Comparison of guidelines for the use of TNF inhibitors for psoriasis in the United States, Canada, Europe and the United Kingdom: a critical appraisal and comprehensive review

Psoriasis comorbid with atherosclerosis meets in lipid metabolism

Psoriasis (PSO) is a common skin disease affecting approximately 1%-3% of the population, and the incidence rate is increasing yearly. PSO is associated with a dramatically increased risk of cardiovascular disease, the most common of which is atherosclerosis (AS). In the past, inflammation was considered to be the triggering factor of the two comorbidities, but in recent years, studies have found that lipid metabolism disorders increase the probability of atherosclerosis in patients with psoriasis. In this review, we discuss epidemiological studies, clinical treatment methods, risk factors, and lipid metabolism of psoriasis and atherosclerosis comorbidities.

Selection of Quality Indicators for the Certification of Psoriasis Units: The CUDERMA Project Delphi Consensus Study

Defining quality indicators is a key strategy for ensuring the quality and standardization of health care. The CUDERMA project, an initiative of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venerology (AEDV), was undertaken to define quality indicators for the certification of specialized units in dermatology; the first 2 areas selected were psoriasis and dermato-oncology. The aim of this study was to reach a consensus on what should be assessed by the indicators used to certify psoriasis units. The structured process used to do this comprised a literature review to identify potential indicators, the selection of an initial set of indicators to be evaluated by a multidisciplinary group of experts and, finally, a Delphi consensus study. A panel of 39 dermatologists evaluated the selected indicators and classified them as either "essential" or "of excellence". Consensus was finally reached on 67 indicators, which will be standardized and used to develop the certification standard for psoriasis units.

[Translated article] Selection of Quality Indicators for the Certification of Psoriasis Units: The CUDERMA Project Delphi Consensus Study

Defining quality indicators is a key strategy for ensuring the quality and standardization of health care. The CUDERMA project, an initiative of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venerology (AEDV), was undertaken to define quality indicators for the certification of specialized units in dermatology; the first 2 areas selected were psoriasis and dermato-oncology. The aim of this study was to reach a consensus on what should be assessed by the indicators used to certify psoriasis units. The structured process used to do this comprised a literature review to identify potential indicators, the selection of an initial set of indicators to be evaluated by a multidisciplinary group of experts and, finally, a Delphi consensus study. A panel of 39 dermatologists evaluated the selected indicators and classified them as either "essential" or "of excellence". Consensus was finally reached on 67 indicators, which will be standardized and used to develop the certification standard for psoriasis units.

Plantar Psoriasis: A Review of the Literature

Plantar psoriasis negatively affects the quality of life for patients due to its weight-bearing location. Most therapeutic studies for psoriasis focus on total body surface changes and rarely report specific effects of the plantar and palmar areas. This review focuses on therapeutic options for plantar psoriasis ranging from topical therapy to phototherapy to biological therapy. Treatment should be approached as a stepwise gradient beginning with topicals and progressing to systemics. As always, review of the patient's severity of condition, health status, and impact on quality of life is needed to individualize therapy for the best patient care.

Maintaining Clinical Freedom Whilst Achieving Value in Biologics Prescribing: An Integrated Cross-Specialty Consensus of UK Dermatologists, Rheumatologists and Gastroenterologists

BACKGROUND

Biologics are now key drugs in the management of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. However, the increasingly complex biologics environment and growing cost pressures in the UK have led to variability in drug commissioning and inequity of patient access across regions.

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives were to provide consensus recommendations for enhancing the current situation in biologic prescribing in the UK by balancing clinical freedom with equitable distribution of biologics given the limited availability of resources.

METHODS

A modified Delphi approach was used to reach integrated, cross-specialty consensus among dermatologists, rheumatologists and gastroenterologists practising within the English National Health Service (NHS).

RESULTS

We describe the concepts of clinical freedom and clinical judgement and demonstrate how, together with patient choice, they can be exercised in the context of biologic prescribing in the NHS. We highlight that in England, local variations occur that are at odds with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance; these variably limit the degree to which clinicians can exercise clinical freedom and impact on equity of patient access to treatments. We define factors encompassing a drug's value and identify challenges to the measurement and interpretation of this concept, which can raise barriers to the freedom of clinical choice and appropriate prescribing decisions allowing practices of holistic and personalised medicine. Cross-specialty consensus recommendations on ensuring equitable access to biologics in the NHS while protecting appropriate and individualised drug selection for patients are provided. We have also provided strategies for improving physician-commissioner communication to harmonise equity of patient access to biologics across England and improve patient outcomes. Commentary from patient advisory groups indicates that they welcome our exploration that value does not equal cost and agree that there should be an emphasis on shared decision making, which requires the clinician to practice clinical freedom by aligning the patient's needs and preferences with available treatment choices.

CONCLUSIONS

This consensus highlights the need to strike a balance between clinical freedom and short-term cost restrictions to support equitable resource distribution within the English NHS. Consideration of these recommendations may help to harmonise local, regional and national services and balance equity of patient access to biologic treatments with excellence in the NHS.

Comparison of psoriasis guidelines for use of apremilast in the United States and Europe: a critical appraisal and comprehensive review

Purpose: This review article serves to compare global dermatologic organizations and the available clinical practice guidelines for the use of apremilast in the treatment of psoriasis.Materials and methods: Guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF), the European S3, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the French Society of Dermatology (SFD), the Swiss S1, and Italy were reviewed and compared.Results: Of the American and European guidelines available for use of apremilast, several organizations are in agreement regarding the dosage of apremilast, but there are significant disagreements concerning matters such as medication indication, pretreatment laboratory testing, and contraindications to therapy.Conclusion: Apremilast is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for patients with psoriasis and should be considered in the line of therapy that dermatologists discuss with their patients, especially those with contraindications to other systemic therapies such as biologics. Consideration should be given to the evidence-based recommendations of global dermatology organizations to help guide therapeutic decisions.