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

Biologics and Small Molecule Agents in Allergic and Immunologic Skin Diseases

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Biologics and small molecules are key therapeutic options in the treatment of chronic immunologic and allergic skin conditions. By directly targeting innate and inflammatory responses within the skin, including pro-inflammatory cytokines and cellular signaling pathways, these new agents have the potential to counteract the inflammatory cascade responsible for various conditions, including psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. Over the past decade, groundbreaking research identifying key cytokines and receptors involved in the pathogenesis of these diseases has allowed for the development of highly efficacious biologics and small molecules that are associated with unprecedented rates of skin clearance and favorable adverse event profiles.

RECENT FINDINGS

This narrative review evaluates new and upcoming biologic and small molecule agents for the treatment of two allergic/immunologic skin diseases-atopic dermatitis and psoriasis. Numerous small molecules and biologics targeting TNF-α, IL-12/23, IL-17 and IL-17R, and IL-23 are commercially available for the treatment of psoriasis, and newer agents are in various stages of development. Currently, dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that blocks IL-4R∝, is the only approved biologic for atopic dermatitis. Antibodies targeting IL-13 and IL-31 and small molecules that inhibit Janus kinase and pruritus-mediating receptors are currently being studied in clinical trials. Further investigations into the pathophysiology of atopic dermatitis will likely yield additional therapeutic options in the future. This article reviews recent literature on small molecules and biologics for the treatment of atopic dermatitis and psoriasis.

Systemic immunomodulatory treatments for atopic dermatitis: protocol for a systematic review with network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There are numerous new systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis in various stages of development and most are being compared with placebo rather than active comparators. In order to understand the relative efficacy and safety of existing and new treatments for atopic dermatitis, robust mixed comparisons (ie, direct and indirect) would be beneficial. To address this gap, this protocol describes methods for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will update the search of a previous systematic review, including searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database and the Global Resource of EczemA Trials database in addition to clinical trial protocol registries. Title, abstract and full paper screening as well as data extraction will be conducted in duplicate by independent researchers. Primary outcomes include efficacy with regards to clinician-reported signs and patient-reported symptoms and safety with regards to withdrawal from treatment due to adverse events and the occurrence of serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will include change in quality of life and itch severity. Where possible and appropriate, network meta-analysis will be performed for each outcome using a random-effects model within a Bayesian framework. If appropriate, the review will be transitioned to a living review with continuous updating of the analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Dissemination in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is planned.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018088112; Pre-results.

[Therapy of Psoriasis Arthritis Taking into Account New Treatment Options]

Therapy of Psoriasis Arthritis Taking into Account New Treatment Options Abstract. Psoriatic arthritis occurs in about 20-30 % of patients with psoriasis. The disease is heterogeneous and can involve a variety of the distinct anatomical sites. The choice of medication depends on the type and the severity of clinical features. The recommendations of EULAR and GRAPPA serve as a guide for the choice of medication, which is used in sequential treatment steps. This is presented in our review in usable, simplified terms. Potential comorbidities leading to contraindication for certain treatments are considered. We present new and highly effective treatments, based on the pathogenesis of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, targeting the IL-23/IL-17 pathway.

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.