Use of Systemic Therapies for Treatment of Psoriasis in Patients with a History of Treated Solid Tumours: Inference-Based Guidance from a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel

BACKGROUND

Patients with treated solid tumours (TSTs) are a highly heterogeneous population at an increased risk for malignancy compared with the general population. When treating psoriasis in patients with a history of TSTs, clinicians are concerned about the immunosuppressive nature of psoriasis therapies, the possibility of augmenting cancer recurrence/progression, and infectious complications. No direct, high-level evidence exists to address these concerns.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to provide a structured framework supporting healthcare professional and patient discussions on the risks and benefits of systemic psoriasis therapy in patients with previously TSTs. Our goal was to address the clinically important question, "In patients with TSTs, does therapy with systemic agents used for psoriasis increase the risk of malignancy or malignancy recurrence?"

METHODS

We implemented an inference-based approach relying on indirect evidence when direct clinical trial and real-world data were absent. We reviewed indirect evidence supporting inferences on the status of immune function in patients with TSTs. Recommendations on systemic psoriasis therapies in patients with TSTs were derived using an inferential heuristic.

RESULTS

We identified five indirect indicators of iatrogenic immunosuppression informed by largely independent bodies of evidence: (1) overall survival, (2) rate of malignancies with psoriasis and systemic psoriasis therapies, (3) rate of infections with psoriasis and systemic psoriasis therapies, (4) common disease biochemical pathways for solid tumours and systemic psoriasis therapies, and (5) solid organ transplant outcomes. On the basis of review of the totality of this data, we provided inference-based conclusions and ascribed level of support for each statement.

CONCLUSIONS

Prior to considering new therapies for psoriasis, an understanding of cancer prognosis should be addressed. Patients with TSTs and a good cancer prognosis will have similar outcomes to non-TST patients when treated with systemic psoriasis therapies. For patients with TSTs and a poor cancer prognosis, the quality-of-life benefits of treating psoriasis may outweigh the theoretical risks.

Combination Therapy for Psoriasis with Methotrexate and Other Oral Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Although the introduction of biologics and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs) has reshaped the treatment paradigm for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) such as psoriasis, oral conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) remain the cornerstone in their treatment. Combinational use of DMARDs is common in rheumatological practice, but for the treatment of many skin diseases, dermatologists typically use a single oral DMARD, with methotrexate (MTX) being the most commonly prescribed csDMARD for psoriasis.

METHODS

To better understand the potential benefits of MTX combination therapy in psoriasis, a literature review was conducted using Medline (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, covering articles published from inception until October 2022. Randomized controlled trials, cohort, open-label, and observational studies, and case reports with efficacy and safety results for combination therapy with MTX, csDMARDs, and tsDMARDs or comparisons between MTX monotherapy and combination therapy with other oral DMARDs in psoriasis were included. Studies involving MTX monotherapy alone or sequential treatment with MTX and other oral DMARDs were excluded, as were non-English articles. The results are presented as a systematic review, and the risk of bias was assessed by the corresponding author using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 6.3, and confirmed by an independent assessor.

RESULTS

Eleven studies comprising 494 participants were included in the review. Overall, combination treatment with MTX and other oral DMARDs exhibited good efficacy and tolerability in psoriasis. However, the included studies were primarily small scale or retrospective, and larger prospective randomized trials are needed to provide stronger evidence.

CONCLUSION

This literature review suggests that combination therapy with MTX and csDMARDs may serve as an efficacious treatment for psoriasis patients with an inadequate response to oral DMARD monotherapy.

Use of Systemic Therapies for Treatment of Psoriasis in People Living with Controlled HIV: Inference-Based Guidance from a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel

Background

People living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) have a similar prevalence of psoriasis as the general population, though incidence and severity correlate with HIV viral load. Adequately treating HIV early renders the infection a chronic medical condition and allows PLHIV with a suppressed viral load (PLHIV-s) to live normal lives. Despite this, safety concerns and a lack of high-level data have hindered the use of systemic psoriasis therapies in PLHIV-s.

Objectives

We aim to provide a structured framework that supports healthcare professionals and patients discussing the risks and benefits of systemic psoriasis therapy in PLHIV-s. Our goal was to address the primary question, are responses to systemic therapies for the treatment of psoriasis in PLHIV-s similar to those in the non-HIV population?

Methods

We implemented an inference-based approach relying on indirect evidence when direct clinical trial data were absent. In this instance, we reviewed indirect evidence supporting inferences on the status of immune function in PLHIV. Recommendations on systemic treatment for psoriasis in PLHIV were derived using an inferential heuristic.

Results

We identified seven indirect indicators of immune function informed by largely independent bodies of evidence: (1) functional assays, (2) vaccine response, (3) life expectancy, (4) psoriasis manifestations, (5) rate of infections, (6) rate of malignancies, and (7) organ transplant outcomes.

Conclusions

Drug-related benefits and risks when treating a patient with systemic psoriasis therapies are similar for non-HIV patients and PLHIV with a suppressed viral load and normalized CD4 counts. Prior to initiating psoriasis treatment in PLHIV, HIV replication should be addressed by an HIV specialist. Exercise additional caution for patients with a suppressed viral load and discordant CD4 responses on antiretroviral therapy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13555-022-00722-0.

People living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) develop psoriasis as often as everyone else. We asked: what are effective and safe treatments when PLHIV need systemic therapy (pills or injections) for their psoriasis?

HIV infection attacks the immune system. When HIV is not treated, the immune system declines. A less effective immune system makes it harder for the body to fight infections and certain cancers. Psoriasis is a skin condition caused by overactive immune cells. Effective psoriasis treatments reduce immune-cell activity. There are some concerns that treatments for psoriasis may not work and could worsen infections or cancers.

To answer the question, we gathered 11 dermatologists and 4 HIV specialists. We reviewed the international scientific literature on PLHIV and psoriasis. The absence of direct evidence and volume of information to review made the process challenging. The end results were worthwhile.

We concluded that people who are diagnosed early and take antiretroviral therapy to control their HIV infection (PLHIV-c) can live long, healthy lives. Accordingly, we determined that PLHIV-c can likely expect the same safety and efficacy for systemic psoriasis treatments as the general population. Treatment decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis through consultation with the patient and treating physician(s).

Pillars of modern medicine are evidence-based care and collaborative decision-making. Too often, neither care provider nor patient are adequately informed. We have tried to fill one information gap for PLHIV and psoriasis. This process may help answer questions in other disease populations where direct evidence is scarce or absent.

Performance and Tolerability of the Moisturizers Cetaphil® and Excipial® in Atopic Dermatitis: What is the Evidence Based on Randomized Trials?

Introduction

Moisturizers play a prominent role in the management of atopic dermatitis by improving the impaired skin barrier function and enhancing skin hydration. Their efficacy was evaluated in a recently published Cochrane Review ‘Emollients and moisturizers for eczema’.

Objective

In the present review, we summarize the performance and safety of Cetaphil^® and Excipial^® moisturizing products.

Methods

This review was carried out in compliance with standard Cochrane methodological procedures, which means independent study selection, data extraction, assessment of risk of bias, and analyses by two review authors. The quality of evidence for the predefined outcomes was rated with the GRADE approach. The prespecified outcomes of the review included participant assessments, satisfaction, adverse events, investigator assessments, prevention of flares, change in use of topical active treatment, skin barrier function and quality of life.

Results

Four randomized controlled studies examining these moisturizers were included in the previously published Cochrane Review. For the performance and tolerability of these moisturizers, there was very low to moderate quality evidence for the prespecified outcomes.

Conclusion

The results from these four studies are in line with those of the Cochrane Review that moisturizers themselves have beneficial effects, and that combining moisturizers with active topical treatment produced better results when compared to active topical treatment alone.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13555-017-0184-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evidence-based approach to the treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa/acne inversa, based on the European guidelines for hidradenitis suppurativa

Hidradenitis suppurativa/acne inversa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by painful, recurrent nodules and abscesses that rupture and lead to sinus tracts and scarring. To date, an evidence-based therapeutic approach has not been the standard of care and this is likely due to the lack of evidence based treatment guidelines. The purpose of this study was to promote a holistic evidence-based approach which implemented Level of Evidence and Strength of Recommendation for the treatment of HS. Based upon the European Dermatology Forumguidelines for the management of HS, evidence-based approach was explored for the treatment of HS. The diagnosis of HS should be made by a dermatologist or other healthcare professional with expert knowledge in HS. All patients should be offered adjuvant therapy as needed (pain management, weight loss, tobacco cessation, treatment of super infections, and application of appropriate dressings). The treating physician should be familiar with disease severity scores, especially Hurley staging, physician global assessment and others. The routine use of patient'reported outcomesincluding DLQI, itch and pain assessment (Visual Analogue Scale) is strongly recommended. The need for surgical intervention should be assessed in all patients depending upon type and extent of scarring, and an evidence-based surgical approach should be implemented. Evidence-based medical treatment of mild disease consists of topical Clindamycin 1 % solution/gel b.i.d. for 12 weeks or Tetracycline 500 p.o. b.i.d. for 4 months (LOE IIb, SOR B), for more widespread disease. If patient fails to exhibit response to treatment or for a PGA of moderate-to-severe disease, Clindamycin 300 p.o. b.i.d. with Rifampicin 600 p.o. o.d. for 10 weeks (LOE III, SOR C) should be considered. If patient is not improved, then Adalimumab 160 mg at week 0, 80 mg at week 2; then 40 mg subcutaneously weekly should be administered (LOE Ib, SOR A). If improvement occurs then therapy should be maintained as long as HS lesions are present. If the patient fails to exhibit response, then consideration of second or third line therapy is required. A growing body of evidence is being published to guide the treatment of HS. HS therapy should be based upon the evaluation of the inflammatory components as well as the scarring and should be directed by evidence-based guidelines. Treatment should include surgery as well as medical treatment. Future studies should include benefit risk ratio analysis and long term assessment of efficacy and safety, in order to facilitate long term evidence based treatment and rational pharmacotherapy.

Why is the center of evidence-based dermatology relevant to Indian dermatology?

Evidence-based dermatology is the application of high-quality evidence to the care of individual patients with skin diseases. The Centre of Evidence-Based Dermatology in the UK promotes activities in this field through its three interlinking cogs, composed of the international Cochrane Skin Group, the UK Dermatology Clinical Trials Network (UKDCTN), and the UK national electronic library for skin disorders. The Cochrane Skin Group summarises what is already known about health care interventions by supporting systematic reviews of relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The UKDCTN then addresses the key research gaps identified in systematic reviews by coordinating and carrying out well-designed RCTs. The Skin Disorders specialist library then plays a key role in disseminating new knowledge from systematic reviews and RCTs to a community of clinical users. The electronic resources at the Centre of Evidence-Based Dermatology are all freely available to Indian Dermatologists who can use the resources in a way that could benefit their patients. Such new knowledge only has value if it is shared and used.