Treatment with 311-nm ultraviolet B enhanced response of psoriatic lesions in ustekinumab-treated patients: a randomized intraindividual trial

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.

Latest combination therapies in psoriasis: Narrative review of the literature

Biological therapies revolutionized the treatment of many chronic inflammatory skin diseases, first of all psoriasis, thanks to their high efficacy and the reduced number of side effects. However, the use of a single biologic drug does not always provide complete control of the disease or associated comorbidities over time. The first biological drugs used for the treatment of psoriasis, tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors, have long been used in combination with traditional topical and systemic therapies to induce a complete remission of the disease that could not be achieved with innovative drug alone. Even with the advent of new biological therapies with more precise molecular targets, the challenge of using combination therapies remained. Psoriatic patients often have major comorbidities, such as arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, uveitis or have other concomitant conditions such as chronic spontaneous urticaria and atopic dermatitis, which may require different biologic treatments than those indicated in psoriasis. The objective of this article is, through a comprehensive revision of the literature, to analyze in which cases the use of the combination of the latest therapies for psoriasis may be useful.

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.

TNF-alpha inhibitors and ustekinumab for the treatment of psoriasis: therapeutic utility in the era of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory condition for which eleven FDA-approved biologic therapies are approved. Over the past decade, studies have documented the higher efficacy of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors for the treatment of psoriasis compared to the TNF-alpha inhibitors and ustekinumab, an IL-12/23 inhibitor. Despite this, there remains an important role for the use of TNF-alpha inhibitors and ustekinumab in the treatment of psoriasis. Here, we review how considerations of infection and malignancy risk, patient demographics, treatment resistance, and co-morbidities may make certain TNF-alpha inhibitors or ustekinumab an excellent choice for therapy in particular patient subgroups.

Epidermal Hyperproliferation With Less Prominent Dermal Inflammation Is the Unique Histopathological Feature of the Refractory Lesions in Psoriasis Treated With Ustekinumab

ABSTRACT

Although ustekinumab (UST) shows excellent efficacy in treating psoriasis, not all patients have a complete clearance rate. The purpose of this study was to investigate the histopathological characteristics of refractory psoriasis lesions in patients with excellent response to UST. Fifty-seven patients with newly diagnosed psoriasis and 66 patients with a 75% reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score after UST treatment were included. Computer-aided image analysis was performed to measure the epidermal thickness, horny layer thickness, number of dermal vessels, and dermal inflammatory cell infiltration rate. Parakeratosis was scored using a 4-point scale. These measurements were compared between the refractory lesions of UST-treated patients and the untreated lesions of newly diagnosed patients after the adjustment for confounding factors. The dermal inflammatory cell infiltration rate was significantly lower in the refractory lesions (P = 0.022). Meanwhile, the epidermal thickness, horny layer thickness, grade of parakeratosis, and dermal vessel count did not differ between the groups (P = 0.125, 0.719, 0.542, and 0.758, respectively). Subgroup analyses were performed within the UST-treated group after dividing them into 2 groups according to the number of treatments or treatment response rates. None of these features were significantly different between the subgroups. This study suggests that the reduction of dermal inflammation by UST was not sufficient to ameliorate the epidermal changes and implies the role of the interleukin-23-independent downstream cytokine pathway in causing the refractory lesions among patients who responded well to UST. The continuation of UST treatment might not further improve epidermal alterations.

Systematic Review and Recommendations to Combine Newer Therapies With Conventional Therapy in Psoriatic Disease

Background: Psoriasis continues to have unmet needs in its management despite introduction of newer molecules. Monotherapy with these newer agents may not achieve therapeutic goals in all cases, hence necessitating their combinations with other molecules. Improved understanding of newer as well as conventional treatment modalities and experiences in their combinations hence necessitates therapeutic guidelines for their use in psoriasis. Objective: To review the combinations of treatments reported in literature and recommendations for their use based on best current evidence in literature. Methods: A literature review of MEDLINE database for studies evaluating combinations of newer therapies with conventional therapies in psoriasis was done. Newer therapies were identified as biologic disease modifying anti rheumatic drugs and other molecules such as apremilast while conventional therapies included methotrexate, cyclosporine, or retinoids, phototherapy and others. The therapeutic guidelines are proposed with the aim to provide evidenced based approach to combine newer and conventional agents in day-to-day psoriasis management. Findings: Combination of acitretin and narrow band ultraviolet B (NB-UVB)/Psoralen with ultraviolet A (PUVA) achieves faster clearance and allows reduction of dose of the latter. A variable outcome is reported of methotrexate with TNF-α inhibitors vs. TNF-α inhibitors alone, although addition of methotrexate appears to reduce immunogenicity of TNF-α inhibitors thereby preventing formation of anti-drug antibodies especially in case of infliximab. While combination of acitretin and PUVA is beneficial, combining TNF-α inhibitors and phototherapy too produces better and faster results but long term risks of Non Melanoma Skin Cancers (NMSCs) may preclude their use together. Combination of cyclosporine and phototherapy is not recommended due to greater chances of NMSCs. Adding phototherapy to Fumaric Acid Esters (FAEs) improves efficacy. Apremilast can be safely combined with available biologic agents in patients with plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis not responding adequately to biologics alone. Hydroxyurea and acitretin may be used together increasing their efficacy and reducing doses of both and hence their adverse effects. Conclusion: Selected clinical scenarios shall benefit from combinations therapies, improving efficacy of both conventional and newer agents and at the same time helping reduce toxicity of higher dosages when used individually.

Comparison of guidelines for the use of Ustekinumab for psoriasis in the United States, Europe, and the United Kingdom: A critical appraisal and comprehensive review

The aim of this review is to compare and contrast evidence-based clinical practice guidelines from global dermatological organizations for the use of ustekinumab in psoriasis. Clinical practice guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology, National Psoriasis Foundation, British Association of Dermatologists, and European S3 were reviewed and compared. Practice guidelines from the three dermatological organizations are similar with regards to treatment dosage and initiation but differ in their recommendations for baseline screening and interval laboratory monitoring, treatment in patients undergoing surgery or receiving live vaccines, and treatment contraindications. Ustekinumab is an effective and well-tolerated systemic treatment for patients with psoriasis and should be considered in the line of therapy that dermatologists discuss with their patients. Consideration should be given to evidence-based practice guidelines of global dermatology organizations to effectively guide treatment decisions in patients with 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.

Additional effect of excimer light therapy in patients with psoriasis under other therapies

Excimer light is an effective therapy for psoriasis resulting in faster clearance and a longer remission. We studied its additional effect in patients with psoriasis under other therapies. Subjects were composed of 261 patients with psoriasis, all of which were treated with topical application of steroid and vitamin D mixed ointment. Other therapies were composed of apremilast and biologics. PASI 100 rate were evaluated until 12 months after the start of its therapy. PASI 100 rate was elevated from 13 patients (5.0%) to 34 patients (13.0%, P < 0.01). Twenty-one of 63 patients (33.3%, P < 0.01) not reaching PASI 100 reached it after excimer light therapy. The addition of excimer light therapy in each treatment showed no significant difference compared with that before addition. Irradiation amount in patients with guselkumab (822 ± 259 mJ) was significantly smaller that with excimer only (1370 + 731 mJ) and that with IL-17 (1747 ± 749 mJ). In addition, irradiation amount in patients reached PASI-100 in Guselkumab (717 ± 75 mJ) which was significantly smaller that in the excimer only group (1530 ± 450 mJ). Additional effect of excimer light therapy in psoriasis, especially in patients with guselkumab, was speculated.

[UV phototherapy : UV phototherapy and photodiagnostics-a practical overview]

UV phototherapy is an essential and efficient therapeutic option in the treatment of dermatological diseases. It is an integral part of multiple guidelines and maintains its high clinical significance despite the development of new therapeutic options for systemic treatment. Due to the difficult revenue situation, the market for ready-to-use products of psoralen and UV therapy devices is constantly changing.

A deep dive into UV-based phototherapy: Mechanisms of action and emerging molecular targets in inflammation and cancer

UV-based phototherapy (including psoralen plus UVA (PUVA), UVB and UVA1) has a long, successful history in the management of numerous cutaneous disorders. Photoresponsive diseases are etiologically diverse, but most involve disturbances in local (and occasionally systemic) inflammatory cells and/or abnormalities in keratinocytes that trigger inflammation. UV-based phototherapy works by regulating the inflammatory component and inducing apoptosis of pathogenic cells. This results in a fascinating and complex network of simultaneous events-immediate transcriptional changes in keratinocytes, immune cells, and pigment cells; the emergence of apoptotic bodies; and the trafficking of antigen-presenting cells in skin-that quickly transform the microenvironment of UV-exposed skin. Molecular elements in this system of UV recognition and response include chromophores, metabolic byproducts, innate immune receptors, neurotransmitters and mediators such as chemokines and cytokines, antimicrobial peptides, and platelet activating factor (PAF) and PAF-like molecules that simultaneously shape the immunomodulatory effects of UV and their interplay with the microbiota of the skin and beyond. Phototherapy's key effects-proapoptotic, immunomodulatory, antipruritic, antifibrotic, propigmentary, and pro-prebiotic-promote clinical improvement in various skin diseases such as psoriasis, atopic dermatitis (AD), graft-versus-host disease (GvHD), vitiligo, scleroderma, and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) as well as prevention of polymorphic light eruption (PLE). As understanding of phototherapy improves, new therapies (UV- and non-UV-based) are being developed that will modify regulatory T-cells (Treg), interact with (resident) memory T-cells and /or utilize agonists and antagonists as well as antibodies targeting soluble molecules such as cytokines and chemokines, transcription factors, and a variety of membrane-associated receptors.

Systemic treatment of psoriasis: from methotrexate to biologics

Psoriasis is one of the most frequent chronic inflammatory skin diseases and it has been of interest to many scientists for ages. The review presents data on all systemic treatment options, that are to date officially registered in Russian Federation for moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Aspects of the mechanism of action, efficacy and tolerability of both basic drugs (methotrexate, cyclosporine, acitretin) and biologics (infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab pegol, ustekinumab, guselkumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, netakimab) and small molecules (tofacitinib, apremilast) are considered in detail. Special emphasis is placed on the important nuances of biological therapy: immunogenicity, drugs' survival and switch due to lack of efficacy. Invention of biologics signified a new era of moderate-to-severe psoriasis treatment. It became possible to achieve complete clinical remission more safely, which significantly improved the quality of life of patients. However, due to the unknown etiology of psoriasis, there is still no universal remedy that would allow to cure every patient, this fact makes scientists from all over the world keep conducting numerous clinical trials to find even more effective and safe therapeutic options.

Role of phototherapy in the era of biologics

Phototherapy is a safe and effective treatment for many dermatologic conditions. With the advent of novel biologics and small molecule inhibitors, it is important to critically evaluate the role of phototherapy in dermatology. Surveys have shown that many dermatology residency programs do not dedicate time to teaching residents how to prescribe or administer phototherapy. Limitations of phototherapy include access to a center, time required for treatments, and insurance approval. Home phototherapy, a viable option, is also underused. However, it should be emphasized that modern phototherapy has been in use for over 40 years, has an excellent safety profile, and does not require laboratory monitoring. It can be safely combined with many other treatment modalities, including biologics and small molecule inhibitors. In addition, phototherapy costs significantly less than these novel agents. Dermatologists are the only group of physicians who have the expertise and proper training to deliver this treatment modality to our patients. Therefore, to continue to deliver high-quality, cost-effective care, it is imperative that phototherapy be maintained as an integral part of the dermatology treatment armamentarium.

Safety considerations with combination therapies for psoriasis

Introduction: Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that waxes and wanes, and long-term remission can be difficult to achieve regardless of disease severity. Currently, numerous treatment options are available for psoriasis including steroid and non-steroid topical agents, phototherapy, oral systemic agents, and biologics, with many more therapeutic agents under development.Areas covered: This article will review various combination therapy strategies such as rotational therapy and sequential therapy and describe a variety of safe and effective combination therapies for the treatment of psoriasis. Two or more agents with different mechanisms of action and safety profiles can be used to achieve and/or maintain adequate disease control while minimizing the toxicity of treatments. Combination therapy can also be used when a single agent is not enough for treating recalcitrant disease. Choosing a combination regimen that maximizes safety and efficacy while considering patient usability and compliance can be a challenge.Expert opinion: Given the various treatment options currently available for psoriasis and more agents under development, combination therapy will continue to be a valuable treatment strategy for any patient with psoriasis. It is crucial for clinicians to carefully consider the fine balance between safety and efficacy when combining various therapeutic agents.

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.

Anti-TNF agent etanercept augments UV-induced skin cancer development in SKH-1 mice†

Background: Despite being employed in the treatment of inflammatory disorders for more than 20 years all over the world, data regarding photocarcinogenic risks of anti-TNF agents is scarce.Objective: To assess photocarcinogenic potential of anti-TNF agents.Methods: This was a placebo controlled, split-body (UVB-treated versus -untreated) study on mice. Treatment groups were infliximab (n = 11), etanercept (n = 11), cyclosporine (n = 11) and vehicle control (n = 11). Agents were introduced on the 10th week of phototherapy and continued through 24th week. The macroscopic, histological and immunohistochemical analysis of test sites were carried out.Results: Overall 132 tumors were detected on test sites. All of these tumors developed on UV-exposed sides. Histologic examination of these tumors was compatible with keratinocytic neoplasia in 128, mastocytosis in 3, epidermal cyst in 1. Median tumor burden in the UVB exposed areas for ETN, IFX, CYC, and control groups were 14.91, 10.20, 6.28, and 3.14 cm², respectively. ETN group demonstrated both higher tumor burden and keratinocytic neoplasia numbers than controls (p = .03, p = .025). Although there were 1.8 and 1.7 times more keratinocytic neoplasms in IFX and CYC groups compared to controls, these differences didn't reach statistically significant levels (p = .14; p = .19).Conclusion: This study points out to a significant photocarcinogenic potential of anti-TNF agent etanercept.

Joint American Academy of Dermatology-National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines of care for the management and treatment of psoriasis with phototherapy

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease involving multiple organ systems and affecting approximately 3.2% of the world's population. In this section of the guidelines of care for psoriasis, we will focus the discussion on ultraviolet (UV) light-based therapies, which include narrowband and broadband UVB, UVA in conjunction with photosensitizing agents, targeted UVB treatments such as with an excimer laser, and several other modalities and variations of these core phototherapies, including newer applications of pulsed dye lasers, intense pulse light, and light-emitting electrodes. We will provide an in-depth, evidence-based discussion of efficacy and safety for each treatment modality and provide recommendations and guidance for the use of these therapies alone or in conjunction with other topical and/or systemic psoriasis treatments.

Diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for plaque psoriasis - Brazilian Society of Dermatology

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects 1.3% of the Brazilian population. The most common clinical manifestations are erythematous, scaling lesions that affect both genders and can occur on any anatomical site, preferentially involving the knees, elbows, scalp and genitals. Besides the impact on the quality of life, the systemic nature of the disease makes psoriasis an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, especially in young patients with severe disease. By an initiative of the Brazilian Society of Dermatology, dermatologists with renowned clinical experience in the management of psoriasis were invited to form a work group that, in a partnership with the Brazilian Medical Association, dedicated themselves to create the Plaque Psoriasis Diagnostic and Treatment Guidelines. The relevant issues for the diagnosis (evaluation of severity and comorbidities) and treatment of plaque psoriasis were defined. The issues generated a search strategy in the Medline-PubMed database up to July 2018. Subsequently, the answers to the questions of the recommendations were devised, and each reference selected presented the respective level of recommendation and strength of scientific evidence. The final recommendations for making up the final text were worded by the coordinators.

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.

From Early Immunomodulatory Triggers to Immunosuppressive Outcome: Therapeutic Implications of the Complex Interplay Between the Wavebands of Sunlight and the Skin

Phototherapy is an efficient treatment for many cutaneous diseases that involve the activation of inflammatory pathways or the overgrowth of cells with aberrant phenotype. In this review, we discuss recent advances in photoimmunology, focusing on the effects of UV-based therapies currently used in dermatology. We describe the molecular responses to the main forms of photo(chemo)therapy such as UVB, UVA-1, and PUVA that include the triggering of apoptotic or immunosuppressive pathways and help to clear diseased skin. The early molecular response to UV involves DNA photoproducts, the isomerization of urocanic acid, the secretion of biophospholipids such as platelet activating factor (PAF), the activation of aryl hydrocarbon receptor and inflammasome, and vitamin D synthesis. The simultaneous and complex interaction of these events regulates the activity of the immune system both locally and systemically, resulting in apoptosis of neoplastic and/or benign cells, reduction of cellular infiltrate, and regulation of cytokines and chemokines. Regulatory T-cells and Langerhans cells, among other skin-resident cellular populations, are deeply affected by UV exposure and are therefore important players in the mechanisms of immunomodulation and the therapeutic value of UV in all its forms. We weigh the contribution of these cells to the therapeutic application of UV and how they may participate in transferring the direct impact of UV on the skin into local and systemic immunomodulation. Moreover, we review the therapeutic mechanisms revealed by clinical and laboratory animal investigations in the most common cutaneous diseases treated with phototherapy such as psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, vitiligo, and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Better understanding of phototherapeutic mechanisms in these diseases will help advance treatment in general and make future therapeutic strategies more precise, targeted, personalized, safe, and efficient.

S1-Leitlinie zur UV-Phototherapie und Photochemotherapie

Die heilsame Wirkung des Sonnenlichts war teilweise schon im Altertum bekannt und fand in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts wieder zunehmend Beachtung. Den Beginn der modernen Phototherapien markiert die Entwicklung einer Apparatur zur ultravioletten Bestrahlung der Hauttuberkulose durch Finnsen zu Beginn des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts. Zur Therapie von Hauterkrankungen finden beinahe ausschließlich die spektralen Bereiche unterhalb des sichtbaren Lichtes (ultraviolett) Anwendung. Seit den 1970er Jahren stehen zunehmend leistungsfähige künstliche Strahlenquellen bereit für die Therapie mit UVB, UVA und die Kombination von UVA mit Photosensibilisatoren (Photochemotherapie). Hohe strukturelle und prozedurale Qualitätsstandards sind unabdingbare Voraussetzung für die Durchführung einer gleichermaßen wirkungsvollen wie auch sicheren Phototherapie. Die Leitlinie formuliert den aktuellen Konsens führender Experten auf dem Gebiet der Phototherapie in Bezug auf die Indikationen für die jeweiligen Therapieverfahren, deren Gegenanzeigen und Nebenwirkungen und insbesondere für die Wahl der korrekten Dosis zu Beginn und im Verlauf einer Therapie sowie das Management von Nebenwirkungen.

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.

Redefining the therapeutic objective in psoriatic patients candidates for biological therapy

The advances in psoriasis management currently allow achieving a good control of the disease. In particular, with the latest developed molecules, available evidence suggests that it is possible to pose an ambitious therapeutic goal, such as a Dermatology Life Quality Index 0/1, a Physician Global Assessment 0/1, or a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 90/100 response. However, patients often fail to achieve the complete clearance of their cutaneous lesions or the improvement of disease factors that impair their quality of life. To optimize the treatment of psoriasis, it is not enough to define precisely the therapeutic objective, but also to adapt the therapeutic strategy to make the necessary modifications in case of not achieving it at the time point (at the end of the induction phase, or every 3-6 months) to be agreed with the patient (the so-called treat-to-target approach). In the present report, based on the Delphi methodology, 11 dermatologists from the Spanish Psoriasis Group addressed key issues that could be involved in the achievement and maintenance of the therapeutic goals of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. The document provides 27 consensus statements intended to support clinical decision-making by healthcare professionals for patients who might be candidates to receive biologic therapy.

Combining biologic and phototherapy treatments for psoriasis: safety, efficacy, and patient acceptability

Background

The efficacy and safety of biologic and phototherapy in treating moderate-to-severe psoriasis is well known. However, some patients may not respond well to biologic agents or phototherapy on their own and may require combination therapy. Skillfully combining a biologic agent and phototherapy may provide an additive improvement without much increase in risks.

Objective

To summarize the current state of evidence for the efficacy and safety of combining biologics with phototherapy in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

Methods

We conducted an extensive search on Pubmed database for English language literature that evaluated the use of a combination of biologic and phototherapy for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis through January 2016. The search included the following key-words: psoriasis, etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab, biologics, phototherapy, and combination therapy.

Results

The primary literature included randomized controlled trials, a head-to-head study, open-label controlled and uncontrolled trials, case series, and case reports. Etanercept was used in over half of the reported cases, but other biologic agents used included ustekinumab, adalimumab, and infliximab. The vast majority of phototherapy was narrowband ultraviolet B (NBUVB) radiation. Most cases reported enhanced improvement with combination therapy. Serious adverse events throughout the study duration were reported in <3% of the patients. Long-term adverse events cannot be excluded.

Conclusion

Combination of biologic and phototherapy appears to be a viable clinical strategy in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis not responsive to monotherapy, despite limitations in the data available. NBUVB in combination with biologics appears to be especially effective. However, the long-term impact of these combinations is yet to be determined.

Recent advances in phototherapy for psoriasis

Phototherapy involves repeated exposure of the skin to ultraviolet light to treat various inflammatory skin conditions such as psoriasis. Recent studies have identified specific immunologic effects of phototherapy that may underlie phototherapy efficacy. Furthermore, recent advancements have been made in developing safe and effective targeted phototherapy modalities for difficult-to-treat areas such as scalp psoriasis. Targeted phototherapy in the form of the excimer laser holds potential for more aggressive, effective treatment and long-lasting remission of psoriasis. Phototherapy is now also used successfully with biologic agents as combination therapy to treat recalcitrant psoriasis. Therefore, though one of the oldest therapeutic modalities for psoriasis, phototherapy remains a mainstay treatment with promise for further advancement.

Ultraviolet B Phototherapy for Psoriasis: Review of Practical Guidelines

Psoriasis is an inflammatory skin condition that affects approximately 2 % of people worldwide. Topical treatments, systemic treatments, biologic agents, and phototherapy are all treatment options for psoriasis. Ultraviolet (UV) B phototherapy is most appropriate for patients with >10 % affected body surface area who have not responded to topical treatments. This review outlines the use, dosage, safety, and efficacy of narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) and targeted phototherapy. NB-UVB and excimer laser are effective treatment options for psoriasis; they are administered two to three times weekly until clearance followed by maintenance treatment before discontinuation. Long-term data on NB-UVB indicate that it has a good safety profile. NB-UVB is commonly used with adjunctive topical treatments such as emollients, calcipotriene, cortico-steroids, retinoids, and tar. NB-UVB can be used in selected patients with traditional systemic agents such as methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, and cyclosporine, although the duration of the combined treatment should be kept to a minimum and patients need to be closely monitored. Acitretin can be safely used with phototherapy, but robust data on the combination use of biologic agents or phosphodiesterase inhibitors with phototherapy are lacking.

The Safety and Efficacy of Narrow Band Ultraviolet B Treatment in Dermatology: A Review

Narrow-band ultraviolet B (NBUVB) phototherapy is an important treatment modality in dermatology. The most common dermatological indications for NBUVB include psoriasis, atopic dermatitis and vitiligo; however, it has been found to be an effective and well-tolerated treatment option in various other dermatoses. The efficacy of NBUVB phototherapy compares favorably with other available photo(chemo)therapy options and its efficacy is further augmented by a number of topical and systemic adjuncts. The long-term safety of NBUVB phototherapy remains to be fully elucidated; however, available data now suggest that it is safe and well-tolerated. The objective of this review was to summarize the current understanding of the safety and efficacy of NBUVB phototherapy in dermatology.

Phototherapy and photochemotherapy for psoriasis

Phototherapy is a first-line option for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. Systematic reviews indicate near comparable efficacy of the different forms of phototherapy. Localized phototherapy can be an adjunctive treatment of recalcitrant plaques during systemic treatment of psoriasis. More than 200 psoralen-UV-A therapy treatment sessions is associated with an increased risk of keratinocytic cancers, whereas no increased risk has been demonstrated for narrow-band UV-B therapy. The mechanism of action of phototherapy in psoriasis is via inhibition of keratinocyte proliferation; induction of apoptosis in keratinocytes, dendritic, and T cells; and inhibition of Th1 and Th17 pathways, but activation of Th2.

Expert recommendations on treating psoriasis in special circumstances

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

A great amount of information on systemic and biologic therapies for moderate to severe psoriasis is now available. However, applying the evidence in numerous clinical scenarios has engendered debate; under these circumstances, the consensus of experts is useful.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A scientific committee systematically reviewed the literature relevant to 5 clinical scenarios. An online Delphi survey of dermatologists with experience treating moderate to severe psoriasis was then carried out in order to shed light on questions that remained unresolved by the available evidence.

RESULTS

Twenty-three dermatologists responded to the survey and consensus was reached on 37 (56%) of the 66 statements proposed. These results led to consensus on various clinical situations even though firm evidence was lacking. Thus, intermittent therapeutic regimens and strategies for reducing the intensity of treatment are considered appropriate for optimizing biologic treatment and reducing costs. The measurement of drug and antidrug antibody levels should be included routinely when following patients on biologics to treat psoriasis. Concomitant psoriatic arthritis or a history of cardiovascular conditions will influence the choice of biologic; in these situations, an agent with anti-tumor necrosis factor properties will be preferred. Tailored management is important when the patient is pregnant or intends to conceive; drug half-life and disease severity are important factors to take into consideration in these scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of systematic review of the literature and structured discussion of expert opinion facilitates decision-making in specific clinical scenarios.

Use of biologic agents in combination with other therapies for the treatment of psoriasis

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder, which is associated with a significant negative impact on a patient’s quality of life. Traditional therapies for psoriasis are often not able to meet desired treatment goals, and high-dose and/or long-term use is associated with toxicities that can result in end-organ damage. An improved understanding of the involvement of cytokines in the etiology of psoriasis has led to the development of biologic agents targeting tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α and interleukins (ILs)-12/23. While biologic agents have improved treatment outcomes, they are not effective in all individuals with psoriasis. The combination of biologic agents with traditional therapies may provide improved therapeutic options for patients who inadequately respond to a single drug or when efficacy may be increased with supplementation of another treatment. In addition, combination therapy may reduce safety concerns and cumulative toxicity, as lower doses of individual agents may be efficacious when used together. This article reviews the current evidence available on the efficacy and safety of combining biologic agents with systemic therapies (methotrexate, cyclosporine, or retinoids) or with phototherapy, and the combination of biologic agents themselves. Guidance is provided to help physicians identify situations and the characteristics of patients who would benefit from combination therapy with a biologic agent. Finally, the potential clinical impact of biologic therapies in development (e.g., those targeting IL-17A, IL-17RA, or IL-23 alone) is analyzed.

Phototherapy, psoriasis, and the age of biologics

Over 10 years have passed since the first approval of a biologic agent for the treatment of psoriasis. No one can argue that the arrival of this entirely new, highly effective class of medications has not forever changed the therapeutic landscape for psoriasis. Traditional treatments such as phototherapy, however, remain both viable and effective therapies, both as standalone treatments and in combination with biologics. In general, synergistic effects are noted for combinations utilizing phototherapy; however, the long-term impact of these combinations on skin cancer development has yet to be fully determined. Increasing financial pressures for cost-effective therapies augment the appeal of phototherapy and other traditional treatments as compared with the more costly biologics. Phototherapy also remains strong outside the realm of psoriasis, in the management of atopic dermatitis, vitiligo, and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, among other conditions. Phototherapy will remain a cornerstone in the management of psoriasis as well as nonpsoriatic skin conditions, as its efficacy is well known, its financial cost is reasonable, it is readily compatible with other therapeutics, and its utility is historically proven.

Biological therapies for psoriasis

INTRODUCTION

Biological therapies have revolutionized moderate-to-severe psoriasis treatment. Increased understanding of disease pathogenesis has yielded multiple therapeutic targets involving the IL-23/Th17 pathway, while current therapies continue to be monitored for long-term efficacy and safety.

AREAS COVERED

This review details current understanding of psoriasis immunopathogenesis specifically related to therapeutic targets. Approved and emerging biological psoriasis therapies targeting TNF-α, IL-12/23p40, IL-17 and IL-23p19 are covered. Biological agent uses in special circumstances are reviewed together with the emerging debate on biosimilar therapies and their potential future role in psoriasis and other inflammatory diseases.

EXPERT OPINION

Psoriasis treatment has expanded and has become more effective due to increased understanding of disease pathogenesis. However, lack of efficacy in select psoriasis patients, safety concerns and limited treatment efficacy in psoriasis variants (e.g., pustular) are areas which still need improvement. As such, pharmacogenomics will be of vital importance in future for individualized psoriasis care. Further, a better understanding of the multiple psoriasis comorbidities, especially cardiovascular disease, continues to be of significant interest in the psoriasis community. Last, the emergence of biosimilar agents has the potential to change psoriasis treatment, especially as it relates to better access for the psoriasis community worldwide.

Involvement of IL-9 in Th17-associated inflammation and angiogenesis of psoriasis

It is thought that a Th1/Th17-weighted immune response plays a predominant role in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. Our findings now indicate a link between IL-9, a Th2 and Th9 cytokine, and Th17 pathway in psoriasis. In K5.hTGF-β1 transgenic mice, exhibiting a psoriasis-like phenotype, we found increased IL-9R and IL-9 expression in the skin and intradermal IL-9 injection induced Th17-related inflammation. IL-9 also promoted angiogenesis and VEGF and CD31 overexpression in mice in vivo and increased tube formation of human endothelial cells in vitro. Injecting anti-IL-9 antibody into K5.hTGF-β1 transgenic mice not only diminished inflammation (including skin infiltration by T cells, monocytes/macrophages, and mast cells) and angiogenesis but also delayed the psoriasis-like skin phenotype. Notably, injection of anti-psoriatic acting anti-IL-17 antibody reduced skin IL-9 mRNA and serum IL-9 protein levels in K5.hTGF-β1 transgenic mice and prevented IL-9-induced epidermal hyperplasia and inflammation of the skin of wild type mice. In addition, we observed that IL-9R expression in lesional skin from psoriasis patients was markedly higher than in healthy skin from control subjects. Moreover, IL-9 significantly enhanced IL-17A production by cultured human peripheral blood mononuclear cells or CD4+ T cells, especially in psoriasis patients. Thus, IL-9 may play a role in the development of psoriatic lesions through Th17-associated inflammation and angiogenesis.