Combination therapy with acitretin for psoriasis

Incidence and Risk Factors of Hepatic Fibrosis in Psoriatic Patients Receiving Methotrexate with Concomitant Acitretin Therapy and Methotrexate Monotherapy

Background

The use of methotrexate-acitretin (MTX-ACI) combination therapy in treating psoriasis has been limited due to concerns related to hepatic fibrosis. However, in vitro evidence revealed a protective effect of acitretin in methotrexate (MTX)-induced liver fibrosis.

Objective

This study aimed to compare the real-life incidence of hepatic fibrosis in patients with psoriasis receiving MTX-ACI and MTX monotherapy and to investigate factors associated with hepatic fibrosis in MTX-exposed patients.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted based on a real-life registry containing data on patients with psoriasis who were administered MTX-ACI or MTX between 2008 and 2019 and underwent transient elastography according to cumulative MTX dose of 1.0–1.5 g and/or 3.5–4.0 g. Time-to-event analysis was performed to determine the cumulative incidence, incidence rate, and factors potentially affecting the occurrence of hepatic fibrosis.

Results

Of the 160 patients, 32 (20%) were treated with MTX-ACI, and 128 (80%) with MTX alone. Four patients (12.5%) in MTX-ACI group and 21 (16.4%) in MTX group developed hepatic fibrosis (p = 0.59). There was no statistically significant difference in cumulative incidence (16% in MTX-ACI vs 17% in MTX, p = 0.89) and incidence rate (37 cases per 1000 person-year in MTX-ACI vs 23 cases per 1000 person-year in MTX; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.07; p = 0.90) of hepatic fibrosis between the two groups. Diabetes and obesity were identified as significant factors associated with hepatic fibrosis (adjusted HR = 2.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05–5.51; p = 0.04 and adjusted HR = 3.28, 95% CI: 1.18–9.16; p = 0.02, respectively) regardless of the cumulative MTX dose.

Conclusion

The incidence of hepatic fibrosis in a real-life clinical situation, determined by transient elastography in patients with psoriasis receiving MTX-ACI, was not increased compared to those receiving MTX monotherapy. Type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity were identified as risk factors of hepatic fibrosis; hence, patients with these factors receiving long-term MTX therapy should be regularly monitored for this particular event.

The acitretin and methotrexate combination therapy for psoriasis vulgaris achieves higher effectiveness and less liver fibrosis

Both acitretin and methotrexate are effective in ameliorating psoriatic lesion. However, their combination has been seldom reported in the treatment of psoriasis because of the warning regarding the potential hepatotoxicity of the drug interactions. This study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of such combination therapy for psoriasis vulgaris, and the potential benefit as well as side effect during the treatment. Thirty-nine patients with psoriasis vulgaris were treated with acitretin, methotrexate or their combination or as control. Similarly, K14-VEGF transgenic psoriasis-like mice were treated with these drugs. Human primary keratinocytes and hepatic stellate cells were used for analyzing their effect in vitro. The results showed that the combination therapy exhibited higher effectiveness in remitting skin lesion, but did not significantly affect the liver function of both patients and mice. Moreover, the combination groups showed less elevation of profibrotic factors in sera when compared with methotrexate alone groups accordingly. Furthermore, primary keratinocytes expressed more involucrin as well as loricrin and proliferated more slowly on the combined stimulation. Interestingly, such combination treatment induced lower expression of profibrotic factors in hepatic stellate cells. In conclusion, the acitretin-methotrexate combination therapy for psoriasis vulgaris can achieve higher effectiveness and result in less liver fibrosis.

Cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life of alefacept in the treatment of psoriasis

Although alefacept was the first biologic agent approved to treat psoriasis, it is used less frequently than other biologic therapies. Alefacept decreases the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score and enhances the quality of life of patients with psoriasis. Unlike other biologics, alefacept can also induce remission of psoriasis. If reports in Pubmed and the package insert are considered to be surrogates for side effects, alefacept appears to be safer than other biologics. Alefacept can be effective against psoriatic arthritis, especially in combination with methotrexate. The response of psoriatics to alefacept, however, is inconsistent and often incomplete. Alefacept also has the highest cost of any biologic agent as measured by patients achieving PASI-75 and cost per patient achieving Dermatology Life Quality Index Minimal Important Difference. Traditional systemic therapies such as spriatane, ciclosporine, as well as phototherapy and TNF-alpha, possess firmer and superior pharmacoeconomic foundations, although some of these apparent cost-benefit disadvantages may take into account the ability of alefacept to induce remission after cessation of treatment.

Alefacept: its safety profile, off-label uses, and potential as part of combination therapies for psoriasis

OBJECTIVES

To review literature regarding alefacept, a biologic therapy for psoriasis.

METHODS

A PubMed search using the term alefacept was done through December of 2006 and articles reviewed. Abstracts concerning alefacept presented at the meeting of the Annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology in 2004, 2005 and 2006 were reviewed. Attention was paid to alefacept's safety profile, off-label uses, and potential as part of combination therapy for psoriasis.

RESULTS

Alefacept is a very safe treatment for psoriasis alone or in conjunction with other therapies. It has been used, anecdotally, with some effect in diseases besides psoriasis.

CONCLUSIONS

The utility of checking CD4 counts while administering alefacept for 12 weeks is unclear. While no side effects have been linked to CD4 counts lower than 250/cc(3), due to the fact that in clinical trials alefacept was discontinued when the CD4 count was lower than 250/cc(3), the effect of administration of alefacept to patients with low CD4 counts is unknown. Alefacept appears to be the safest biologic therapy for the treatment of psoriasis, safety that has been borne out in patients who have received as many as nine courses of alefacept. Intramuscular alefacept's consistent ability to decrease the psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) scores in psoriatic patients is not as great as phototherapy, cyclosporine, methotrexate or tumor necrosis factor alpha blockers. Repeated courses of alefacept are best used in patients who have previously responded to the medication, so that patients who have found alefacept useful when grouped achieve higher and more consistent improvements of PASI scores with each successive course of alefacept. A test that would identify likely responders would greatly increase the utility of the medication. While reports assessing the combination of alefacept and narrow band ultraviolet B phototherapy have only studied small numbers of patients ( approximately 60), the combination of phototherapy and alefacept appears synergistic and extremely effective with studied patients achieving PASI 75 in more than 75% of cases and thus merits further study. Combinations of alefacept with etanercept, acitretin, and methotrexate have been used anecdotally but effectively to treat recalcitrant psoriasis. Reported effective off-label uses of alefacept include: generalized lichen planus, alopecia areata, steroid-resistant or steroid-dependent acute graft-versus-host disease, scleroderma, nail psoriasis, and palmoplantar psoriasis.