoralens and long-wave ultraviolet radiation) therapy combined, and antibiotics), but also topical treatments (dermocorticoids, vitamin D) and phototherapy (PUVA, ultraviolet A1 (UVA1)). Other interventions were assessed by single studies. The most common comparator was placebo. All results presented in this abstract were assessed in the short term (mean treatment duration was 11 weeks (range 8 to 24 weeks)) and are based on participants with chronic palmoplantar pustulosis. All outcome time point measurements were taken from baseline and assessed at the end of treatment. Short-term and long-term outcomes were defined as measurement up to 24 weeks after randomisation and between 24 and 104 weeks after randomisation, respectively. One trial (188 participants) assessed the topical vitamin D derivative maxacalcitol versus placebo and found that maxacalcitol may be more effective than placebo in achieving clearance (risk ratio (RR) 7.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.85 to 33.12; low-quality evidence), and the risk of adverse effects (such as mild local irritation, pruritus, and haematological or urinary test abnormalities) is probably similar in both groups (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.19; moderate-quality evidence). Severity was not reported. Two trials (49 participants) assessed PUVA therapy versus placebo or no treatment, providing very low-quality evidence. Adverse effects were reported with oral PUVA (including nausea, ankle swelling, and non-purulent conjunctivitis) and with local PUVA (including blistering, erythema, and pruritus). With regard to the systemic retinoid alitretinoin, one trial (33 participants; moderate-quality evidence) showed that alitretinoin probably makes little or no difference in reducing severity when compared to placebo (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.30). A similar number of adverse events were reported in both treatment groups, including headache, cheilitis, nausea, arthralgia, and nasopharyngitis (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.17). Clearance was not reported. There may be little or no difference between etanercept and placebo in achieving clearance (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.08 to 34.28; 1 study; 15 participants; low-quality evidence); however, the 95% CI was very wide, showing there may be a difference between groups. Severity was not measured. More patients treated with placebo may achieve reduced severity than those treated with ustekinumab, but the wide 95% CI indicates there might be little or no difference between groups and there might be greater effect with ustekinumab (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.13; 1 study; 33 participants; low-quality evidence). Clearance was not reported. It is uncertain whether guselkumab increases clearance when compared to placebo (2 studies; 154 participants) because the quality of evidence is very low, but guselkumab probably better reduces disease severity (RR 2.88, 95% CI 1.24 to 6.69; 1 study; 49 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Secukinumab is probably superior to placebo in reducing severity (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.35; 1 study; 157 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but our clearance outcome was not reported. None of these trials reported on occurrence of adverse effects. Only two of the studies discussed above reported adverse effects serious or severe enough to cause withdrawal. Guselkumab may cause more serious adverse events when compared to placebo, but there is uncertainty due to the very wide 95% CI showing there may be little or no difference and showing more events with placebo (RR 2.88, 95% CI 0.32 to 25.80; 1 study; 49 participants; low-quality evidence). Secukinumab probably causes more serious adverse events than placebo (RR 3.29, 95% CI 1.40 to 7.75; 1 study; 157 participants; moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is lacking for major chronic palmoplantar pustulosis treatments such as superpotent corticosteroids, phototherapy, acitretin, methotrexate, and ciclosporin. Risk of bias and imprecision limit our confidence. Maxacalcitol may be more effective than placebo in achieving clearance in the short term (low-quality evidence), and the risk of adverse effects is probably similar (moderate-quality evidence). Oral alitretinoin is probably no more effective than placebo in reducing severity, with a similar risk of adverse effects (moderate-quality evidence). Regarding biological treatments, we are uncertain of the effect of etanercept on clearance and the effect of ustekinumab on severity (low-quality evidence). Secukinumab and guselkumab are probably superior to placebo in reducing severity (moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events not requiring withdrawal were not reported for these treatments. Reporting of serious adverse effects was incomplete: compared to placebo, secukinumab probably caused more participant withdrawals (moderate-quality evidence), but we are uncertain of the effect of guselkumab (low-quality evidence). Future trials should assess commonly used treatments using validated severity and quality of life scales.

Palmoplantar psoriasis

Palmoplantar psoriasis refers to a localized psoriasis variant. The disease can be associated with many clinical forms, including predominantly pustular lesions to thick scaly, hyperkeratotic plaques, or an overlapping of both of them. Palmoplantar psoriasis accounts for 3-4% of all psoriasis cases in most studies. Although it is localized only on the palms and the soles, the fissures, the hardening of the tissue, and hyperkeratosis affect daily routine activities. Taking the body surface area as a measure of severity can sometimes be misleading. In clinical practice, the level of functional impairment should be taken into account rather than relying on traditional instruments to evaluate the severity. Palmoplantar psoriasis is usually managed with topical therapy as a first step. Systemic therapy is needed when the topicals fail or when the disease becomes more severe. Sometimes, biologic agents are required for adequate maintenance of clinical response.

Palmoplantar Psoriasis and Palmoplantar Pustulosis: Current Treatment and Future Prospects

Palmoplantar psoriasis and palmoplantar pustulosis are chronic skin diseases with a large impact on patient quality of life. They are frequently refractory to treatment, being generally described as a therapeutic challenge. This article aims to review the definitions of palmoplantar psoriasis and palmoplantar pustulosis, highlighting the similarities and differences in terms of epidemiology, clinical presentation, genetics, histopathology, and pathogenesis, as well as treatment options for both entities. Classical management of mild to moderate palmoplantar pustulosis and palmoplantar psoriasis relies on use of potent topical corticosteroids, phototherapy, and/or acitretin. Nevertheless, these drugs have proven to be insufficient in long-term control of extensive disease. Biologic therapy-namely, anti-interleukin-17 agents and phosphodiesterase type 4 inhibitors-has recently shown promising results in the treatment of palmoplantar psoriasis. Knowledge of the pathophysiologic pathways of both entities is of utmost importance and may, in the future, allow development of molecularly targeted therapeutics.

Psoriasis: Epidemiology, clinical features, co-morbidities, and clinical scoring

On the basis of current evidence derived from hospital-based studies, mostly from North India, the prevalence of psoriasis in adults varies from 0.44 to 2.8%, with a much lower prevalence in children. The peak age at onset in adults is in the third and fourth decade of life, with a slight male preponderance. It is recommended that population-based large epidemiologic studies should be undertaken in different parts of the country for estimating the correct prevalence of psoriasis in general population. Chronic plaque-type psoriasis is the most common morphologic presentation of psoriasis, accounting for more than 90% of all cases. Other morphologic variants that deserve special mention include palmoplantar psoriasis, pustular psoriasis, and recalcitrant psoriasis. For epidemiologic purposes, psoriasis can be classified into early and late onset psoriasis. Psoriasis can be classified on the basis of morphology and extent of involvement into localized and widespread disease. For the purpose of clinical trials, psoriasis may be classified as mild psoriasis, moderate psoriasis, and severe psoriasis. The literature shows that there is a significant risk of psoriatic arthritis (7-48%) in patients with plaque-type psoriasis. Hence, it is recommended to evaluate for its presence by detailed history taking and clinical examination, and if necessary, by appropriate radiological investigations. Evidence on the association between plaque-type psoriasis and cardiovascular disease risk factors and ischemic heart disease isinconsistent. On the basis ofavailable evidence, it is prudent to proactively look for metabolic syndrome, dyslipidemia, and obesity, especially in patientswith severe psoriasis (Level 1+ evidence based on systematic reviews and meta-analysis). Based on the current evidence, the psoriasis area severity index appears to be the most valid and reproducible clinical severity score in the management of adult patients with plaque-type psoriasis.