Safety and effectiveness of conventional systemic therapy and biological drugs in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and HIV infection: a retrospective multicenter study

Infections in the era of immunobiologicals

Immunobiologicals represent an innovative therapeutic option in dermatology. They are indicated in severe and refractory cases of different diseases when there is contraindication, intolerance, or failure of conventional systemic therapy and in cases with significant impairment of patient quality of life. The main immunobiologicals used in dermatology basically include inhibitors of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF), inhibitors of interleukin-12 and -23 (anti-IL12/23), inhibitors of interleukin-17 and its receptor (anti-IL17), inhibitors of interleukin-23 (anti-IL23), rituximab (anti-CD20 antibody), dupilumab (anti-IL4/IL13) and intravenous immunoglobulin. Their immunomodulatory action may be associated with an increase in the risk of infections in the short and long term, and each case must be assessed individually, according to the risk inherent to the drug, the patient general condition, and the need for precautions. This article will discuss the main risks of infection associated with the use of immunobiologicals, addressing the risk in immunocompetent and immunosuppressed patients, vaccination, fungal infections, tuberculosis, leprosy, and viral hepatitis, and how to manage the patient in the most diverse scenarios.

Pathomechanism of Pruritus in Psoriasis and Atopic Dermatitis: Novel Approaches, Similarities and Differences

Pruritus is defined as an unpleasant sensation that elicits a desire to scratch. Nearly a third of the world's population may suffer from pruritus during their lifetime. This symptom is widely observed in numerous inflammatory skin diseases-e.g., approximately 70-90% of patients with psoriasis and almost every patient with atopic dermatitis suffer from pruritus. Although the pathogenesis of atopic dermatitis and psoriasis is different, the complex intricacies between several biochemical mediators, enzymes, and pathways seem to play a crucial role in both conditions. Despite the high prevalence of pruritus in the general population, the pathogenesis of this symptom in various conditions remains elusive. This review aims to summarize current knowledge about the pathogenesis of pruritus in psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. Each molecule involved in the pruritic pathway would merit a separate chapter or even an entire book, however, in the current review we have concentrated on some reports which we found crucial in the understanding of pruritus. However, the pathomechanism of pruritus is an extremely complex and intricate process. Moreover, many of these signaling pathways are currently undergoing detailed analysis or are still unexplained. As a result, it is currently difficult to take an objective view of how far we have come in elucidating the pathogenesis of pruritus in the described diseases. Nevertheless, considerable progress has been made in recent years.

Biologic Therapies in HIV/AIDS Patients with Inflammatory Diseases: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Biologic therapies have been increasingly developed and used for the treatment of severe inflammatory diseases. However, the safety and efficacy profile of biologic drugs in patients with HIV is not well established as this patient population is historically excluded from clinical trials. We review the available evidence of biologic use in people with HIV. We conducted a systematic review of the literature up to June 29, 2022 and included studies that treated patients with HIV who have inflammatory disease using biologic drugs. Clinical data regarding safety and efficacy were abstracted into tables. One hundred twelve studies were included, and 179 patients were included in our study. Nearly all classes of biologics drugs had a favorable safety profile with minimal or minor adverse events. Anti-CD-20 inhibitors and TNF-alpha inhibitors were associated with opportunistic infections. Transient increase in HIV viral load was noted with use of some agents such as TNF-alpha inhibitors. The quality of evidence is low, restricted to case reports and retrospective reviews. However, the safety profile of biologics observed in these patients with HIV was overall favorable.

The impact of psoriasis biologic therapy on HIV viral load and CD4+ cell counts in HIV-positive individuals: A real-world cohort study

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory disorder that also occurs in the setting of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Biological therapy has transformed the treatment landscape for psoriasis; however, individuals with HIV are excluded from clinical trials. The impact of biological therapy on blood parameters in HIV is unclear and is only observed in small case series.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of biological therapy in psoriasis vulgaris in individuals with well-controlled HIV on CD4⁺ cell counts, CD4⁺ proportion and HIV viral load over 12 months.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary referral centre in Sydney, Australia and included 36 HIV-positive individuals with psoriasis treated with biological therapy, compared with 144 age-, gender- and HAART-matched individuals without psoriasis seen between 2010 and 2022. Outcomes of interest included HIV viral load, CD4⁺ cell count and incidence of infections.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference was seen in baseline HIV viral load and CD4⁺ count between individuals with and without psoriasis. No significant change in CD4⁺ count or HIV viral load was seen over the 12-month period of analysis in the HIV cohort without psoriasis. The HIV cohort treated with biological therapy for psoriasis also did not demonstrate any significant change in HIV viral load and CD4⁺ counts over the 12-month period examined. Stratification by type of biological therapy used did not identify any significant changes in these parameters. Rates of infections and adverse events were also not significantly different between cohorts. It is possible that minor blips seen in the biologics cohort may be a risk factor for future virological failure, and future prospective longitudinal studies are required.

CONCLUSIONS

In individuals with well-controlled HIV, the use of biological therapy for psoriasis does not significantly impact HIV viral load, CD4⁺ cell count, CD4⁺ proportion and rates of infection over the first 12 months of therapy.

Impact and Tolerance of Immunosuppressive Treatments in Patients Living with HIV with Inflammatory or Autoimmune Diseases

Background: Patients living with HIV (PLWHIV) can develop autoimmune diseases (AD) needing immunosuppressive treatments (IST). This study aims to describe the impact of IST in PLWHIV. Methods: This was a multicentric retrospective observational study in six HIV referral centers on PLWHIV under IST for AD. Demographic factors, viral co-infections, immunovirological status before and under IST, infectious events, and their descriptions were collected and described focusing on infectious events, immunovirological variations, and IST effectiveness. Results: 9480 PLWHIV were screened for inclusion. Among them, 138 (1.5%) had a history of auto-immune disease, among which 32 (23%) received IST. There was mainly spondyloarthropathy (28%) and the most commonly used IST was methotrexate. The median follow-up under IST was 3.8 years (2.7; 5.9). There were 15 infectious events (0.5 events/individuals) concerning nine patients. At the last medical follow-up, 81% of these were in remission of their AD. Under IST, there was an increase in CD4 during follow-up (629 vs. 827 CD4/mm³, p = 0.04). No HIV virological failure was noted. Conclusions: This study supports a growing evidence base that IST can be used safely and effectively in PLWHIV with careful monitoring.

Biological treatment usage in patients with HIV and rheumatic disease, 2003-2021: long-term safety and follow-up

Objective

This study examined the safety and efficacy of biological agents, especially tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, for HIV-positive rheumatology patients refractory to standard therapy.

Methods

This study is a retrospective case series including patients derived from a community HIV clinic as well as from two academic centres. Initial visit data collected included: sociodemographic characteristics, CD4 counts, HIV viral load and medication use. Patients with persistent disease activity despite standard conservative therapy were begun on biological agents. The main outcomes were patient and physician global assessment of treatment response and medication side effects in patients with rheumatological disorders treated with biological medications over time.

Results

Seventeen patients were seen from 2003 to 2021, including eight from our previous cohort published in 2008 and nine seen since then, five of whom taking TNF blockers for more than 10 years. Three (17.7%) had rheumatoid arthritis, five (29.4%) psoriatic arthritis, four (23.5%) axial spondyloarthritis and the rest (29.4%) peripheral spondyloarthritis. Antiretroviral therapy had been used in 15. All but one had at least a partial response to biological therapy. There were no major infectious episodes necessitating the discontinuation of medications with only one patient discontinuing treatment due to rising HIV viral load. Patients not on antiretroviral therapy reported no adverse side effects from biological therapy. Four patients were switched to ustekinumab, secukinumab, tocilizumab or upadacitinib from anti-TNF therapy without complications.

Conclusions

These data suggest that biological therapy, especially anti-TNF agents are safe and well tolerated in HIV positive individuals even over several years.

[Translated article] Practical Update of the Guidelines Published by the Psoriasis Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (GPs) on the Treatment of Psoriasis With Biologic Agents: Part 2-Management of Special Populations, Patients With Comorbid Conditions, and Risk

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Since its inception, the Psoriasis Group (GPs) of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (AEDV) has worked to continuously update recommendations for the treatment of psoriasis based on the best available evidence and incorporating proposals arising from and aimed at clinical practice. An updated GPs consensus document on the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis was needed because of changes in the treatment paradigm and the approval in recent years of a large number of new biologic agents.

METHODOLOGY

The consensus document was developed using the nominal group technique complemented by a scoping review. First, a designated coordinator selected a group of GPs members for the panel based on their experience and knowledge of psoriasis. The coordinator defined the objectives and key points for the document and, with the help of a documentalist, conducted a scoping review of articles in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to January 2021. The review included systematic reviews and meta-analyses as well as clinical trials not included in those studies and high-quality real-world studies. National and international clinical practice guidelines and consensus documents on the management of moderate to severe psoriasis were also reviewed. The coordinator then drew up a set of proposed recommendations, which were discussed and modified in a nominal group meeting. After several review processes, including external review by other GPs members, the final document was drafted.

RESULTS

The present guidelines include updated recommendations on assessing the severity of psoriasis and criteria for the indication of systemic treatment. They also include general principles for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and define treatment goals for these patients as well as criteria for the indication and selection of initial and subsequent therapies Practical issues, such as treatment failure and maintenance of response, are also addressed.

Use of Systemic Therapies for Treatment of Psoriasis in People Living with Controlled HIV: Inference-Based Guidance from a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel

Background

People living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) have a similar prevalence of psoriasis as the general population, though incidence and severity correlate with HIV viral load. Adequately treating HIV early renders the infection a chronic medical condition and allows PLHIV with a suppressed viral load (PLHIV-s) to live normal lives. Despite this, safety concerns and a lack of high-level data have hindered the use of systemic psoriasis therapies in PLHIV-s.

Objectives

We aim to provide a structured framework that supports healthcare professionals and patients discussing the risks and benefits of systemic psoriasis therapy in PLHIV-s. Our goal was to address the primary question, are responses to systemic therapies for the treatment of psoriasis in PLHIV-s similar to those in the non-HIV population?

Methods

We implemented an inference-based approach relying on indirect evidence when direct clinical trial data were absent. In this instance, we reviewed indirect evidence supporting inferences on the status of immune function in PLHIV. Recommendations on systemic treatment for psoriasis in PLHIV were derived using an inferential heuristic.

Results

We identified seven indirect indicators of immune function informed by largely independent bodies of evidence: (1) functional assays, (2) vaccine response, (3) life expectancy, (4) psoriasis manifestations, (5) rate of infections, (6) rate of malignancies, and (7) organ transplant outcomes.

Conclusions

Drug-related benefits and risks when treating a patient with systemic psoriasis therapies are similar for non-HIV patients and PLHIV with a suppressed viral load and normalized CD4 counts. Prior to initiating psoriasis treatment in PLHIV, HIV replication should be addressed by an HIV specialist. Exercise additional caution for patients with a suppressed viral load and discordant CD4 responses on antiretroviral therapy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13555-022-00722-0.

People living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) develop psoriasis as often as everyone else. We asked: what are effective and safe treatments when PLHIV need systemic therapy (pills or injections) for their psoriasis?

HIV infection attacks the immune system. When HIV is not treated, the immune system declines. A less effective immune system makes it harder for the body to fight infections and certain cancers. Psoriasis is a skin condition caused by overactive immune cells. Effective psoriasis treatments reduce immune-cell activity. There are some concerns that treatments for psoriasis may not work and could worsen infections or cancers.

To answer the question, we gathered 11 dermatologists and 4 HIV specialists. We reviewed the international scientific literature on PLHIV and psoriasis. The absence of direct evidence and volume of information to review made the process challenging. The end results were worthwhile.

We concluded that people who are diagnosed early and take antiretroviral therapy to control their HIV infection (PLHIV-c) can live long, healthy lives. Accordingly, we determined that PLHIV-c can likely expect the same safety and efficacy for systemic psoriasis treatments as the general population. Treatment decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis through consultation with the patient and treating physician(s).

Pillars of modern medicine are evidence-based care and collaborative decision-making. Too often, neither care provider nor patient are adequately informed. We have tried to fill one information gap for PLHIV and psoriasis. This process may help answer questions in other disease populations where direct evidence is scarce or absent.

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.

Novel Therapeutic Approaches to Psoriasis and Risk of Infectious Disease

Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated skin and joint disease, with a plethora of comorbidities, characterized by a certain genetic predisposition, and a complex pathogenesis based on the IL-23/IL-17 pathway. There is no doubt that the patients affected by psoriasis are more susceptible to infections as well as that the risk of infection is higher in psoriatic subjects than in the general population. The advent of biotechnological agents on the therapeutic arsenal actually available for the treatment of moderate-to-severe patients, given the fact that the severity of the disease is a predictor of the level of infectious risk, has raised the question of whether these ‘new’ drugs could be considered a safer option and how they can be used in selected cases. Old and newer strategies in cases of chronic infectious conditions are reviewed under the light of clinical trials and other studies present in literature.

The safety profile of biologic agents in comparison with non-biologic systemic agents, and topical compounds in the management of psoriasis-A 30-month prospective, observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although biologic agents (BAs) are very effective, solid data proving they are safer than other therapies in psoriasis are still lacking.

METHODS

A total of 289 psoriatic patients were followed for 30 months; of which number 118 were treated with topical agents alone, 112 received BAs, and the remaining 59 patients were on non-biologic systemic agents (NBSAs). The rates of adverse events in these groups were recorded and statistically analysed.

RESULTS

Patients treated with BAs had higher rates of adverse events (P = .017), including overall infections (P = .003), respiratory infections (P < .001), renal, urinary (P < .001), musculoskeletal, connective tissue (P < .001, and P = .021) and oral cavity-related (P = .046) disorders. Except for the incidence of infections, all the above adverse events occurred more often in our study than in clinical trials. The occurrence of serious adverse events was P = .066, with the incidence of serious infections being P = .164. Unlike patients on topical therapy and NBSAs, patients treated with BAs were forced to discontinue their therapies (P = .001). The Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) and body surface area (BSA) scores were the lowest among patients on BAs.

CONCLUSION

While BAs were the most effective therapies, they were associated with higher rates of treatment discontinuation and adverse events in comparison with other forms of therapy.

Use of IL-23 Inhibitors for the Treatment of Plaque Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis: A Comprehensive Review

Psoriasis is a common inflammatory skin disease with multiple comorbidities, including psoriatic arthritis and coronary artery disease, that can severely impact an individual’s quality of life and daily functioning. In recent years, enhanced understanding of the pathogenesis of psoriasis, especially the role of T helper 17 cells, has resulted in the development of new classes of biologic drugs targeting modulators along its disease pathway. Among these, inhibitors of interleukin-23 (e.g., ustekinumab, guselkumab, tildrakizumab, and risankizumab) have emerged as safe and effective options for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis; ustekinumab and guselkumab have additionally been approved to treat psoriatic arthritis. Selective interleukin-23 inhibitors require less frequent dosing than interleukin-17 inhibitors and may possess a more favorable risk profile without an increased risk of candidiasis or inflammatory bowel disease. Overall, these highly effective medications are contributing to a rising standard for psoriasis outcomes through resolution of skin lesions and joint manifestations and improvement of patient quality of life.

Biologic Treatment of 4 HIV-Positive Patients: A Case Series and Literature Review

The management of psoriatic disease in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patients is challenging. Psoriasis in HIV-positive patients is often severe, progressive, and resistant to first- and second-line therapies, including topical treatments, phototherapy, highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), and oral retinoids. Other systemic agents used to treat psoriasis, such as methotrexate and cyclosporine, are immunosuppressants and thus many dermatologists may not feel comfortable prescribing them to HIV-positive patients who are already immunocompromised. Biologic agents, which target specific aspects of overactive immune pathways in psoriasis, have revolutionized the management of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. However, data is limited regarding their safety and efficacy in HIV-positive patients.

OBJECTIVE

Report four cases of HIV-positive patients managed on biologic therapy and summarize the cases of psoriasis in HIV-positive patients managed on biologic therapy that have been published in dermatologic literature to date.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase databases using the terms HIV and psoriasis or HIV and psoriatic arthritis combined with one of the eleven biologics currently approved for treating psoriasis.

RESULTS

We identified 48 cases of anti-psoriasis biologic therapy (including adalimumab, infliximab, etanercept, ustekinumab, and guselkumab) in HIV-positive patients and added four. While data is limited, the evidence available suggests biologic agents are safe and efficacious in moderate-to-severe psoriasis and may even have a favorable effect on CD4 and HIV viral counts when used with concomitant HAART.

CONCLUSION

Further research would be helpful to establish practical guidelines for the use of anti-psoriasis biologic therapy in the HIV population, including that of newer agents.

Challenges in the treatment of psoriasis with biologics: vaccination, history of malignancy, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, and pediatric psoriasis

Biologics are potent immunomodulatory drugs, whose application in the treatment of psoriasis has shown extremely good therapeutic results and a satisfactory safety profile. The administration of these agents in special cases, such as in patients with HIV infection, previous malignancy, unclear vaccination status as well as children, can be challenging. This report is an updated systematic review of the use of biologics in the above-mentioned groups. Articles derived from the databases PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS, and published between 1989 and 2018, were analyzed for this study. The existing evidence is not in all cases sufficient in order to provide adequate insight on the management of these complex situations. The aim of this report is to present a summarized update on the knowledge of this special topic so far and to draw into attention the need to conduct more systematic studies so as to clarify the best therapeutic strategies for these special patient groups when it comes to the use of biologics.