A 24-week randomized clinical trial investigating the efficacy and safety of two doses of etanercept in nail psoriasis

A systematic review investigating at what proportion clinical images are shared in prospective randomized controlled trials involving patients with psoriasis and biological agents

For many patients including those with psoriasis, scientific manuscripts comprising clinical outcomes including psoriasis area severity index (PASI) and/or physician global assessment (PGA) may be difficult to understand. However, most patients can relate to images at baseline and follow-up, particularly for dermatological diseases. This study aimed to assess the proportion of shared clinical images in psoriasis trials. A systematic review adhering to the PRISMA guidelines was performed. The review was limited to randomized controlled trials, and among these, only investigations involving biological agents for treatment of psoriasis were included. The Embase, MEDLINE and Scopus databases were searched for eligible studies published from inception to October 26, 2021. In total, 152 studies were included. When combining these, 62,871 patients were randomized. Overall, 203 images were shared depicting 60 patients in the manuscripts yielding an overall sharing rate of 0.1%. Patient images are seldom incorporated in clinical trial manuscripts which impairs interpretation for patients. Inclusion of image material would strengthen the patients' perspective and understanding on what treatment effects that can be expected. As such, this systematic review should be an invitation to the pharmaceutical industry, other sponsors, and editorial offices to improve easy transfer of information to patients using image data.

Efficacy and Safety of Nail Psoriasis Targeted Therapies: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Nail changes are frequent clinical findings in patients with cutaneous psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, often causing significant impairments in quality of life. Numerous targeted therapies have been previously studied for treatment of nail psoriasis, however, newer agents have not been captured in prior systematic reviews. With over 25 new studies published since 2020, the landscape of nail psoriasis systemic treatments is rapidly evolving, warranting analysis of recently approved therapies.

METHODS

An updated systematic review of all PubMed and OVID database studies assessing efficacy and safety of targeted therapies for nail psoriasis was performed, with the goal of incorporating clinical data of recent trials and newer agents, namely brodalumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies reporting at least one of the nail psoriasis clinical appearance outcomes (Nail Psoriasis Severity Index, modified Nail Psoriasis Severity Index).

RESULTS

A total of 68 studies on 15 nail psoriasis targeted therapeutic agents were included. Biological agents and small molecule inhibitors included TNF-alpha inhibitors (adalimumab, infliximab, etanercept, certolizumab, golimumab), IL-17 inhibitors (ixekizumab, brodalumab, secukinumab), IL-12/23 inhibitors (ustekinumab), IL-23 inhibitors (guselkumab, risankizumab, tildrakizumab), PDE-4 inhibitors (apremilast), and JAK inhibitors (tofacitinib). These agents all demonstrated statistically significant improvements in nail outcome scores, compared with placebo or with baseline values, at weeks 10-16 and weeks 20-26, with some studies assessing efficacy up to week 60. Safety data for these agents were acceptable and consistent with known safety profiles within these timepoints, with nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, injection site reactions, headache, and diarrhea being the most reported adverse events. Specifically, the newer agents, brodalumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab, showed promising outcomes for treatment of nail psoriasis on the basis of current data.

CONCLUSION

Numerous targeted therapies have shown significant efficacy in improving nail findings in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Data from head-to-head trials have shown greater efficacy of ixekizumab over adalimumab and ustekinumab, as well as brodalumab over ustekinumab, while prior meta-analyses have demonstrated superiority of ixekizumab and tofacitinib to other included agents at various assessed timepoints. Further studies on the long-term efficacy and safety of these agents, as well as randomized controlled trials involving comparison with placebo arms, are needed to fully analyze differences in efficacy of newer agents compared with previously established therapies.

Nail Psoriasis: An Updated Review of Currently Available Systemic Treatments

Background

Nail psoriasis (NP) has a prevalence that ranges from 10 to 82% among patients with psoriasis (PsO) and is one of the most common difficult to treat site of psoriasis. We performed a thorough review of the literature, exploring evidence regarding all available NP systemic treatments, describing also in detail NP dedicated clinical trials.

Methods

A literature search was conducted in PubMed and Embase prior to February 2023 using a combination of the terms "nail" AND "psoriasis" AND "systemic therapy" AND/OR "systemic treatment". A total of 47 original studies and case reports were reviewed in this article.

Results

Systemic therapies should be considered when the disorder involves more than 3 nails, has extensive skin and joint involvement, and has a significant impact on QoL, due to their best long-term efficacy. In detail, conventional and biologic systemic drugs demonstrated efficacy in recent trials, including acitretin, methotrexate, cyclosporine, apremilast, adalimumab, infliximab, etanercept, certolizumab, golimumab, ustekinumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, risankizumab and tildrakizumab.

Conclusion

Several therapies have demonstrated efficacy and safety in the treatment of NP; however, the choice of treatment depends not only on the severity of the nail involvement, but also on whether PsA is present, the patient's comorbidities other than PsA, previous treatment history, and the patient's drug preferences.

Bayesian network meta-analysis of head-to-head trials for complete resolution of nail psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Almost 50% of patients with skin psoriasis have concomitant nail involvement. The comparative effectiveness of the available biologics for nail psoriasis (NP) is still an area of contention because of limited data on nails.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy of biologics in achieving complete resolution of NP.

METHODS

We identified studies in PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus. The eligibility criteria included randomized controlled trial (RCTs) or cohort studies for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis with at least two arms of active comparator of biologic reporting at least one efficacy outcome of interest: that is the Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI), the modified NAPSI or the Physician's Global Assessment of Fingernail Psoriasis with a score of 0.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies comprising seven treatments met the inclusion criteria, and were included in the NMA. The NMA showed the odds of complete NP resolution were superior with ixekizumab [risk ratio (RR) 1.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73-3.10] compared with the treatment of reference (adalimumab). Brodalumab (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.14-7.40), guselkumab (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.40-1.80), infliximab (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.19-4.60) and ustekinumab (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.08-1.60) demonstrated worse therapeutic effect compared with adalimumab. According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, ixekizumab 80 mg every 4 weeks had the highest probability of being the best treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The interleukin-17A inhibitor ixekizumab has the highest rate of complete nail clearance and it can be considered the best-ranked therapy from the present evidence. This study is relevant to daily practice as it facilitates the decision when choosing between the wide variety of available biologics in patients for whom clearance of nail symptoms is the first concern.

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.

Nail Psoriasis: A Review of Effective Therapies and Recommendations for Management

Nail psoriasis has a prevalence that ranges from 10 to 82% and can significantly impact the quality of life of patients. Nail psoriasis is one of the most challenging areas to treat, and multiple therapies have been explored. Topical and injectable therapies are recommended for few-nail disease. Systemic therapies, including biologics, can be considered for patients with multiple and resistant nail disease, impaired quality of life, and severe skin and joint involvement, due to their long-term efficacy. Although outcome data are difficult to compare, interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitors may have superior short-term efficacy when compared to IL-23 inhibitors and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha inhibitors, although long-term efficacy is similar to TNF-alpha inhibitors. IL-23 inhibitors and TNF-alpha inhibitors have a similar efficacy for nail psoriasis.

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.

Toenail Psoriasis during Ustekinumab Therapy: Results and Limitations

Background

Nail psoriasis is a common clinically significant symptom of psoriasis. However, few studies have focused on the characteristics and course of toenail psoriasis.

Objective

To investigate the treatment response of toenail psoriasis during a 52-week period of ustekinumab use.

Methods

Patients were evaluated using the Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI) at every injection visit. NAPSI score changes throughout the treatment were analyzed. The treatment response in each toenail and each NAPSI characteristic was also analyzed.

Results

A total of 22 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis with concomitant toenail psoriasis were examined. Several characteristics such as ridging or onychomycosis that mimic psoriasis or hinder the evaluation were identified. NAPSI significantly improved during the treatment (p<0.05). The big and second toes were significantly improved after 52 weeks of ustekinumab treatment (p<0.05). Pitting and oil-drop discoloration were the only two characteristics that showed significant changes post-treatment (p<0.05).

Conclusion

Ustekinumab proved to be efficacious in treating toenail psoriasis. Because of the factors that hinder the NAPSI scoring, only NAPSI scores of the first and second toes can be used.

Network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of biologic treatments for achieving complete resolution of nail psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Nail psoriasis (NP) is common and of high importance in patients with psoriasis. Complete resolution of NP at week 24‒26 is an unambiguous nail outcome accessible for indirect treatment comparison of biologics.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative efficacy of approved biologics in achieving complete resolution of NP at week 24‒26.

METHODS

A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to indirectly compare the efficacy of six biologics in achieving complete resolution of NP at week 24‒26 in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis and concomitant NP. Complete resolution of NP was defined as a score of zero on the Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI), modified NAPSI (mNAPSI) or Physician's Global Assessment of Fingernails (PGA-F).

RESULTS

The probability of achieving complete resolution of NP was highest for ixekizumab (46.5%; 95% credibility interval [CrI] 35.1‒58.0; Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking curve [SUCRA] 97%), followed by brodalumab (37.0%; 17.0‒61.0; 79%), adalimumab (28.3%; 24.4‒32.4; 62%), guselkumab (27.7%; 21.1‒35.1; 58%), ustekinumab (20.8%; 10.2‒35.2; 37%), and infliximab (0.8%; 0.0‒8.9; 17%).

CONCLUSION

In patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis and concomitant NP, ixekizumab has the greatest likelihood among approved biologics of achieving complete resolution of NP at week 24‒26. Findings should be interpreted carefully because of inherent study limitations.

Nail Psoriasis: Diagnosis, Assessment, Treatment Options, and Unmet Clinical Needs

OBJECTIVE

An estimated 40-50% of patients with psoriasis (PsO) have psoriatic nail disease, which is associated with and directly contributes to a greater clinical burden and worse quality of life in these patients. In this review, we examine how recent advances in the use of new diagnostic techniques have led to improved understanding of the link between nail and musculoskeletal manifestations of psoriatic disease (PsD; e.g., enthesitis, arthritis) and we review targeted therapies for nail PsO (NP).

METHODS

We performed a literature search to identify which systemic therapies approved for the treatment of PsO and/or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have been evaluated for the treatment of NP, either as a primary or secondary outcome. A total of 1546 articles were identified on February18, 2019, and evaluated for relevance.

RESULTS

We included findings from 66 articles on systemic therapies for the treatment of NP in PsD. With several scoring systems available for the evaluation of psoriatic nail disease, including varied subtypes and application of the Nail Psoriasis Area Severity Index, there was a high level of methodological heterogeneity across studies.

CONCLUSION

NP is an important predictor of enthesitis, which is associated with the early stages of PsA; therefore, it is important for rheumatologists and dermatologists to accurately diagnose and treat NP to prevent nail damage and potentially delay the onset and progression of joint disease. Further research is needed to address the lack of both standardized NP scoring systems and well-defined treatment guidelines to improve management of PsD.

Management of Nail Psoriasis

Nail psoriasis is a chronic nail disorder that requires personalized treatment. General prophylactic measures are suggested for all patients. Topical treatment is considered when treating a few-nail disease, with involvement of 3 or fewer nails, without joint involvement and without (or with mild) skin psoriasis. The ideal formulation should be ointment, solution, or foam. When moderate to severe skin psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis coexists, systemic treatment is suggested. This also should be considered when more than 3 nails are affected or significant impairment of quality of life is present. Conventional systemic agents, biologics, and small molecules are highly efficacious.

Efficacy of Systemic Treatments of Nail Psoriasis: A Systemic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance: Nail involvement is a common condition in patients with psoriasis. The treatment of nail psoriasis is considered challenging and is often left untreated by physicians. Objective: To assess the efficacy of current systemic treatments on nail psoriasis. Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for relevant articles from inception to September 1, 2020. Included articles were restricted to English language and human studies. Study Selection: This was a systematic literature review with meta-analysis. Thirty-five random control trials that evaluated systemic therapies for nail psoriasis were selected in the systemic review. Among them, we retained 14 trials for meta-analysis. Data Extraction and Synthesis: This study was conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. All steps were performed by two independent investigators, and any disagreements were resolved by a third investigator. Meta-analysis of aggregated study data was conducted to assess therapeutic efficacy. The use of random-effects model was based on high heterogeneity as a variable endpoint in different studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: Therapeutic effects on nail psoriasis were expressed in terms of effect sizes with 95% CIs. Results: We included 35 random control trials (RCTs) in this systemic review. At baseline, a high prevalence (62.1%) of nail psoriasis was confirmed. The meta-analysis included 14 trials highlighting that biologic and small-molecule therapies were effective in treating nail psoriasis with variable effect size magnitudes [-0.89 (-1.10, -0.68), I ² = 84%]. In particular, tofacitinib and ixekizumab showed the most significant scale of effect size magnitudes in treating nail psoriasis (-1.08 points and -0.93 points, respectively). We also found that a higher dose of tofacitinib and ixekizumab had similar effectiveness, and anti-IL-17 agents seem to be superior in effectiveness compared to anti-TNF-α therapies in the treatment of nail psoriasis. However, these results must be displayed carefully as variable endpoints in different studies. Conclusions and Relevance: This study provides a comprehensive overview of systemic treatments for nail psoriasis. For patients with psoriatic nail damage who are candidates of systemic therapies, the priority should be given to administering biologic and small-molecule therapies, especially anti-IL-17 drugs.

A Systematic Review With Network Meta-Analysis of the Available Biologic Therapies for Psoriatic Disease Domains

Introduction: Several new treatments have been developed for psoriatic disease, an inflammatory condition that involves skin and joints. Notwithstanding, few studies have made direct comparisons between treatments and therefore it is difficult to select the ideal treatment for an individual patient. The aim of this systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) was to analyze available and approved biologic therapies for each domain of psoriatic disease: skin, peripheral arthritis, axial arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, and nail involvement. Methods: Data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. A systematic review was performed using the MEDLINE database (July 2020) using PICO criteria. Bayesian NMA was conducted to compare the clinical efficacy of biological therapy in terms of the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR, 24 weeks) and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI, 10-16 weeks). Results: Fifty-four RCTs were included in the systematic review. Due to the design of the RCTs, namely, outcomes and time points, network meta-analysis was performed for skin and peripheral arthritis domains. For the skin domain, 30 studies reporting PASI100 were included. The peripheral arthritis domain was analyzed through ACR70 in 12 studies. From the therapies approved for both domains, secukinumab and ixekizumab were the ones with the highest probability of reaching the proposed outcomes. There is a lack of outcome uniformization in the dactylitis, enthesitis, and nail domains, and therefore, an objective comparison of the studies was not feasible. Nevertheless, secukinumab was the treatment with the best compromise between the number of studies in each domain and the results obtained in the different outcomes. Conclusion: Secukinumab and ixekizumab were the treatments with the highest probability of reaching both PASI100 and ACR70 outcomes. Due to the lack of a standard evaluation of outcomes of the other psoriatic disease domains, a network meta-analysis for all the domains was not possible to perform.

Secukinumab shows high and sustained efficacy in nail psoriasis: 2.5-year results from the randomized placebo-controlled TRANSFIGURE study

BACKGROUND

Secukinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively neutralizes interleukin-17A, a cornerstone cytokine in psoriasis, has shown long-lasting efficacy and safety in the complete spectrum of psoriasis manifestations.

OBJECTIVES

To report the long-term (2·5-year) efficacy and safety of secukinumab in nail psoriasis.

METHODS

TRANSFIGURE, a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre phase IIIb study in 198 patients, investigated secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg in patients with moderate-to-severe nail psoriasis.

RESULTS

At week 16, the primary endpoint Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI) was met, demonstrating superiority of secukinumab to placebo. The effect was sustained over 2·5 years with a large benefit for nail clearance, with mean NAPSI improvement of -73·3% and -63·6% with secukinumab 300 mg and 150 mg, respectively. At 2·5 years, secukinumab demonstrated sustained clinically significant reductions in total mean Nail Assessment in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (NAPPA) quality-of-life (QoL) scores of -52·4% and -18·1%, and 70% and 71% of patients achieved a weighted NAPPA Patient Benefit Index global score of ≥ 2 with secukinumab 300 mg and 150 mg, respectively. Patients showed considerable improvements in the EuroQol 5-Dimension health status questionnaire at 2·5 years, reporting a decrease in pain and discomfort. No new safety findings were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Secukinumab demonstrated strong and clinically meaningful efficacy for up to 2·5 years in nail psoriasis, with significant sustained QoL improvements and a favourable safety profile.

Spondylitis-psoriasis-enthesitis-enterocolitis-dactylitis-uveitis-peripheral synovitis (SPEED-UP) treatment

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and noninfectious uveitis form a distinct group among the immune mediated inflammatory diseases. Thus, many patients suffer from more than one of these disease manifestations. Here, we will use the term spondylitis-psoriasis-enthesitis-enterocolitis-dactylitis-uveitis-peripheral synovitis (SPEED-UP) spectrum disease. The aim is to review the new targeted pharmacological treatment options for all these diseases. All biological or targeted synthetic drugs with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval for any of the diagnoses axSpA, PsA, psoriasis, IBD, or non-infectious uveitis were included. Some of the drugs have documented efficacy in more than one of the diseases, e.g. tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. However, other drugs are particularly effective for a specific inflamed tissue and approved in only one or two of the disease entities, e.g. abatacept for peripheral arthritis and vedolizumab for inflammatory bowel disease. This contributes with bedside to bench understanding of the immunology underlying this disease spectrum and provides clinicians with an overview that can assist stratified treatment decisions. We hope that this review will help guide clinicians to speed up treatment of patients with this disease spectrum.

Small Molecules and Biologics in the Treatment of Nail Psoriasis

Nail psoriasis (PsO) is a disorder with profound impact on patients' quality of life. Several challenges and unmet needs remain in the treatment of nail PsO. Introduction of biologics and small molecules in the treatment of nail PsO has allowed for rapid control of the disease and high efficacy. The aim of this review was to present the published studies on nail PsO therapy with biologics and small molecules and illuminate the results in the studies where the design and outcome evaluation had nail PsO in the forefront.

In psoriasis treatment, greater improvement in skin severity predicts greater improvement in nail severity

BACKGROUND

Nail are important for both function and esthetic appearance and although they represent a small body surface area, dermatologic disorders affecting the nails can have a detrimental effect to the patient. Deciding on the best systemic antipsoriatic drug to treat nail psoriasis can be difficult due to the lack of nail data on their Food and Drug Administration-approved labels, as well as the variety of scoring systems used for nail psoriasis.

METHODS

We performed a literature review and included randomized control trials or articles based on randomized control trials for different systemic antipsoriatic drugs. Only articles and studies utilizing Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI) or target NAPSI as outcome measures were included. Data was taken directly from articles, directly from clincaltrials.gov or directly from data on file at various pharmaceutical companies.

RESULTS

Data for NAPSI and PASI were collected for 10 antipsoriatic drugs including three oral medications and seven biologic agents. We found that NAPSI or target NAPSI was strongly predicted based on the change in PASI and duration of treatment (R² = 0.71, p = .0002). PASI alone (R² = 0.52, p = .001) and duration alone (R² = 0.21, p = .07) predict NAPSI response.

CONCLUSION

According to this model, there is a relationship between skin and nail response, with improvement in nails correlating with improvement in skin and longer duration of treatment.

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.

Efficacy of Guselkumab Compared With Adalimumab and Placebo for Psoriasis in Specific Body Regions: A Secondary Analysis of 2 Randomized Clinical Trials

Importance

Psoriasis of the scalp, palms and/or soles, and nails is challenging to treat.

Objective

To evaluate the effect of guselkumab on psoriasis in specific body regions.

Design, Setting, and Participants

VOYAGE 1 and VOYAGE 2 were, double-blind, placebo- and adalimumab-controlled studies of guselkumab conducted at 101 and 115 global sites, respectively, from November 3, 2014, to May 19, 2016. Patients had moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score ≥12, Investigator's Global Assessment [IGA] score ≥3, and ≥10% body surface area with psoriasis). This post hoc data analysis was performed from February 10 through November 15, 2017.

Exposures

Patients were randomized to guselkumab, 100 mg (weeks 0 and 4, then every 8 weeks); placebo followed by guselkumab, 100 mg, starting at week 16; or adalimumab (80 mg [week 0] and 40 mg [week 1, then every 2 weeks]).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Efficacy was assessed through week 24. End points included numbers of patients achieving scores of 0 or 1 (clear or near clear) or 0 (clear) on the scalp-specific IGA (ss-IGA), Physician's Global Assessment of the hands and/or feet (hf-PGA), and fingernail PGA (f-PGA) and percentage of improvement in target Nail Psoriasis Severity Index score.

Results

Of 1829 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 43.6 [12.4] years; 1300 [71.1%] male, 1498 [81.9%] white), 1576 (86.2%) had psoriasis of the scalp; 501 (27.4%), palms and/or soles; and 1049 (57.4%), fingernails. At baseline, 1512 (82.7%), 461 (25.2%), and 928 (50.7%) patients had a score of 2 or higher on the ss-IGA, hf-PGA, and f-PGA, respectively, and were included in the analysis. Guselkumab was superior to placebo based on the proportion of patients achieving an ss-IGA score of 0 or 1 (560 [81.8%] vs 43 [12.4%]) at week 16 and to adalimumab (582 [85.0%] vs 329 [68.5%]) at week 24 (both P < .001); 479 (69.9%) in the guselkumab group vs 270 (56.3%) in the adalimumab group achieved an ss-IGA score of 0 (all P < .001). An hf-PGA score of 0 or 1 was achieved by 154 patients (75.5%) in the guselkumab group vs 15 (14.2%) in the placebo group at week 16 and 164 (80.4%) in the guselkumab group vs 91 (60.3%) in the adalimumab group at week 24; 153 (75.0%) in the guselkumab group vs 76 (50.3%) in the adalimumab group achieved an hf-PGA score of 0 (all P < .001). An f-PGA score of 0 or 1 was achieved by 196 patients (46.7%) in the guselkumab group vs 32 (15.2%) in the placebo group at week 16 (P < .001) and 252 (60.0%) in the guselkumab group vs 191 (64.3%) in the adalimumab group at week 24 (P = .11); 115 (27.4%) in the guselkumab group vs 83 (27.9%) in the adalimumab group achieved an f-PGA score of 0 (P = .63).

Conclusions and Relevance

Compared with adalimumab, guselkumab was associated with significant improvement in psoriasis on the scalp and palms and/or soles; magnitude of improvement in fingernails did not differ between treatments. These results may help dermatologists make treatment decisions for patients with psoriasis in difficult-to-treat body regions.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02207231 and NCT02207244.

Psoriatic arthritis for dermatologists

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) affects up to one-third of patients with psoriasis. It is the major comorbidity of psoriasis because of the likelihood that loss of function and permanent disability will develop if initiation of treatment is delayed. Dermatologists are uniquely positioned to recognize early signs of PsA and be the first-line healthcare practitioners to detect PsA in patients with psoriasis. PsA can affect six clinical domains: peripheral arthritis, dactylitis, enthesitis, psoriasis, psoriatic nail disease, and axial disease. However, not every patient will have involvement of all domains and the domains affected can change over time. Complicating the diagnosis is the condition's similarity with other arthritic diseases and potential heterogeneity. In this article, we provide practical guidance for dermatologists for detecting PsA in patients with psoriasis. We also review the available treatment options by each clinical domain of PsA and give advice on how to interpret the results of PsA clinical trials. Through early recognition of PsA in patients with psoriasis and initiation of proper treatment, dermatologists can help to prevent PsA disease progression, irreversible joint damage, and resultant permanent disability, and improve quality of life.

What's New in Nail Disorders

Various advancements in the diagnosis and management of nail diseases have transpired in recent years. To provide the best care for patients with nail complaints, it is essential that physicians be updated on new diagnostic and treatment modalities. The purpose of this article is to discuss new and oncoming diagnostic and management options for nail disorders, including nail psoriasis, retronychia, brittle nails, onychotillomania, trauma, trachyonychia, and pyogenic granulomas.

Joint AAD-NPF guidelines of care for the management and treatment of psoriasis with biologics

Psoriasis is a chronic, inflammatory multisystem disease that affects up to 3.2% of the US population. This guideline addresses important clinical questions that arise in psoriasis management and care, providing recommendations based on the available evidence. The treatment of psoriasis with biologic agents will be reviewed, emphasizing treatment recommendations and the role of the dermatologist in monitoring and educating patients regarding benefits as well as associated risks.

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.

A Review for Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners on the Considerations for Diagnosing and Treating Psoriatic Arthritis

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a clinically heterogeneous form of progressive inflammatory arthritis that affects up to 30% of patients with psoriasis. The rapid rate of progression associated with PsA makes early-disease diagnosis and treatment crucial to patients' quality of life and long-term health. With the aim of providing clinical guidance to physician assistants and nurse practitioners, this article gives an overview of the different PsA clinical domains, including peripheral arthritis, axial disease, enthesitis, dactylitis, skin disease, and nail dystrophy, which should be considered as part of diagnosis and treatment strategies. The efficacy of different therapies across these PsA domains is reviewed within the context of current PsA treatment guidelines while considering more recent data on newly approved therapies for PsA.Funding: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., East Hanover, NJ, USA.

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.

Pharmacotherapeutic approaches for treating psoriasis in difficult-to-treat areas

INTRODUCTION

Despite great therapeutic advancements in psoriasis, four notable difficult-to-treat areas including the scalp, nails, intertriginous (including genitals), and palmoplantar regions, pose a challenge to both physicians and patients. Localized disease of these specific body regions inflicts a significant burden on patients' quality of life and requires an adequate selection of treatments.

AREAS COVERED

This manuscript discusses appropriate therapies and important treatment considerations for these difficult-to-treat areas based on the available clinical data from the literature.

EXPERT OPINION

Clinical trials assessing therapies for the difficult-to-treat areas have been inadequate. With the first biological clinical trial for genital psoriasis pending publication, it is with hope that other biological agents will be evaluated for region-specific psoriasis. A greater understanding of the genetic and immunologic aspects of regional psoriasis, as well as identification of unique biomarkers, will further guide management decisions. For example, the recent discovery of the IL-36 receptor gene for generalized pustular psoriasis may prove valuable for other forms of psoriasis. Ultimately, identification of the most beneficial treatments for each psoriasis subtype and difficult-to-treat area will provide patients with maximal quality of life.

Underdiagnosed and undertreated psoriasis: Nuances of treating psoriasis affecting the scalp, face, intertriginous areas, genitals, hands, feet, and nails

Psoriasis of the scalp, face, intertriginous areas, genitals, hands, feet, and nails is often underdiagnosed, and disease management can be challenging. Despite the small surface area commonly affected by psoriasis in these locations, patients have disproportionate levels of physical impairment and emotional distress. Limitations in current disease severity indices do not fully capture the impact of disease on a patient's quality of life, and, combined with limitations in current therapies, many patients do not receive proper or adequate care. In this review, we discuss the clinical manifestations of psoriasis in these less commonly diagnosed areas and its impact on patient quality of life. We also examine clinical studies evaluating the effectiveness of therapies on psoriasis in these regions. This article highlights the need to individualize treatment strategies for psoriasis based on the area of the body that is affected and the emerging role of biologic therapy in this regard.

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.

Design and rationale of the Study of Etanercept and Methotrexate in Combination or as Monotherapy in Subjects with Psoriatic Arthritis (SEAM-PsA)

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of etanercept and methotrexate as monotherapies and as combination therapy in subjects with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Methods

The Study of Etanercept and Methotrexate in Combination or as Monotherapy in Subjects with Psoriatic Arthritis (SEAM-PsA) is an ongoing, global, double-blind, 48-week, randomised, controlled study. Subjects are randomised (1:1:1) to etanercept monotherapy, methotrexate monotherapy or etanercept-methotrexate combination therapy. Endpoints include rates of ACR20 response and Minimal Disease Activity, measures to characterise extra-articular manifestations (dactylitis, enthesitis, nail disease) and safety.

Conclusion

SEAM-PsA will characterise the effects of etanercept with and without background methotrexate and methotrexate alone on PsA manifestations, and provide information of practical importance to clinicians on the optimal treatment of PsA.

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 psoriasis is often found in patients with plaque psoriasis and can greatly impact quality of life. This is particularly true in more severe cases, as it affects the structure and function of the patient's nail. Treatment for nail psoriasis is often challenging, involving topical medications, injections, and systematic therapies. This article aims to give an overview of the varied clinical presentations of nail psoriasis and the current treatments available for patients with this condition. Risks and efficacies of these treatments will be evaluated to determine the best treatment protocols.

Nail involvement in psoriatic arthritis

Nail psoriasis is considered a significant psychological and social problem causing functional impairment in affected patients. Nail changes hamper their daily and occupational activities and contribute to a worse quality of life. Almost 50% of patients with psoriasis vulgaris and up to 80% of patients with psoriatic arthritis are afflicted with nail lesions. The important correlation between psoriatic arthritis and nail changes is well established - the presence of the latter is a strong predictor of the development of arthritis. There is a broad spectrum of nail dystrophies associated with psoriasis, ranging from the common pitting, subungual hyperkeratosis and loosening of the nail plate to less frequent discolouration and splinter haemorrhages. Some of these symptoms are also observed in other nail diseases, and further diagnostics should be performed. The assessment tools NAPSI (Nail Psoriasis Severity Index), mNAPSI (Modified Nail Psoriasis Severity Index), and PNSS (Psoriasis Nail Severity Score) are most commonly used to grade the severity of nail involvement in psoriasis and enable the evaluation of therapy effectiveness. The treatment of nail psoriasis is a major clinical challenge. It should be adjusted to the extent of dermal, articular and ungual lesions. Systemic therapies of psoriasis, especially biological agents, are most likely to be effective in treating nail psoriasis. However, as their use is limited in scope and safety, topical therapy remains a mainstay, and the combination of corticosteroids and vitamin D₃ analogues is considered to be most helpful.

The efficacy and safety of apremilast, etanercept and placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: 52-week results from a phase IIIb, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (LIBERATE)

Background

Apremilast, an oral, small‐molecule phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, has demonstrated efficacy in patients with moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis.

Objective

Evaluate efficacy and safety of apremilast vs. placebo in biologic‐naive patients with moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis and safety of switching from etanercept to apremilast in a phase IIIb, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study (NCT01690299).

Methods

Two hundred and fifty patients were randomized to placebo (n = 84), apremilast 30 mg BID (n = 83) or etanercept 50 mg QW (n = 83) through Week 16; thereafter, all patients continued or switched to apremilast through Week 104. The primary efficacy endpoint was achievement of PASI‐75 at Week 16 with apremilast vs. placebo. Secondary endpoints included achievement of PASI‐75 at Week 16 with etanercept vs. placebo and improvements in other clinical endpoints vs. placebo at Week 16. Outcomes were assessed through Week 52. This study was not designed for apremilast vs. etanercept comparisons.

Results

At Week 16, PASI‐75 achievement was greater with apremilast (39.8%) vs. placebo (11.9%; P < 0.0001); 48.2% of patients achieved PASI‐75 with etanercept (P < 0.0001 vs. placebo). PASI‐75 response was maintained in 47.3% (apremilast/apremilast), 49.4% (etanercept/apremilast) and 47.9% (placebo/apremilast) of patients at Week 52. Most common adverse events (≥5%) with apremilast, including nausea, diarrhoea, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, tension headache and headache, were mild or moderate in severity; diarrhoea and nausea generally resolved in the first month. No new safety or tolerability issues were observed through Week 52 with apremilast.

Conclusion

Apremilast demonstrated significant efficacy vs. placebo at Week 16 in biologic‐naive patients with psoriasis, which was sustained over 52 weeks, and demonstrated safety consistent with the known safety profile of apremilast. Switching from etanercept to apremilast did not result in any new or clinically significant safety findings, and efficacy was maintained with apremilast through Week 52.

Ixekizumab treatment improves fingernail psoriasis in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis: results from the randomized, controlled and open-label phases of UNCOVER-3

BACKGROUND

Fingernail psoriasis is difficult to treat.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to evaluate the effect of ixekizumab, a monoclonal antibody selectively targeting IL-17A, on fingernail psoriasis.

METHODS

This Phase 3, double-blind trial (UNCOVER-3) randomized patients to placebo, etanercept (50-mg twice weekly), or 80 mg ixekizumab as one injection every 4 (IXE Q4W) or 2 weeks (IXE Q2W) after a 160-mg starting dose. At Week 12, ixekizumab patients received open-label IXE Q4W through Week 60; placebo patients received a 160-mg starting ixekizumab dose and etanercept patients a 4-week placebo washout before starting IXE Q4W. Efficacy was assessed by mean per cent Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI) improvement at Weeks 12 and 60.

RESULTS

Of 1346 patients in the UNCOVER-3 trial, this subgroup analysis included only patients with baseline fingernail psoriasis: 116 (60.1%) placebo, 236 (61.8%) etanercept, 228 (59.1%) IXE Q4W and 229 (59.5%) IXE Q2W. At Week 12, greater mean per cent NAPSI improvements were achieved in IXE Q4W (36.7%) and IXE Q2W (35.2%) vs. placebo (-34.3%, P < 0.001 each comparison) and etanercept (20.0%, P = 0.048 vs. Q4W, P = 0.072 vs. Q2W). At Week 60, mean per cent NAPSI improvement was >80% regardless of initial treatment. At Week 12 (nonresponder imputation), complete resolution (NAPSI = 0) was achieved in 19.7% (IXE Q4W), 17.5% (IXE Q2W), 4.3% (placebo, P < 0.001 each comparison) and 10.2% (etanercept, P < 0.05 each comparison) of patients. By Week 60, >50% of patients achieved complete resolution.

CONCLUSIONS

At Week 12, significant improvements in fingernail psoriasis were achieved with ixekizumab therapy. With IXE Q4W maintenance dosing, additional improvement was demonstrated through 60 weeks, and >50% of patients achieved complete resolution. Registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01646177.

[Psoriasis in special localizations]

A large proportion of patients with plaque psoriasis suffer from psoriatic lesions of the scalp, nails, and intertrigines. These locations can also be soley or predominantly affected. Scalp psoriasis, nail psoriasis, and inverse psoriasis are often perceived as particularly stigmatizing. Involvement of these parts of the body is associated with an increased risk of psoriatic arthritis. Location-specific features must be considered when choosing treatment. Evidence for topical therapy of scalp psoriasis with steroids and combinations of steroids and vitamin D analogues is high. These agents are regarded as safe and effective treatments of first choice. Efficacy of TNF antagonists and apremilast is well documented for refractory scalp psoriasis. Nail psoriasis often responds insufficiently to topical therapy. Several effective systemic medications including methotrexate and TNF antagonists are available for treatment of severe forms. Controlled trials for treatment of inverse psoriasis are scarce. Topical steroids, vitamin D analogues, dithranol, and off-label calcineurin inhibitors are used in clinical practice. This review provides a survey on the clinical presentation and current evidence for treatment of psoriasis in challenging locations.

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.

Tailored treatment options for patients with psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis: review of established and new biologic and small molecule therapies

The diverse clinical picture of PsA suggests the need to identify suitable therapies to address the different combinations of clinical manifestations. This review aimed to classify the available biologic agents and new small molecule inhibitors (licensed and nonlicensed) based on their proven efficacy in treating different clinical manifestations associated with psoriasis and PsA. This review presents the level of evidence of efficacy of different biologic treatments and small molecule inhibitors for certain clinical features of treatment of PsA and psoriasis, which was graded in categories I–IV. The literature searches were performed on the following classes of biologic agents and small molecules: TNF inhibitors (adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, golimumab, certolizumab), anti-IL12/IL23 (ustekinumab), anti-IL17 (secukinumab, brodalumab, ixekizumab), anti-IL6 (tocilizumab), T cell modulators (alefacept, efalizumab, abatacept, itolizumab), B cell depletion therapy (rituximab), phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor (apremilast) and Janus kinase inhibitor (tofacitinib). A comprehensive table including 17 different biologic agents and small molecule inhibitors previously tested in psoriasis and PsA was generated, including the level of evidence of their efficacy for each of the clinical features included in our review (axial and peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, and nail and skin disease). We also proposed a limited set of recommendations for a sequential biologic treatment algorithm for patients with PsA who failed the first anti-TNF therapy, based on the available literature data. There is good evidence that many of the biologic treatments initially tested in psoriasis are also effective in PsA. Further research into both prognostic biomarkers and patient stratification is required to allow clinicians the possibility to make better use of the various biologic treatment options available. This review showed that there are many potentially new treatments that are not included in the current guidelines that can be used for selected categories of patients based on their disease phenotype, clinician experience and access to new biologic therapies.

Statistical reporting in randomized controlled trials from the dermatology literature: a review of 44 dermatology journals

BACKGROUND

The validity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is determined by several statistical factors.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the level of recent statistical reporting in RCTs from the dermatology literature.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE for all RCTs published between 1 May 2013 and 1 May 2014 in 44 dermatology journals.

RESULTS

Two hundred and ten articles were screened, of which 181 RCTs from 27 journals were reviewed. Primary study outcomes were met in 122 (67.4%) studies. Sample size calculations and beta values were reported in 52 (28.7%) and 48 (26.5%) studies, respectively, and nonsignificant findings were supported in only 31 (17.1%). Alpha values were reported in 131 (72.4%) of studies with 45 (24.9%) having two-sided P-values, although adjustment for multiple statistical tests was performed in only 16 (9.9% of studies with ≥ two statistical tests performed). Sample size calculations were performed based on a single outcome in 44 (86.3%) and multiple outcomes in six (11.8%) studies. However, among studies that were powered for a single primary outcome, 20 (45.5%) made conclusions based on multiple primary outcomes. Twenty-one (41.2%) studies relied on secondary/unspecified outcomes. There were no differences for primary outcome being met (Chi-square, P = 0.29), sample size calculations (P ≥ 0.55), beta values (P = 0.89), alpha values (P = 0.65), correction for multiple statistical testing (P = 0.59), two-sided alpha (P = 0.64), support of nonsignificant findings (Fisher's exact, P = 0.23) based on the journal's impact factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Levels of statistical reporting are low in RCTs from the dermatology literature. Future work is needed to improve these levels of reporting.