Low-dose short-term cyclosporine versus etretinate in psoriasis: improvement of skin, nail, and joint involvement

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.

Challenge of Nail Psoriasis: An Update Review

Nail psoriasis is a refractory disease that affects 50-79% skin psoriasis patients and up to 80% of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The pathogenesis of nail psoriasis is still not fully illuminated, although some peculiar inflammatory cytokines and chemokines seems to be the same as described in psoriatic skin lesions. Psoriatic nail involving matrix can cause pitting, leukonychia, red spots in lunula, and nail plate crumbling, while nail bed involvement can result in onycholysis, oil-drop discoloration, nail bed hyperkeratosis, and splinter hemorrhages. The common assessment methods of evaluating nail psoriasis includes Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI), Nail Assessment in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (NAPPA), Nail Psoriasis Quality of life 10 (NPQ10), and so on. Treatment of nail psoriasis should be individualized according to the number of involving nail, the affected site of nail and presence of skin and/or joint involvement. Generally, topical therapies are used for mild nail psoriasis, while biologic agents such as etanercept are considered for severe nail disease and refractory nail psoriasis. Even though the current literature has shown some support for the pathogenesis, clinical presentation, or therapies of nail psoriasis, systemic review of this multifaceted disease is still rare to date. We elaborate recent developments in nail psoriasis epidemiology, pathogenesis, anatomy, clinical manifestation, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and therapies to raise better awareness of the complexity of nail psoriasis and the need for early diagnosis or intervention.

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.

Tapering and discontinuation of systemic medications in psoriasis patients with low disease activity

Psoriasis is a chronic disease and often requires long-term treatment, especially in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis. It remains controversial whether the doses of systemic medications could be tapered or if these medications could be discontinued among patients in clinical remission. In this review, we summarize whether it is possible to taper or discontinue methotrexate, cyclosporine, and biologics while controlling the relapse rates of psoriasis. Based on the current evidence, methotrexate and biologics should not be discontinued for psoriasis patients with low disease activity. However, the doses of these medications could be tapered by reducing the maintenance dose or increasing the between-dose intervals. If the disease recurs, methotrexate and biologics should be restarted at their standard doses, and for cyclosporine, the dose can be maintained or discontinued progressively. If patients relapse, cyclosporine can be given again. The decisions to taper or discontinue anti-psoriasis drugs need to account for both benefits and risks and should be individualized according to patients' disease severity, quality of life, and presence of comorbidities.

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.

Recommendations for the definition, evaluation, and treatment of nail psoriasis in adult patients with no or mild skin psoriasis: A dermatologist and nail expert group consensus

Nail involvement in psoriasis is common, and the severity of it does not always parallel the intensity of cutaneous disease. We created a consensus group, of which the aim was to provide practical recommendations for the treatment of nail psoriasis in patients without skin psoriasis or with mild skin lesions with no indication for a systemic treatment. This collaborative process was conducted by an international panel of dermatologists with special expertise in nail disorders, using formal consensus methods. During this process, the panel strived to establish an agreement regarding the definition of nail psoriasis, the severity of nail psoriasis, and treatment response. Treatment recommendations are provided regarding nail psoriasis severity and matrix or bed involvement. Few-nail disease was considered as nail psoriasis affecting ≤3 nails. In the case of matrix involvement only, intralesional steroid injections were considered the treatment of choice. Topical steroids alone or in combination with topical vitamin D analogues were suggested for nail psoriasis limited to the nail bed. For the systemic treatment of nail psoriasis acitretin, methotrexate, cyclosporine, small molecules, and biologics may be employed.

Therapeutics for Adult Nail Psoriasis and Nail Lichen Planus: A Guide for Clinicians

Nail psoriasis (NP) and nail lichen planus (NLP) can be limiting, stigmatizing and difficult to treat. Dermatologists commonly treat psoriasis and lichen planus but when associated onychodystrophy is present or is an isolated finding, some develop apprehension. The goal of this review is to develop therapeutic ladders to be used as a guide for the management of NP and NLP in everyday clinical practice. Evidence-based therapies for NP are robust and range from topical treatments to conventional systemic therapies (i.e., methotrexate, cyclosporine), new oral agents (i.e., apremilast and tofacitinib), and biologics. The literature for treatment of NLP is severely limited, with therapy mainly consisting of topical, intralesional, or systemic corticosteroids or methotrexate.

Reporting of outcomes in randomized controlled trials on nail psoriasis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Harmonization of outcome measures is needed to increase the value of clinical trials on nail psoriasis.

OBJECTIVES

To provide the first step in core outcome set (COS) development for nail psoriasis.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to identify outcome instruments and corresponding outcome domains used in (ongoing) randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

Identified outcome domains included clinical signs, quality of life, symptoms and delivery of care. The Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI) was the most commonly used measure to assess clinical signs (74% of studies). Other outcome instruments used included the Nail Area Severity score, composite fingernail score, a Physician's Global Assessment, individual nail features or a combination of these. Heterogeneity in type and reporting (e.g. NAPSI 50, NAPSI 75) of outcome instruments was high and characteristics were often insufficiently reported. In total 43% of studies assessed quality of life, with 3% of studies using a nail psoriasis-specific tool. Assessment of symptoms and delivery of care was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Heterogeneity in the type and reporting of nail psoriasis outcome instruments needs to be addressed in the process towards COS development. Sufficient reporting of instrument characteristics should be encouraged. As nail psoriasis is generally assessed secondarily to psoriasis of the skin or joints, collaboration between different research groups in COS development is needed.

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.

Nail psoriasis: clinical features, pathogenesis, differential diagnoses, and management

Psoriasis is the skin disease that most frequently affects the nails. Depending on the very nail structure involved, different clinical nail alterations can be observed. Irritation of the apical matrix results in psoriatic pits, mid-matrix involvement may cause leukonychia, whole matrix affection may lead to red lunulae or severe nail dystrophy, nail bed involvement may cause salmon spots, subungual hyperkeratosis, and splinter hemorrhages, and psoriasis of the distal nail bed and hyponychium causes onycholysis whereas that of the proximal nail fold causes psoriatic paronychia. The more extensive the involvement, the more severe is the nail destruction. Pustular psoriasis may be seen as yellow spots under the nail or, in case of acrodermatitis continua suppurativa, as an insidious progressive loss of the nail organ. Nail psoriasis has a severe impact on quality of life and may interfere with professional and other activities. Management includes patient counseling, avoidance of stress and strain to the nail apparatus, and different types of treatment. Topical therapy may be tried but is rarely sufficiently efficient. Perilesional injections with corticosteroids and methotrexate are often beneficial but may be painful and cannot be applied to many nails. All systemic treatments clearing widespread skin lesions usually also clear the nail lesions. Recently, biologicals were introduced into nail psoriasis treatment and found to be very effective. However, their use is restricted to severe cases due to high cost and potential systemic adverse effects.

Nail Psoriasis: A Review of Treatment Options

Nail involvement affects 80-90 % of patients with plaque psoriasis, and is even more prevalent in patients with psoriatic arthritis. This review is the result of a systemic approach to the literature and covers topical, intralesional, conventional systemic, and biologic systemic treatments, as well as non-pharmacological treatment options for nail psoriasis. The available evidence suggests that all anti-tumor necrosis factor-α, anti-interleukin (IL)-17, and anti-IL-12/23 antibodies which are available for plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are highly effective treatments for nail psoriasis. Conventional systemic treatments, including methotrexate, cyclosporine, acitretin, and apremilast, as well as intralesional corticosteroids, can also be effective treatments for nail psoriasis. Topical treatments, including corticosteroids, calcipotriol, tacrolimus, and tazarotene, have also been shown to have a position in the treatment of nail psoriasis, particularly in mild cases. Finally, non-pharmacological treatment options, including phototherapy, photodynamic therapy, laser therapy, and several radiotherapeutic options, are also reviewed but cannot be advised as first-line treatment options. Another conclusion of this review is that the lack of a reliable core set of outcomes measures for trials in nail psoriasis hinders the interpretation of results, and is urgently needed.

Serum concentrations of interleukin-2 and tumour necrosis factor-α under cyclosporine versus acitretin treatment in plaque-type psoriasis

Objective

A prospective, randomized clinical study to compare the short-term effects of cyclosporin and acitretin on psoriasis severity, and serum interleukin (IL)-2 and tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α concentrations.

Methods

Patients with moderate-to-severe plaque-type psoriasis were randomly assigned to receive either 3 mg/kg per day cyclosporine or 0.3–0.5 mg/kg per day acitretin for 8 weeks. Disease severity (psoriasis area severity index [PASI] score) and serum IL-2 and TNF-α concentrations were determined before and after treatment.

Results

PASI scores and serum IL-2 and TNF-α concentrations were significantly decreased after treatment with either cyclosporine ( n = 21) or acitretin ( n = 25). There were no statistically significant between-group differences in any parameter.

Conclusions

Acitretin and cyclosporine are equally effective in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque-type psoriasis.

Nail psoriasis: the journey so far

Nail involvement is an extremely common feature of psoriasis and affects approximately 10-78% of psoriasis patients with 5-10% of patients having isolated nail psoriasis. However, it is often an overlooked feature in the management of nail psoriasis, despite the significant burden it places on the patients as a result of functional impairment of manual dexterity, pain, and psychological stress. Affected nail plates often thicken and crumble, and because they are very visible, patients tend to avoid normal day-to-day activities and social interactions. Importantly, 70-80% of patients with psoriatic arthritis have nail psoriasis. In this overview, we review the clinical manifestations of psoriasis affecting the nails, the common differential diagnosis of nail psoriasis, Nail Psoriasis Severity Index and the various diagnostic aids for diagnosing nail psoriasis especially, the cases with isolated nail involvement. We have also discussed the available treatment options, including the topical, physical, systemic, and biological modalities, in great detail in order to equip the present day dermatologist in dealing with a big clinical challenge, that is, management of nail psoriasis.

Cyclosporine regimens in plaque psoriasis: an overview with special emphasis on dose, duration, and old and new treatment approaches

Cyclosporine A (CsA) is one of the most effective systemic drugs available for the treatment of psoriasis, as evidenced by the results of several randomized studies and by a prolonged experience in dermatological setting. In clinical practice, CsA is usually used for the induction of psoriasis remission at a daily dose included in the range of 2.5–5 mg/kg and with intermittent short-term regimens, lasting on average 3–6 months. The magnitude and rapidity of response are dose dependent, as well as the risk of development of adverse events. Therefore, the dose should be tailored to patient's needs and general characteristics and adjusted during the treatment course according to both the efficacy and tolerability. Some studies support the feasibility of pulse administration of CsA for a few days per week for both the induction and the maintenance of response in psoriasis patients. This paper will review the data on CsA regimens for plaque-type psoriasis and will focus the attention on dose, treatment duration, novel schedules, and role in combination therapies, including the association with biologicals.

Treatment of nail psoriasis: common concepts and new trends

The lifetime incidence of nail involvement in psoriatic patients is estimated to be 80-90%, and the nails can be affected in 10% to 55% of psoriatic patients. Psoriasis may also solely involve the nails, without any other skin findings, in which the treatment can be more challenging. Nail psoriasis may lead to considerable impairment in quality of life due to aesthetic concerns and more importantly limitations in daily activities resulting from the associated pain, which may be overlooked by the physicians. Several topical and systemic treatment modalities, as well as radiation and light systems, have been used in the treatment of nail psoriasis. In the last decade, the introduction of biologic agents and the utilization of laser systems have brought a new insight into the treatment of nail psoriasis. This paper focuses on the recent advances, as well as the conventional methods, in treating nail psoriasis in adults and children, in reference to an extensive literature search.

A consensus report on appropriate treatment optimization and transitioning in the management of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis

BACKGROUND

There is limited information on systemic and biological treatment optimization and transitioning in routine clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To provide practical guidance on treatment optimization and transitioning for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

METHODS

Dermatologists from 33 countries contributed to the Transitioning Therapies programme. Fourteen questions were identified. Answers were drafted based on systematic literature reviews (7/14 questions) and expert opinion (7/14 questions). Using a modified Delphi procedure, dermatologists from 30 countries voted on their level of agreement with each draft answer (scale: 1-9, strong disagreement to strong agreement). Consensus was defined as ≥75% of participants scoring within the 7-9 range.

RESULTS

Consensus was achieved on the answers to all questions. Recommendations for the use of cyclosporine and methotrexate were agreed. Transitioning from a conventional systemic therapy to a biological agent may be done directly or with an overlap (if transitioning is required because of lack of efficacy) or potentially with a treatment-free interval (if transitioning is required for safety reasons). Combination therapy may be beneficial. Continuous therapy for patients on biologicals is strongly recommended. However, during successful maintenance with biological monotherapy, a dosage reduction may be considered to limit drug exposure, although this may carry the risk of decreased efficacy. Switching biologicals for reasons of efficacy should be done without a washout period, but switching for reasons of safety may require a treatment-free interval.

CONCLUSION

This consensus provides practical guidance on treatment optimization and transitioning for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, based on literature reviews and the expert opinion of dermatologists from across the globe.

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.

Interventions for nail psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is a common skin disease that can also involve the nails. All parts of the nail and surrounding structures can become affected. The incidence of nail involvement increases with duration of psoriasis. Although it is difficult to treat psoriatic nails, the condition may respond to therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess evidence for the efficacy and safety of the treatments for nail psoriasis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to March 2012: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched trials databases and checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs of any design concerning interventions for nail psoriasis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial risk of bias and extracted the data. We collected adverse effects from the included studies.  

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 studies involving 1266 participants. We were not able to pool due to the heterogeneity of many of the studies.Our primary outcomes were 'Global improvement of nail psoriasis as rated by a clinician', 'Improvement of nail psoriasis scores (NAS, NAPSI)', 'Improvement of nail psoriasis in the participant's opinion'. Our secondary outcomes were 'Adverse effects (and serious adverse effects)'; 'Effects on quality of life'; and 'Improvement in nail features, pain score, nail thickness, thickness of subungual hyperkeratosis, number of affected nails, and nail growth'. We assessed short-term (3 to 6 months), medium-term (6 to 12 months), and long-term (> 12 months) treatments separately if possible.Two systemic biologic studies and three radiotherapy studies reported significant results for our first two primary outcomes. Infliximab 5 mg/kg showed 57.2% nail score improvement versus -4.1% for placebo (P < 0.001); golimumab 50 mg and 100 mg showed 33% and 54% improvement, respectively, versus 0% for placebo (P < 0.001), both after medium-term treatment. Infliximab and golimumab also showed significant results after short-term treatment. From the 3 radiotherapy studies, only the superficial radiotherapy (SRT) study showed 20% versus 0% nail score improvement (P = 0.03) after short-term treatment.Studies with ciclosporin, methotrexate, and ustekinumab were not significantly better than their respective comparators: etretinate, ciclosporin, and placebo. Nor were studies with topical interventions (5-fluorouracil 1% in Belanyx® lotion, tazarotene 0.1% cream, calcipotriol 50 ug/g, calcipotriol 0.005%) better than their respective comparators: Belanyx® lotion, clobetasol propionate, betamethasone dipropionate with salicylic acid, or betamethasone dipropionate.Of our secondary outcomes, not all included studies reported adverse events; those that did only reported mild adverse effects, and there were more in studies with systemic interventions. Only one study reported the effect on quality of life, and two studies reported nail improvement only per feature.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Infliximab, golimumab, SRT, grenz rays, and electron beam caused significant nail improvement compared to the comparative treatment. Although the quality of trials was generally poor, this review may have some implications for clinical practice.Although powerful systemic treatments have been shown to be beneficial, they may have serious adverse effects. So they are not a realistic option for people troubled with nail psoriasis, unless the patient is prescribed these systemic treatments because of cutaneous psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis or the nail psoriasis is severe, refractory to other treatments, or has a major impact on the person's quality of life. Because of their design and timescale, RCTs generally do not pick up serious side-effects. This review reported only mild adverse effects, recorded mainly for systemic treatments. Radiotherapy for psoriasis is not used in common practice. The evidence for the use of topical treatments is inconclusive and of poor quality; however, this does not imply that they do not work.Future trials need to be rigorous in design, with adequate reporting. Trials should correctly describe the participants' characteristics and diagnostic features, use standard validated nail scores and participant-reported outcomes, be long enough to report efficacy and safety, and include details of effects on nail features.

A Delphi Consensus Approach to Challenging Case Scenarios in Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: Part 1

INTRODUCTION

Traditional clinical trials in psoriasis exclude a significant proportion of patients with complex disease and comorbidities. A consensus panel of 14 experts in the field of psoriasis was formed to conduct a Delphi method exercise to identify difficult-to-treat psoriasis clinical scenarios and to rank treatment approaches.

METHODS

The exercise consisted of both survey questionnaires and a live meeting to review and discuss current data (as of 2009, when the exercise was conducted) and arrive at a consensus for optimal treatment options. Seventy difficult treatment scenarios were identified, and the top 24 were selected for discussion at the live meeting.

RESULTS

Six of the 24 discussed case scenarios are presented in this article (another five are presented in Part 2): (1) psoriasis with human papilloma virus-induced cervical or anogenital dysplasia; (2) concomitant psoriasis and systemic lupus erythematosus; (3) severe psoriatic nail disease causing functional or emotional impairment; (4) psoriasis therapies that potentially reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality; (5) older patients (≥65 years of age) with psoriasis; and (6) severe scalp psoriasis that is unresponsive to topical therapy.

CONCLUSION

The Delphi exercise resulted in guidelines for practicing physicians to utilize when confronted with challenging patients with psoriasis.

Nail psoriasis: a review

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

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 6. Guidelines of care for the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: case-based presentations and evidence-based conclusions

Psoriasis is a common, chronic, inflammatory, multisystem disease with predominantly skin and joint manifestations affecting approximately 2% of the population. In the first 5 parts of the American Academy of Dermatology Psoriasis Guidelines of Care, we have presented evidence supporting the use of topical treatments, phototherapy, traditional systemic agents, and biological therapies for patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. In this sixth and final section of the Psoriasis Guidelines of Care, we will present cases to illustrate how to practically use these guidelines in specific clinical scenarios. We will describe the approach to treating patients with psoriasis across the entire spectrum of this fascinating disease from mild to moderate to severe, with and without psoriatic arthritis, based on the 5 prior published guidelines. Although specific therapeutic recommendations are given for each of the cases presented, it is important that treatment be tailored to meet individual patients' needs. In addition, we will update the prior 5 guidelines and address gaps in research and care that currently exist, while making suggestions for further studies that could be performed to help address these limitations in our knowledge base.

Cyclosporine and psoriasis: 2008 National Psoriasis Foundation Consensus Conference

BACKGROUND

Cyclosporine is a valuable option for the treatment of psoriasis. This report summarizes studies regarding the use of cyclosporine since the last guidelines were published in 1998.

OBJECTIVE

A task force of the National Psoriasis Foundation Medical Board was convened to evaluate treatment options. Our aim was to achieve a consensus on new updated guidelines for the use of cyclosporine in the treatment of psoriasis.

METHODS

Reports in the literature were reviewed regarding cyclosporine therapy.

LIMITATIONS

There are few evidence-based studies on the treatment of psoriasis with cyclosporine.

RESULTS

A consensus was achieved on the use of cyclosporine in psoriasis including specific recommendations on dosing, monitoring, and use of cyclosporine in special situations. The consensus received approval from members of the National Psoriasis Foundation Medical Board.

CONCLUSIONS

Cyclosporine is a safe and effective drug for the treatment of psoriasis. It has a particularly useful role in managing psoriatic crises, treating psoriasis unresponsive to other modalities, bridging to other therapies, and treating psoriasis within a rotational scheme of other medications. Appropriate patient selection and monitoring will significantly decrease the risks of side effects.