1
|
Sbidian E, Chaimani A, Garcia-Doval I, Doney L, Dressler C, Hua C, Hughes C, Naldi L, Afach S, Le Cleach L. Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 5:CD011535. [PMID: 35603936 PMCID: PMC9125768 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011535.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emilie Sbidian
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Clinical Investigation Centre, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Anna Chaimani
- Université de Paris, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), INSERM, F-75004, Paris, France
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
| | - Ignacio Garcia-Doval
- Department of Dermatology, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo, Vigo, Spain
| | - Liz Doney
- Cochrane Skin, Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Corinna Dressler
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Camille Hua
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Carolyn Hughes
- c/o Cochrane Skin Group, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Luigi Naldi
- Centro Studi GISED (Italian Group for Epidemiologic Research in Dermatology) - FROM (Research Foundation of Ospedale Maggiore Bergamo), Padiglione Mazzoleni - Presidio Ospedaliero Matteo Rota, Bergamo, Italy
| | - Sivem Afach
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Laurence Le Cleach
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Sbidian E, Chaimani A, Garcia-Doval I, Doney L, Dressler C, Hua C, Hughes C, Naldi L, Afach S, Le Cleach L. Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 4:CD011535. [PMID: 33871055 PMCID: PMC8408312 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011535.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emilie Sbidian
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Clinical Investigation Centre, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Anna Chaimani
- Université de Paris, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), INSERM, F-75004, Paris, France
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
| | - Ignacio Garcia-Doval
- Department of Dermatology, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo, Vigo, Spain
| | - Liz Doney
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, Cochrane Skin Group, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Corinna Dressler
- Division of Evidence Based Medicine, Department of Dermatology, Venerology and Allergology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Camille Hua
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Carolyn Hughes
- c/o Cochrane Skin Group, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Luigi Naldi
- Centro Studi GISED (Italian Group for Epidemiologic Research in Dermatology) - FROM (Research Foundation of Ospedale Maggiore Bergamo), Padiglione Mazzoleni - Presidio Ospedaliero Matteo Rota, Bergamo, Italy
| | - Sivem Afach
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Laurence Le Cleach
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Sbidian E, Chaimani A, Afach S, Doney L, Dressler C, Hua C, Mazaud C, Phan C, Hughes C, Riddle D, Naldi L, Garcia-Doval I, Le Cleach L. Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 1:CD011535. [PMID: 31917873 PMCID: PMC6956468 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011535.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 62] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emilie Sbidian
- Hôpital Henri Mondor, Department of Dermatology, 51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, Créteil, France, 94000
- Hôpital Henri Mondor, Clinical Investigation Centre, Créteil, France, 94010
- Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Créteil, France
| | - Anna Chaimani
- Université de Paris, Research Center in Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS-UMR1153), Inserm, Inra, F-75004, Paris, France
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
| | - Sivem Afach
- Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Epidemiology in dermatology and evaluation of therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Créteil, France
| | - Liz Doney
- Cochrane Skin Group, The University of Nottingham, Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, A103, King's Meadow Campus, Lenton Lane, Nottingham, UK, NG7 2NR
| | - Corinna Dressler
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Division of Evidence Based Medicine, Department of Dermatology, Venerology and Allergology, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin, Germany, 10117
| | - Camille Hua
- Hôpital Henri Mondor, Department of Dermatology, 51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, Créteil, France, 94000
| | - Canelle Mazaud
- Hôpital Henri Mondor, Department of Dermatology, 51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, Créteil, France, 94000
| | - Céline Phan
- Centre Hospitalier Victor Dupouy, Department of Dermatology, Argenteuil, France
| | - Carolyn Hughes
- The University of Nottingham, c/o Cochrane Skin Group, A103, King's Meadow Campus, Lenton Lane, Nottingham, UK, NG7 2NR
| | - Dru Riddle
- Texas Christian University (TCU), School of Nurse Anesthesia, Fort Worth, Texas, USA
| | - Luigi Naldi
- Padiglione Mazzoleni - Presidio Ospedaliero Matteo Rota, Centro Studi GISED (Italian Group for Epidemiologic Research in Dermatology) - FROM (Research Foundation of Ospedale Maggiore Bergamo), Via Garibaldi 13/15, Bergamo, Italy, 24122
| | - Ignacio Garcia-Doval
- Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo, Department of Dermatology, Meixoeiro sn, Vigo, Spain, 36214
| | - Laurence Le Cleach
- Hôpital Henri Mondor, Department of Dermatology, 51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, Créteil, France, 94000
- Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Créteil, France
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Elewski B, Alexis AF, Lebwohl M, Stein Gold L, Pariser D, Del Rosso J, Yosipovitch G. Itch: an under-recognized problem in psoriasis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2019; 33:1465-1476. [PMID: 30680819 DOI: 10.1111/jdv.15450] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/01/2018] [Accepted: 12/14/2018] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
Psoriasis has historically been considered a nonpruritic dermatosis, in contrast with atopic dermatitis. Thus, itch has often been underappreciated and overlooked in psoriasis. However, increasing evidence over the past decade has shown that itch can be one of the most prevalent and burdensome symptoms associated with psoriasis, affecting almost every patient to some degree. Itch can involve the entire body, although it predominantly affects the legs, hands, back, body and especially the scalp. Uncontrolled itch can significantly impact all aspects of the well-being and quality of life of the patient. While there has been some progress in trying to better understand the pathophysiology of itch in psoriasis, more research effort and interest are needed. This under-recognition of itch in psoriasis is clearly reflected in the dearth of treatment options targeting itch despite significant advancement in treating the lesions themselves. Recently, however, clinical studies have begun to include itch as a study outcome. The resulting data have demonstrated concomitant antipruritic benefits and improved Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores with mainstay treatments for psoriasis, such as topical corticosteroids and vitamin D analogs, phototherapies, and various systemics and biologics. This article takes a closer look at this debilitating symptom, reviewing the available epidemiology data for psoriatic itch, presenting the current understanding of psoriatic itch pathophysiology and highlighting important clinical data for various treatment options for itch. Practical considerations for increasing the recognition of itch as well as improving its management in psoriasis are also provided.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B Elewski
- Department of Dermatology, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL, USA
| | - A F Alexis
- Department of Dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | - M Lebwohl
- Department of Dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | - L Stein Gold
- Department of Dermatology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA
| | - D Pariser
- Department of Dermatology, Eastern Virginia Medical School and Virginia Clinical Research, Inc., Norfolk, VA, USA
| | - J Del Rosso
- JDR Dermatology Research/Thomas Dermatology, Las Vegas, NV, USA
| | - G Yosipovitch
- Department of Dermatology, University of Miami Hospital, Miami, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Théréné C, Brenaut E, Barnetche T, Misery L. Efficacy of Systemic Treatments of Psoriasis on Pruritus: A Systemic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis. J Invest Dermatol 2018; 138:38-45. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jid.2017.05.039] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2017] [Revised: 05/17/2017] [Accepted: 05/26/2017] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
|
6
|
Sbidian E, Chaimani A, Garcia‐Doval I, Do G, Hua C, Mazaud C, Droitcourt C, Hughes C, Ingram JR, Naldi L, Chosidow O, Le Cleach L. Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 12:CD011535. [PMID: 29271481 PMCID: PMC6486272 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011535.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 92] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Ignacio Garcia‐Doval
- Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de VigoDepartment of DermatologyTorrecedeira 10, 2º AVigoSpain36202
| | - Giao Do
- Hôpital Henri MondorDepartment of Dermatology51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de TassignyCréteilFrance94000
| | - Camille Hua
- Hôpital Henri MondorDepartment of Dermatology51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de TassignyCréteilFrance94000
| | - Canelle Mazaud
- Hôpital Henri MondorDepartment of Dermatology51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de TassignyCréteilFrance94000
| | - Catherine Droitcourt
- Université de Rennes 1Department of Dermatology2 rue Henri le GuillouxRennesFrance35000
| | - Carolyn Hughes
- The University of Nottinghamc/o Cochrane Skin GroupA103, King's Meadow CampusLenton LaneNottinghamUKNG7 2NR
| | - John R Ingram
- Cardiff UniversityDepartment of Dermatology & Wound Healing, Cardiff Institute of Infection & Immunity3rd Floor Glamorgan HouseHeath ParkCardiffUKCF14 4XN
| | - Luigi Naldi
- Padiglione Mazzoleni ‐ Presidio Ospedaliero Matteo RotaCentro Studi GISED (Italian Group for Epidemiologic Research in Dermatology) ‐ FROM (Research Foundation of Ospedale Maggiore Bergamo)Via Garibaldi 13/15BergamoItaly24122
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Abstract
Pruritus is a common and significant symptom among patients with psoriasis. Pruritus is often present beyond the borders of psoriatic plaques, and frequently affects the scalp and genital regions. Psoriatic itch may be severe and can profoundly affect quality of life and sleep, even in the context of mild-to-moderate disease. These features often make the treatment of psoriatic pruritus challenging. However, there are a variety of effective topical and systemic treatment modalities available to address this symptom. While there remains a need for treatments that specifically target psoriatic itch, newly licensed therapies including secukinumab, ixekizumab and apremilast have been shown to rapidly and effectively mediate itch reduction.
Collapse
|
8
|
Zóka A, Barna G, Hadarits O, Al-Aissa Z, Wichmann B, Műzes G, Somogyi A, Firneisz G. Altered crosstalk in the dipeptidyl peptidase-4-incretin-immune system in type 1 diabetes: A hypothesis generating pilot study. Hum Immunol 2015; 76:667-72. [PMID: 26434625 DOI: 10.1016/j.humimm.2015.09.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2015] [Revised: 07/31/2015] [Accepted: 09/27/2015] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
Both GLP1(7)(-)(36) (via GLP1 receptor) and the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) cleaved form of GLP1 (GLP1(9)(-)(36), independently of GLP1R) may modulate the response of lymphocytes to cytokine stimuli. The incretin axis, CXCR3 (receptor of DPP4 ligand cytokines CXCL9-11) expression on T(reg)s and hematologic parameters were assessed in 34 patients with long standing type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and in 35 healthy controls. Serum DPP4 (sDPP4) activity, plasma total GLP1 and GLP1(7)(-)(36) concentrations were determined. GLP1(9)(-)(36) concentrations were calculated. CXCR3 expression (flow cytometry) was higher on the CD25(-/)(low)Foxp3(+) than on the CD25(+)Foxp3(+) T(reg)s independently from T1DM, suggesting that CD25(-/)(low)Foxp3(+) T(reg)s are possibly waiting for orientational chemotactic stimuli in a "standby mode". The higher sDPP4 activities in T1DM were inversely correlated with GLP1(7)(-)(36) levels and GLP1(9)(-)(36) levels directly with lymphocyte counts in controls. Our results might indicate an altered DPP4-incretin system and altered immunoregulation including a potentially dysfunctional GLP1(9)(-)(36) signaling in T1DM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- András Zóka
- 2nd Department of Medicine, Semmelweis University, 46 Szentkirályi Street, 1088 Budapest, Hungary
| | - Gábor Barna
- 1st Department of Pathology and Experimental Cancer Research, Semmelweis University, 26 Üllői Street, 1085 Budapest, Hungary
| | - Orsolya Hadarits
- 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Semmelweis University, 27 Baross Street, 1085 Budapest, Hungary
| | - Zahra Al-Aissa
- 2nd Department of Medicine, Semmelweis University, 46 Szentkirályi Street, 1088 Budapest, Hungary
| | - Barna Wichmann
- Molecular Medicine Research Unit, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 7 Nádor Street, 1051 Budapest, Hungary
| | - Györgyi Műzes
- 2nd Department of Medicine, Semmelweis University, 46 Szentkirályi Street, 1088 Budapest, Hungary
| | - Anikó Somogyi
- 2nd Department of Medicine, Semmelweis University, 46 Szentkirályi Street, 1088 Budapest, Hungary
| | - Gábor Firneisz
- 2nd Department of Medicine, Semmelweis University, 46 Szentkirályi Street, 1088 Budapest, Hungary.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Kim DS, Shin D, Lee MS, Kim HJ, Kim DY, Kim SM, Lee MG. Assessments of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio and platelet to lymphocyte ratio in Korean patients with psoriasis vulgaris and psoriatic arthritis. J Dermatol 2015; 43:305-10. [PMID: 26381893 DOI: 10.1111/1346-8138.13061] [Citation(s) in RCA: 108] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/06/2015] [Accepted: 07/01/2015] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
The objective of this retrospective study is to assess neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR) as inflammatory markers in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). A hundred and eleven psoriasis patients and 25 PsA patients were compared with 94 healthy controls. Demographic, clinical and laboratory information were collected and analyzed. NLR and PLR were calculated. White blood cell (WBC), neutrophils, eosinophils and NLR were increased in psoriasis patients compared with controls. WBC, neutrophils, NLR, monocytes, platelets and PLR were increased in PsA patients compared with both controls and psoriasis patients. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein were significantly higher in PsA patients compared with psoriasis patients. Among psoriasis patients, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score correlated positively with platelets, NLR and PLR. These parameters were all significantly higher in moderate to severe psoriasis patients (PASI ≥ 10) compared with mild patients (PASI < 10). Elevated platelets, NLR and PLR were significantly associated with the increased PASI scores in multivariate analysis. NLR, PLR and ESR were statistically significant predictors for the presence of PsA in psoriasis patients. NLR was the strongest predictor (odds ratio = 3.351, P = 0.005). In conclusion, elevated NLR and PLR were significantly associated with psoriasis and PsA. Both NLR and PLR were strong predictors for the presence of PsA among psoriasis patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dae Suk Kim
- Department of Dermatology, Severance Hospital, Cutaneous Biology Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Dongyun Shin
- Department of Dermatology, Severance Hospital, Cutaneous Biology Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Min Seok Lee
- Department of Dermatology, Severance Hospital, Cutaneous Biology Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Hee Ju Kim
- Department of Dermatology, Severance Hospital, Cutaneous Biology Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Do Young Kim
- Department of Dermatology, Severance Hospital, Cutaneous Biology Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Soo Min Kim
- Department of Dermatology, National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, South Korea
| | - Min-Geol Lee
- Department of Dermatology, Severance Hospital, Cutaneous Biology Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.,Brain Korea 21 Plus Project for Medical Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Mansur AT, Göktay F, Yaşar SP. Peripheral blood eosinophilia in association with generalized pustular and erythrodermic psoriasis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2007; 22:451-5. [PMID: 18070018 DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2007.02489.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In recent studies, it has been documented that the eosinophil cells play active role in many kinds of inflammatory disorders. Measurements of the mediators released by eosinophils and cell counts in serum and skin have provided some evidence indicating the role of eosinophils in psoriasis. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the blood eosinophil cell count in patients with erythrodermic psoriasis and generalized pustular psoriasis. METHODS In this study, 48 patients with histopathologically proven psoriasis (33 with erythrodermic, 15 with generalized pustular); 43 patients with maculopapular, erythematous, or bullous drug eruption with widespread involvement; and 51 patients with basal cell carcinoma were included. These three groups were compared with each other in terms of their absolute eosinophil cell counts and percentage of eosinophils. RESULTS Forty-one point seven per cent of patients with psoriasis had peripheral blood eosinophilia compared with 58.1% of the patients with drug eruption and 11.8% of patients with basal cell carcinoma. The percentage of patients with eosinophilia both in patients suffering from psoriasis and drug eruption were significantly increased compared with the patients with basal cell carcinoma (P < 0.001). The absolute median eosinophil cell counts both in patients with psoriasis and drug eruption were also significantly differed from patients with basal cell carcinoma (259.2, 439.1 and 183.1, respectively; P < 0.001) CONCLUSIONS Peripheral blood eosinophilia seems to be associated with severe forms of psoriasis. This finding may suggest that the eosinophils have significant roles in the pathogenesis of these types of psoriasis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A T Mansur
- Department of Dermatology, Haydarpaşa Numune Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Perossini M, Turio E, Perossini T, Romagnoli M, Benedetti S, Cei G, Barachini P, Nardi M. Pattern VEP alterations in psoriatic patients may indicate a sub clinic optic neuritis. Doc Ophthalmol 2006; 110:203-7. [PMID: 16328928 DOI: 10.1007/s10633-005-4830-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/28/2005] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Abstract
We examined 44 subject (Group A) of both sexes (27 males and 17 females) aging between 16 and 80 (average: 45+/-16.6), divided into age bands, affected by mild-medium psoriasis with PASI (psoriasis area and severity index) between 1.2 and 48.6 (average: 11.2+/-9.7) without any other disease and we performed pattern transient VEP (Visual Evoked Potential) at the frequencies usually used in clinical experience (73', 36', 18' check size). For a good statistic comparison we choose 55 healthy subjects (group B) divided into age bands on which we performed the same test. Comparison of VEP parameters between psoriatic and healthy subjects, showed in group A 10 normal (22.7%) and 34 pathological (77.3%). In the latter group there are 16 subjects who show only a P100 reduced amplitude (36.3%), 3 with only increased latency (6.8%), 15 with alterations of both values (34%). The achieved data show that more than 3/4 of group A subjects have VEP alterations as index of the presence of a sub clinic optic neuritis with a probably toxic autoimmune origin due to the action of TNFalpha, of IgG, of ECP or of other cytokines (IL6, IL7, etc) that are increased in the blood of this patients. The electro physiologic monitoring of optic nerve seems to represent a good routine test to evaluate the global conditions of psoriatic patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Perossini
- Clinica Oculistica, Università di Pisa, Italy.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|