Psoriasis

Patients taking methotrexate for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were at a higher risk of developing liver disease than were patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on methotrexate, in a large population-based study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/ThinkStockPhotos.com

“These findings suggest that conservative liver monitoring is warranted in patients receiving methotrexate for psoriatic disease,” particularly psoriasis, the investigators concluded.

• Mild liver disease: The IR per 1,000 person-years for patients with psoriasis was 4.22 per 1,000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 3.61-4.91), compared with 2.39 per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, 1.95-2.91) for patients with PsA, and 1.39 per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, 1.25-1.55) for patients with RA.
• Moderate to severe liver disease: The IR for patients with psoriasis was 0.98 per 1,000 person years (95% CI, 0.70-1.33), compared with 0.51 (95% CI, 0.32-0.77) for patients with PsA, and 0.46 (95% CI, 0.37-0.55) for patients with RA.
• Cirrhosis: The IR for patients with psoriasis was 1.89 per 1,000 person years (95% CI, 1.49-2.37), compared with 0.84 (95% CI, 0.59-1.16) for patients with PsA, and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.34-0.51) for patients with RA.
• Cirrhosis-related hospitalization: This was the least common outcome, with an IR per 1,000 person years of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.49-1.05) for patients with psoriasis, 0.32 (95% CI, 0.18-0.54) for patients with PsA, and 0.22 (95% CI, 0.17-0.29) for patients with RA.

When results were adjusted with Cox regression analyses, the psoriasis group had a significantly increased risk compared with the RA group with regard to mild liver disease (hazard ratio, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.81-2.72), moderate to-severe liver disease (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.31), cirrhosis (HR, 3.38; 95% CI, 2.44-4.68), and cirrhosis-related hospitalization (HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.37-3.69). Compared with patients with RA, patients with PsA had a significantly increased risk of mild liver disease (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.01-1.60) and cirrhosis (HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.10-2.42), but not moderate to severe liver disease or hospitalizations related to cirrhosis.

The researchers noted it is unclear why there was a difference in risk between the three groups of patients.

“While such differences in hepatotoxicity risk were previously attributed to differences in rates of alcoholism, obesity, diabetes, and other comorbidities between the disease populations, our study finds that the underlying disease influences liver disease risk independent of age, sex, smoking, alcohol use, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, overall comorbidity, and weekly methotrexate dose,” wrote Dr. Gelfand and colleagues.

As far as they know, their study “ is one of the first and largest population-based studies to directly compare” liver disease in these three groups of patients on methotrexate, they wrote, noting that earlier studies were smaller and frequently used indirect hepatic injury measures.

Limitations of the study included the inability to account for disease severity as well as the potential for disease misclassification, surveillance bias, and confounding by unmeasured variables such as body mass index. Further, the results do not show whether “liver disease is attributed to methotrexate use, the underlying disease, or a combination of both,” the researchers noted.

Four authors report relationships in the form of consultancies, continuing medical information payments, deputy editor positions, fellowship support, individual or spousal honoraria, patents, research grants, and/or speaker positions with various pharmaceutical companies, medical journals, societies, and other organizations; two authors had no disclosures. There was no funding source.

Patients taking methotrexate for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were at a higher risk of developing liver disease than were patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on methotrexate, in a large population-based study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/ThinkStockPhotos.com

“These findings suggest that conservative liver monitoring is warranted in patients receiving methotrexate for psoriatic disease,” particularly psoriasis, the investigators concluded.

• Mild liver disease: The IR per 1,000 person-years for patients with psoriasis was 4.22 per 1,000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 3.61-4.91), compared with 2.39 per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, 1.95-2.91) for patients with PsA, and 1.39 per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, 1.25-1.55) for patients with RA.
• Moderate to severe liver disease: The IR for patients with psoriasis was 0.98 per 1,000 person years (95% CI, 0.70-1.33), compared with 0.51 (95% CI, 0.32-0.77) for patients with PsA, and 0.46 (95% CI, 0.37-0.55) for patients with RA.
• Cirrhosis: The IR for patients with psoriasis was 1.89 per 1,000 person years (95% CI, 1.49-2.37), compared with 0.84 (95% CI, 0.59-1.16) for patients with PsA, and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.34-0.51) for patients with RA.
• Cirrhosis-related hospitalization: This was the least common outcome, with an IR per 1,000 person years of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.49-1.05) for patients with psoriasis, 0.32 (95% CI, 0.18-0.54) for patients with PsA, and 0.22 (95% CI, 0.17-0.29) for patients with RA.

When results were adjusted with Cox regression analyses, the psoriasis group had a significantly increased risk compared with the RA group with regard to mild liver disease (hazard ratio, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.81-2.72), moderate to-severe liver disease (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.31), cirrhosis (HR, 3.38; 95% CI, 2.44-4.68), and cirrhosis-related hospitalization (HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.37-3.69). Compared with patients with RA, patients with PsA had a significantly increased risk of mild liver disease (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.01-1.60) and cirrhosis (HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.10-2.42), but not moderate to severe liver disease or hospitalizations related to cirrhosis.

The researchers noted it is unclear why there was a difference in risk between the three groups of patients.

“While such differences in hepatotoxicity risk were previously attributed to differences in rates of alcoholism, obesity, diabetes, and other comorbidities between the disease populations, our study finds that the underlying disease influences liver disease risk independent of age, sex, smoking, alcohol use, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, overall comorbidity, and weekly methotrexate dose,” wrote Dr. Gelfand and colleagues.

As far as they know, their study “ is one of the first and largest population-based studies to directly compare” liver disease in these three groups of patients on methotrexate, they wrote, noting that earlier studies were smaller and frequently used indirect hepatic injury measures.

Limitations of the study included the inability to account for disease severity as well as the potential for disease misclassification, surveillance bias, and confounding by unmeasured variables such as body mass index. Further, the results do not show whether “liver disease is attributed to methotrexate use, the underlying disease, or a combination of both,” the researchers noted.

Four authors report relationships in the form of consultancies, continuing medical information payments, deputy editor positions, fellowship support, individual or spousal honoraria, patents, research grants, and/or speaker positions with various pharmaceutical companies, medical journals, societies, and other organizations; two authors had no disclosures. There was no funding source.

Patients taking methotrexate for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were at a higher risk of developing liver disease than were patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on methotrexate, in a large population-based study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/ThinkStockPhotos.com

“These findings suggest that conservative liver monitoring is warranted in patients receiving methotrexate for psoriatic disease,” particularly psoriasis, the investigators concluded.

• Mild liver disease: The IR per 1,000 person-years for patients with psoriasis was 4.22 per 1,000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 3.61-4.91), compared with 2.39 per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, 1.95-2.91) for patients with PsA, and 1.39 per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, 1.25-1.55) for patients with RA.
• Moderate to severe liver disease: The IR for patients with psoriasis was 0.98 per 1,000 person years (95% CI, 0.70-1.33), compared with 0.51 (95% CI, 0.32-0.77) for patients with PsA, and 0.46 (95% CI, 0.37-0.55) for patients with RA.
• Cirrhosis: The IR for patients with psoriasis was 1.89 per 1,000 person years (95% CI, 1.49-2.37), compared with 0.84 (95% CI, 0.59-1.16) for patients with PsA, and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.34-0.51) for patients with RA.
• Cirrhosis-related hospitalization: This was the least common outcome, with an IR per 1,000 person years of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.49-1.05) for patients with psoriasis, 0.32 (95% CI, 0.18-0.54) for patients with PsA, and 0.22 (95% CI, 0.17-0.29) for patients with RA.

When results were adjusted with Cox regression analyses, the psoriasis group had a significantly increased risk compared with the RA group with regard to mild liver disease (hazard ratio, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.81-2.72), moderate to-severe liver disease (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.31), cirrhosis (HR, 3.38; 95% CI, 2.44-4.68), and cirrhosis-related hospitalization (HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.37-3.69). Compared with patients with RA, patients with PsA had a significantly increased risk of mild liver disease (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.01-1.60) and cirrhosis (HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.10-2.42), but not moderate to severe liver disease or hospitalizations related to cirrhosis.

The researchers noted it is unclear why there was a difference in risk between the three groups of patients.

“While such differences in hepatotoxicity risk were previously attributed to differences in rates of alcoholism, obesity, diabetes, and other comorbidities between the disease populations, our study finds that the underlying disease influences liver disease risk independent of age, sex, smoking, alcohol use, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, overall comorbidity, and weekly methotrexate dose,” wrote Dr. Gelfand and colleagues.

As far as they know, their study “ is one of the first and largest population-based studies to directly compare” liver disease in these three groups of patients on methotrexate, they wrote, noting that earlier studies were smaller and frequently used indirect hepatic injury measures.

Limitations of the study included the inability to account for disease severity as well as the potential for disease misclassification, surveillance bias, and confounding by unmeasured variables such as body mass index. Further, the results do not show whether “liver disease is attributed to methotrexate use, the underlying disease, or a combination of both,” the researchers noted.

Four authors report relationships in the form of consultancies, continuing medical information payments, deputy editor positions, fellowship support, individual or spousal honoraria, patents, research grants, and/or speaker positions with various pharmaceutical companies, medical journals, societies, and other organizations; two authors had no disclosures. There was no funding source.

More than half of respondents to a recent survey looking at how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected people with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) said that they had avoided seeking medical care in person with a doctor or at a hospital.

Courtesy National Psoriasis Foundation

Moreover, around a quarter had their appointment with a rheumatologist canceled, rescheduled, or conducted virtually. Another 1 in 10 had their treatment plan disrupted, and 6% had to change or stop treatment entirely.

The mental health impact of living with these conditions during the pandemic was also notable, said Rachael Manion, the executive director of the Canadian Association of Psoriasis Patients (CAPP), which conducted the survey in collaboration with the Canadian Psoriasis Network (CPN) and Unmasking Psoriasis.

“It’s important to know that there have been a lot of different impacts of the pandemic on people living with psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. Mental health in particular has had a really big hit as a result,” she said at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact.

“About half of the people who responded to our survey noted that their mental health was ‘worse’ or ‘much worse’ during the pandemic,” she said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis. Anxiety and feelings of isolation were reported by a respective 57% and 58% of respondents, and 40% reported depression.

“We can compare that to our earlier information around depression,” Ms. Manion said, which showed that, prior to the pandemic, 24% of people with psoriasis and 23% of those with PsA had said they experienced depression.

“What I found alarming looking at these results was that about a third of people were experiencing despair. Now that’s a really big, scary, overwhelming emotion that has a lot of burden on your mental health,” Ms. Manion said.

Despite the substantial effects on mental health, only 29% of respondents said they had been able to access mental health services during the pandemic.

To look at the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the psoriasis and PsA community in Canada, three patient advocacy groups – CAPP, CPN, and Unmasking Psoriasis – codeveloped a survey to look at the disease experience before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was performed once, with 830 respondents providing information on their lives with psoriasis or PsA in the months before the start of the pandemic and at the time they were surveyed in September and October 2020.

Most of the survey respondents lived in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, or Alberta, although other provinces or territories were represented. Almost all respondents (96%) had psoriasis, and 60% also had PsA.

Pre-COVID, nearly half (49%) of patients said that they had not been seen by a rheumatologist, and 39% had not seen a dermatologist for treatment. Asked why, 56% and 27%, respectively, had not been referred, 9% and 15% said they had no specialist located nearby, and 7% and 10% stated that the wait list was too long.

“This tells us that there’s a lot more work that can be done and a lot more education of general practitioners and family medicine professionals about the benefits and the value of specialized care for psoriatic arthritis,” Ms. Manion suggested.

Before the pandemic, joint pain was occurring in 88% of patients, stiffness in 71%, and joint swelling in 67%. Disease flares or sudden periods of worsening occurred on a daily basis for 17%, and around one in five (21%) experienced multiple flares every month.

Prepandemic data also highlighted the negative impact that living with psoriasis or PsA has on people’s ability to sleep, interactions and intimacy with others, and on their school or work lives.

During the pandemic, around a quarter (26%) of respondents said they had worse or much worse access to employment, as well as its benefits such as a stable income (24%). A minority of respondent also described worse access to prescription medication (15%) and over-the-counter medication (13%).

“There are all kinds of things going on for patients in our community: changes to their work, changes to their drug coverage, their ability to sleep and sleep well, their mental health, and their ability to access care and treatments as part of their disease management,” Ms. Manion said.

Her final message to health care professionals was: “I just want to encourage you to continue to check in with your patients about what their experiences have been during the pandemic, and to really consider those impacts as you’re working with them to manage their disease.”

The survey received funding support from AbbVie, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, LEO Pharma, and Novartis.

More than half of respondents to a recent survey looking at how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected people with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) said that they had avoided seeking medical care in person with a doctor or at a hospital.

Courtesy National Psoriasis Foundation

Moreover, around a quarter had their appointment with a rheumatologist canceled, rescheduled, or conducted virtually. Another 1 in 10 had their treatment plan disrupted, and 6% had to change or stop treatment entirely.

The mental health impact of living with these conditions during the pandemic was also notable, said Rachael Manion, the executive director of the Canadian Association of Psoriasis Patients (CAPP), which conducted the survey in collaboration with the Canadian Psoriasis Network (CPN) and Unmasking Psoriasis.

“It’s important to know that there have been a lot of different impacts of the pandemic on people living with psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. Mental health in particular has had a really big hit as a result,” she said at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact.

“About half of the people who responded to our survey noted that their mental health was ‘worse’ or ‘much worse’ during the pandemic,” she said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis. Anxiety and feelings of isolation were reported by a respective 57% and 58% of respondents, and 40% reported depression.

“We can compare that to our earlier information around depression,” Ms. Manion said, which showed that, prior to the pandemic, 24% of people with psoriasis and 23% of those with PsA had said they experienced depression.

“What I found alarming looking at these results was that about a third of people were experiencing despair. Now that’s a really big, scary, overwhelming emotion that has a lot of burden on your mental health,” Ms. Manion said.

Despite the substantial effects on mental health, only 29% of respondents said they had been able to access mental health services during the pandemic.

To look at the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the psoriasis and PsA community in Canada, three patient advocacy groups – CAPP, CPN, and Unmasking Psoriasis – codeveloped a survey to look at the disease experience before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was performed once, with 830 respondents providing information on their lives with psoriasis or PsA in the months before the start of the pandemic and at the time they were surveyed in September and October 2020.

Most of the survey respondents lived in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, or Alberta, although other provinces or territories were represented. Almost all respondents (96%) had psoriasis, and 60% also had PsA.

Pre-COVID, nearly half (49%) of patients said that they had not been seen by a rheumatologist, and 39% had not seen a dermatologist for treatment. Asked why, 56% and 27%, respectively, had not been referred, 9% and 15% said they had no specialist located nearby, and 7% and 10% stated that the wait list was too long.

“This tells us that there’s a lot more work that can be done and a lot more education of general practitioners and family medicine professionals about the benefits and the value of specialized care for psoriatic arthritis,” Ms. Manion suggested.

Before the pandemic, joint pain was occurring in 88% of patients, stiffness in 71%, and joint swelling in 67%. Disease flares or sudden periods of worsening occurred on a daily basis for 17%, and around one in five (21%) experienced multiple flares every month.

Prepandemic data also highlighted the negative impact that living with psoriasis or PsA has on people’s ability to sleep, interactions and intimacy with others, and on their school or work lives.

During the pandemic, around a quarter (26%) of respondents said they had worse or much worse access to employment, as well as its benefits such as a stable income (24%). A minority of respondent also described worse access to prescription medication (15%) and over-the-counter medication (13%).

“There are all kinds of things going on for patients in our community: changes to their work, changes to their drug coverage, their ability to sleep and sleep well, their mental health, and their ability to access care and treatments as part of their disease management,” Ms. Manion said.

Her final message to health care professionals was: “I just want to encourage you to continue to check in with your patients about what their experiences have been during the pandemic, and to really consider those impacts as you’re working with them to manage their disease.”

The survey received funding support from AbbVie, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, LEO Pharma, and Novartis.

More than half of respondents to a recent survey looking at how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected people with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) said that they had avoided seeking medical care in person with a doctor or at a hospital.

Courtesy National Psoriasis Foundation

Moreover, around a quarter had their appointment with a rheumatologist canceled, rescheduled, or conducted virtually. Another 1 in 10 had their treatment plan disrupted, and 6% had to change or stop treatment entirely.

The mental health impact of living with these conditions during the pandemic was also notable, said Rachael Manion, the executive director of the Canadian Association of Psoriasis Patients (CAPP), which conducted the survey in collaboration with the Canadian Psoriasis Network (CPN) and Unmasking Psoriasis.

“It’s important to know that there have been a lot of different impacts of the pandemic on people living with psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. Mental health in particular has had a really big hit as a result,” she said at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact.

“About half of the people who responded to our survey noted that their mental health was ‘worse’ or ‘much worse’ during the pandemic,” she said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis. Anxiety and feelings of isolation were reported by a respective 57% and 58% of respondents, and 40% reported depression.

“We can compare that to our earlier information around depression,” Ms. Manion said, which showed that, prior to the pandemic, 24% of people with psoriasis and 23% of those with PsA had said they experienced depression.

“What I found alarming looking at these results was that about a third of people were experiencing despair. Now that’s a really big, scary, overwhelming emotion that has a lot of burden on your mental health,” Ms. Manion said.

Despite the substantial effects on mental health, only 29% of respondents said they had been able to access mental health services during the pandemic.

To look at the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the psoriasis and PsA community in Canada, three patient advocacy groups – CAPP, CPN, and Unmasking Psoriasis – codeveloped a survey to look at the disease experience before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was performed once, with 830 respondents providing information on their lives with psoriasis or PsA in the months before the start of the pandemic and at the time they were surveyed in September and October 2020.

Most of the survey respondents lived in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, or Alberta, although other provinces or territories were represented. Almost all respondents (96%) had psoriasis, and 60% also had PsA.

Pre-COVID, nearly half (49%) of patients said that they had not been seen by a rheumatologist, and 39% had not seen a dermatologist for treatment. Asked why, 56% and 27%, respectively, had not been referred, 9% and 15% said they had no specialist located nearby, and 7% and 10% stated that the wait list was too long.

“This tells us that there’s a lot more work that can be done and a lot more education of general practitioners and family medicine professionals about the benefits and the value of specialized care for psoriatic arthritis,” Ms. Manion suggested.

Before the pandemic, joint pain was occurring in 88% of patients, stiffness in 71%, and joint swelling in 67%. Disease flares or sudden periods of worsening occurred on a daily basis for 17%, and around one in five (21%) experienced multiple flares every month.

Prepandemic data also highlighted the negative impact that living with psoriasis or PsA has on people’s ability to sleep, interactions and intimacy with others, and on their school or work lives.

During the pandemic, around a quarter (26%) of respondents said they had worse or much worse access to employment, as well as its benefits such as a stable income (24%). A minority of respondent also described worse access to prescription medication (15%) and over-the-counter medication (13%).

“There are all kinds of things going on for patients in our community: changes to their work, changes to their drug coverage, their ability to sleep and sleep well, their mental health, and their ability to access care and treatments as part of their disease management,” Ms. Manion said.

Her final message to health care professionals was: “I just want to encourage you to continue to check in with your patients about what their experiences have been during the pandemic, and to really consider those impacts as you’re working with them to manage their disease.”

The survey received funding support from AbbVie, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, LEO Pharma, and Novartis.

In support of previously published case reports, a study using cross-linked national population data in Denmark has now associated cumulative exposure to high-potency topical steroids with osteoporotic fractures in a dose-response relationship.

In a stepwise manner, the hazard ratios for major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) were found to start climbing incrementally for those with a cumulative topical steroid dose equivalent of more than 500 g of mometasone furoate when compared with exposure of 200-499 g, according to the team of investigators from the University of Copenhagen.

“Use of these drugs is very common, and we found an estimated population-attributable risk of as much as 4.3%,” the investigators reported in the study, published in JAMA Dermatology.

The retrospective cohort study drew data from the Danish National Patient Registry, which covers 99% of the country’s population. It was linked to the Danish National Prescription Registry, which captures data on pharmacy-dispensed medications. Data collected from the beginning of 2003 to the end of 2017 were evaluated.

Exposures to potent or very potent topical corticosteroids were converted into a single standard with potency equivalent to 1 mg/g of mometasone furoate. Four strata of exposure were compared to a reference exposure of 200-499 g. These were 500-999 g, 1,000-1,999 g, 2,000-9,999 g, and 10,000 g or greater.

For the first strata, the small increased risk for MOF did not reach significance (HR, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.03), but each of the others did. These climbed from a 5% greater risk (HR 1.05 95% CI 1.02-1.08) for a cumulative exposure of 1,000 to 1,999 g, to a 10% greater risk (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.13) for a cumulative exposure of 2,000-9,999 g, and finally to a 27% greater risk (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.19-1.35) for a cumulative exposure of 10,000 g or higher.

The study included more than 700,000 individuals exposed to topical mometasone at a potency equivalent of 200 g or more over the study period. The reference group (200-499 g) was the largest (317,907 individuals). The first strata (500-999 g) included 186,359 patients; the second (1,000-1,999 g), 111,203 patients; the third (2,000-9,999 g), 94,334 patients; and the fifth (10,000 g or more), 13,448 patients.

“A 3% increase in the relative risk of osteoporosis and MOF was observed per doubling of the TCS dose,” according to the investigators.

Patients exposed to doses of high-potency topical steroids that put them at risk of MOF is limited but substantial, according to the senior author, Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology and allergy at Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen.

“It is true that the risk is modest for the average user of topical steroids,” Dr. Egeberg said in an interview. However, despite the fact that topical steroids are intended for short-term use, “2% of all our users had been exposed to the equivalent of 10,000 g of mometasone, which mean 100 tubes of 100 g.”

If the other two strata at significantly increased risk of MOF (greater than 1,000 g) are included, an additional 28% of all users are facing the potential for clinically significant osteoporosis, according to the Danish data.

The adverse effect of steroids on bone metabolism has been established previously, and several studies have linked systemic corticosteroid exposure, including inhaled corticosteroids, with increased risk of osteoporotic fracture. For example, one study showed that patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on daily inhaled doses of the equivalent of fluticasone at or above 1,000 mcg for more than 4 years had about a 10% increased risk of MOF relative to those not exposed.

The data associate topical steroids with increased risk of osteoporotic fracture, but Dr. Egeberg said osteoporosis is not the only reason to use topical steroids prudently.

“It is important to keep in mind that osteoporosis and fractures are at the extreme end of the side-effect profile and that other side effects, such as striae formation, skin thinning, and dysregulated diabetes, can occur with much lower quantities of topical steroids,” Dr. Egeberg said

For avoiding this risk, “there are no specific cutoffs” recommended for topical steroids in current guidelines, but dermatologists should be aware that many of the indications for topical steroids, such as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, involve skin with an impaired barrier function, exposing patients to an increased likelihood of absorption, according to Dr. Egeberg.

“A general rule of thumb that we use is that, if a patient with persistent disease activity requires a new prescription of the equivalent of 100 g mometasone every 1-2 months, it might be worth considering if there is a suitable alternative,” Dr. Egeberg said.

In an accompanying editorial, Rebecca D. Jackson, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism in the department of internal medicine at Ohio State University, Columbus, agreed that no guidelines specific to avoiding the risks of topical corticosteroids are currently available, but she advised clinicians to be considering these risks nonetheless. In general, she suggested that topical steroids, like oral steroids, should be used at “the lowest dose for the shortest duration necessary to manage the underlying medical condition.”

The correlation between topical corticosteroids and increased risk of osteoporotic fracture, although not established previously in a large study, is not surprising, according to Victoria Werth, MD, chief of dermatology at the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Hospital and professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia.

“Systemic absorption of potent topical steroids has previously been demonstrated with a rapid decrease in serum cortisol levels,” Dr. Werth said in an interview. She indicated that concern about the risk of osteoporosis imposed by use of potent steroids over large body surface areas is appropriate.

To minimize this risk, “it is reasonable to use the lowest dose of steroid possible and to try to substitute other medications when possible,” she said.

Dr. Egeberg reported financial relationships with Abbvie, Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant Sciences, Galderma, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung, Bioepis, and UCB. Five authors had disclosures related to some of those pharmaceutical companies and/or others. Dr. Jackson had no disclosures.

In support of previously published case reports, a study using cross-linked national population data in Denmark has now associated cumulative exposure to high-potency topical steroids with osteoporotic fractures in a dose-response relationship.

In a stepwise manner, the hazard ratios for major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) were found to start climbing incrementally for those with a cumulative topical steroid dose equivalent of more than 500 g of mometasone furoate when compared with exposure of 200-499 g, according to the team of investigators from the University of Copenhagen.

“Use of these drugs is very common, and we found an estimated population-attributable risk of as much as 4.3%,” the investigators reported in the study, published in JAMA Dermatology.

The retrospective cohort study drew data from the Danish National Patient Registry, which covers 99% of the country’s population. It was linked to the Danish National Prescription Registry, which captures data on pharmacy-dispensed medications. Data collected from the beginning of 2003 to the end of 2017 were evaluated.

Exposures to potent or very potent topical corticosteroids were converted into a single standard with potency equivalent to 1 mg/g of mometasone furoate. Four strata of exposure were compared to a reference exposure of 200-499 g. These were 500-999 g, 1,000-1,999 g, 2,000-9,999 g, and 10,000 g or greater.

For the first strata, the small increased risk for MOF did not reach significance (HR, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.03), but each of the others did. These climbed from a 5% greater risk (HR 1.05 95% CI 1.02-1.08) for a cumulative exposure of 1,000 to 1,999 g, to a 10% greater risk (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.13) for a cumulative exposure of 2,000-9,999 g, and finally to a 27% greater risk (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.19-1.35) for a cumulative exposure of 10,000 g or higher.

The study included more than 700,000 individuals exposed to topical mometasone at a potency equivalent of 200 g or more over the study period. The reference group (200-499 g) was the largest (317,907 individuals). The first strata (500-999 g) included 186,359 patients; the second (1,000-1,999 g), 111,203 patients; the third (2,000-9,999 g), 94,334 patients; and the fifth (10,000 g or more), 13,448 patients.

“A 3% increase in the relative risk of osteoporosis and MOF was observed per doubling of the TCS dose,” according to the investigators.

Patients exposed to doses of high-potency topical steroids that put them at risk of MOF is limited but substantial, according to the senior author, Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology and allergy at Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen.

“It is true that the risk is modest for the average user of topical steroids,” Dr. Egeberg said in an interview. However, despite the fact that topical steroids are intended for short-term use, “2% of all our users had been exposed to the equivalent of 10,000 g of mometasone, which mean 100 tubes of 100 g.”

If the other two strata at significantly increased risk of MOF (greater than 1,000 g) are included, an additional 28% of all users are facing the potential for clinically significant osteoporosis, according to the Danish data.

The adverse effect of steroids on bone metabolism has been established previously, and several studies have linked systemic corticosteroid exposure, including inhaled corticosteroids, with increased risk of osteoporotic fracture. For example, one study showed that patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on daily inhaled doses of the equivalent of fluticasone at or above 1,000 mcg for more than 4 years had about a 10% increased risk of MOF relative to those not exposed.

The data associate topical steroids with increased risk of osteoporotic fracture, but Dr. Egeberg said osteoporosis is not the only reason to use topical steroids prudently.

“It is important to keep in mind that osteoporosis and fractures are at the extreme end of the side-effect profile and that other side effects, such as striae formation, skin thinning, and dysregulated diabetes, can occur with much lower quantities of topical steroids,” Dr. Egeberg said

For avoiding this risk, “there are no specific cutoffs” recommended for topical steroids in current guidelines, but dermatologists should be aware that many of the indications for topical steroids, such as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, involve skin with an impaired barrier function, exposing patients to an increased likelihood of absorption, according to Dr. Egeberg.

“A general rule of thumb that we use is that, if a patient with persistent disease activity requires a new prescription of the equivalent of 100 g mometasone every 1-2 months, it might be worth considering if there is a suitable alternative,” Dr. Egeberg said.

In an accompanying editorial, Rebecca D. Jackson, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism in the department of internal medicine at Ohio State University, Columbus, agreed that no guidelines specific to avoiding the risks of topical corticosteroids are currently available, but she advised clinicians to be considering these risks nonetheless. In general, she suggested that topical steroids, like oral steroids, should be used at “the lowest dose for the shortest duration necessary to manage the underlying medical condition.”

The correlation between topical corticosteroids and increased risk of osteoporotic fracture, although not established previously in a large study, is not surprising, according to Victoria Werth, MD, chief of dermatology at the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Hospital and professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia.

“Systemic absorption of potent topical steroids has previously been demonstrated with a rapid decrease in serum cortisol levels,” Dr. Werth said in an interview. She indicated that concern about the risk of osteoporosis imposed by use of potent steroids over large body surface areas is appropriate.

To minimize this risk, “it is reasonable to use the lowest dose of steroid possible and to try to substitute other medications when possible,” she said.

Dr. Egeberg reported financial relationships with Abbvie, Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant Sciences, Galderma, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung, Bioepis, and UCB. Five authors had disclosures related to some of those pharmaceutical companies and/or others. Dr. Jackson had no disclosures.

In support of previously published case reports, a study using cross-linked national population data in Denmark has now associated cumulative exposure to high-potency topical steroids with osteoporotic fractures in a dose-response relationship.

In a stepwise manner, the hazard ratios for major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) were found to start climbing incrementally for those with a cumulative topical steroid dose equivalent of more than 500 g of mometasone furoate when compared with exposure of 200-499 g, according to the team of investigators from the University of Copenhagen.

“Use of these drugs is very common, and we found an estimated population-attributable risk of as much as 4.3%,” the investigators reported in the study, published in JAMA Dermatology.

The retrospective cohort study drew data from the Danish National Patient Registry, which covers 99% of the country’s population. It was linked to the Danish National Prescription Registry, which captures data on pharmacy-dispensed medications. Data collected from the beginning of 2003 to the end of 2017 were evaluated.

Exposures to potent or very potent topical corticosteroids were converted into a single standard with potency equivalent to 1 mg/g of mometasone furoate. Four strata of exposure were compared to a reference exposure of 200-499 g. These were 500-999 g, 1,000-1,999 g, 2,000-9,999 g, and 10,000 g or greater.

For the first strata, the small increased risk for MOF did not reach significance (HR, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.03), but each of the others did. These climbed from a 5% greater risk (HR 1.05 95% CI 1.02-1.08) for a cumulative exposure of 1,000 to 1,999 g, to a 10% greater risk (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.13) for a cumulative exposure of 2,000-9,999 g, and finally to a 27% greater risk (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.19-1.35) for a cumulative exposure of 10,000 g or higher.

The study included more than 700,000 individuals exposed to topical mometasone at a potency equivalent of 200 g or more over the study period. The reference group (200-499 g) was the largest (317,907 individuals). The first strata (500-999 g) included 186,359 patients; the second (1,000-1,999 g), 111,203 patients; the third (2,000-9,999 g), 94,334 patients; and the fifth (10,000 g or more), 13,448 patients.

“A 3% increase in the relative risk of osteoporosis and MOF was observed per doubling of the TCS dose,” according to the investigators.

Patients exposed to doses of high-potency topical steroids that put them at risk of MOF is limited but substantial, according to the senior author, Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology and allergy at Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen.

“It is true that the risk is modest for the average user of topical steroids,” Dr. Egeberg said in an interview. However, despite the fact that topical steroids are intended for short-term use, “2% of all our users had been exposed to the equivalent of 10,000 g of mometasone, which mean 100 tubes of 100 g.”

If the other two strata at significantly increased risk of MOF (greater than 1,000 g) are included, an additional 28% of all users are facing the potential for clinically significant osteoporosis, according to the Danish data.

The adverse effect of steroids on bone metabolism has been established previously, and several studies have linked systemic corticosteroid exposure, including inhaled corticosteroids, with increased risk of osteoporotic fracture. For example, one study showed that patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on daily inhaled doses of the equivalent of fluticasone at or above 1,000 mcg for more than 4 years had about a 10% increased risk of MOF relative to those not exposed.

The data associate topical steroids with increased risk of osteoporotic fracture, but Dr. Egeberg said osteoporosis is not the only reason to use topical steroids prudently.

“It is important to keep in mind that osteoporosis and fractures are at the extreme end of the side-effect profile and that other side effects, such as striae formation, skin thinning, and dysregulated diabetes, can occur with much lower quantities of topical steroids,” Dr. Egeberg said

For avoiding this risk, “there are no specific cutoffs” recommended for topical steroids in current guidelines, but dermatologists should be aware that many of the indications for topical steroids, such as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, involve skin with an impaired barrier function, exposing patients to an increased likelihood of absorption, according to Dr. Egeberg.

“A general rule of thumb that we use is that, if a patient with persistent disease activity requires a new prescription of the equivalent of 100 g mometasone every 1-2 months, it might be worth considering if there is a suitable alternative,” Dr. Egeberg said.

In an accompanying editorial, Rebecca D. Jackson, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism in the department of internal medicine at Ohio State University, Columbus, agreed that no guidelines specific to avoiding the risks of topical corticosteroids are currently available, but she advised clinicians to be considering these risks nonetheless. In general, she suggested that topical steroids, like oral steroids, should be used at “the lowest dose for the shortest duration necessary to manage the underlying medical condition.”

The correlation between topical corticosteroids and increased risk of osteoporotic fracture, although not established previously in a large study, is not surprising, according to Victoria Werth, MD, chief of dermatology at the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Hospital and professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia.

“Systemic absorption of potent topical steroids has previously been demonstrated with a rapid decrease in serum cortisol levels,” Dr. Werth said in an interview. She indicated that concern about the risk of osteoporosis imposed by use of potent steroids over large body surface areas is appropriate.

To minimize this risk, “it is reasonable to use the lowest dose of steroid possible and to try to substitute other medications when possible,” she said.

Dr. Egeberg reported financial relationships with Abbvie, Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant Sciences, Galderma, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung, Bioepis, and UCB. Five authors had disclosures related to some of those pharmaceutical companies and/or others. Dr. Jackson had no disclosures.

Women with psoriasis can expect healthy pregnancy outcomes at a rate similar to that of the general population, according to one of the largest studies to examine the issue to date.

However, “pregnancy-specific registries that include a larger number of pregnant women with psoriasis ... are needed to more fully characterize the association between psoriasis and treatment and birth outcomes,” acknowledged first author Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

The cohort study, published in JAMA Dermatology, used data from the Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR), which “is not a pregnancy specific registry, and medical history is captured only at baseline,” they noted.

Their findings showed pregnancy outcomes such as spontaneous abortion, neonatal problems, and congenital anomalies among women with moderate to severe psoriasis were similar to rates in the general U.S. population, and are “consistent with previously reported data,” they reported. “And pregnancy outcomes for women exposed to biologics were similar to those for women with exposure to nonbiologics.”

The study “provides further reassurance that the biologics appear safe at least related to pregnancy outcomes,” commented Jenny Murase, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the study. In an interview, she noted that the study “did not examine any potential immunosuppression of the fetus in the first 6 months of life,” which she described as “the heart of the concern, more than whether or not the psoriasis or the biologic affects the pregnancy itself.”

The study used data from the PSOLAR registry collected from June 20, 2007, to Aug.23, 2019, which included 2,224 women of childbearing age (18-45 years) who were collectively followed up for 12,929 patient-years. Among these women, 220 had 298 pregnancies, with 244 live births (81.9%).

“Birth outcomes among all 244 births included 231 healthy newborns (94.7%), 10 infants with a neonatal problem (4.1%), 1 stillbirth (0.4%), and 2 congenital anomalies (0.8%),” the authors reported.

There were also 41 spontaneous abortions (13.8%), and 13 elective terminations (4.4%). “No elective terminations were known to derive from a congenital anomaly or other medical issue,” they added.

Among the documented pregnancies, 252 occurred in women with exposure to biologic therapy either before or during pregnancy, including 168 (56.4%) during the prenatal period, while 46 pregnancies occurred in women with no exposure to biologic therapy.

Dr. Murase, director of medical consultative dermatology for the Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group in Mountain View, Calif., said that a more detailed comparison of the different psoriasis treatments, as well as the offspring outcomes during the first 6 months of life, might offer some further important insight,.

Infants born after exposure to infliximab “and potentially other anti–tumor necrosis factor–alpha agents during the third trimester may be unable to develop an appropriate immune response to live vaccines,” she and her coauthors cautioned in a letter published in 2011, which referred to a case of an infant with disseminated bacillus Calmette-Guérin infection, whose mother had received infliximab for Crohn’s disease throughout pregnancy.

Dr. Murase pointed out that, in the registry study, exposures to certolizumab, which is pegylated and does not cross the placental barrier, were not separated from other cases. It is important to consider “the cross over late in the second trimester and especially third trimester as the infant is getting the ‘antibody boost’ from the mother as it gets ready to set foot in this world and needs the maternal antibodies to prepare its immune system. If the IgG biologics cross third trimester and immunosuppress the infant ... then I think a medication that does not cross the placental barrier is important to consider.”

The study was sponsored by Janssen Scientific Affairs. Dr. Kimball’s disclosures included serving as a consultant and investigator for companies that included AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Janssen; several other authors also had disclosures related to multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Murase’s disclosures included serving as a consultant for Dermira, UCB Pharma, Sanofi, Ferndale, and Regeneron.

Women with psoriasis can expect healthy pregnancy outcomes at a rate similar to that of the general population, according to one of the largest studies to examine the issue to date.

However, “pregnancy-specific registries that include a larger number of pregnant women with psoriasis ... are needed to more fully characterize the association between psoriasis and treatment and birth outcomes,” acknowledged first author Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

The cohort study, published in JAMA Dermatology, used data from the Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR), which “is not a pregnancy specific registry, and medical history is captured only at baseline,” they noted.

Their findings showed pregnancy outcomes such as spontaneous abortion, neonatal problems, and congenital anomalies among women with moderate to severe psoriasis were similar to rates in the general U.S. population, and are “consistent with previously reported data,” they reported. “And pregnancy outcomes for women exposed to biologics were similar to those for women with exposure to nonbiologics.”

The study “provides further reassurance that the biologics appear safe at least related to pregnancy outcomes,” commented Jenny Murase, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the study. In an interview, she noted that the study “did not examine any potential immunosuppression of the fetus in the first 6 months of life,” which she described as “the heart of the concern, more than whether or not the psoriasis or the biologic affects the pregnancy itself.”

The study used data from the PSOLAR registry collected from June 20, 2007, to Aug.23, 2019, which included 2,224 women of childbearing age (18-45 years) who were collectively followed up for 12,929 patient-years. Among these women, 220 had 298 pregnancies, with 244 live births (81.9%).

“Birth outcomes among all 244 births included 231 healthy newborns (94.7%), 10 infants with a neonatal problem (4.1%), 1 stillbirth (0.4%), and 2 congenital anomalies (0.8%),” the authors reported.

There were also 41 spontaneous abortions (13.8%), and 13 elective terminations (4.4%). “No elective terminations were known to derive from a congenital anomaly or other medical issue,” they added.

Among the documented pregnancies, 252 occurred in women with exposure to biologic therapy either before or during pregnancy, including 168 (56.4%) during the prenatal period, while 46 pregnancies occurred in women with no exposure to biologic therapy.

Dr. Murase, director of medical consultative dermatology for the Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group in Mountain View, Calif., said that a more detailed comparison of the different psoriasis treatments, as well as the offspring outcomes during the first 6 months of life, might offer some further important insight,.

Infants born after exposure to infliximab “and potentially other anti–tumor necrosis factor–alpha agents during the third trimester may be unable to develop an appropriate immune response to live vaccines,” she and her coauthors cautioned in a letter published in 2011, which referred to a case of an infant with disseminated bacillus Calmette-Guérin infection, whose mother had received infliximab for Crohn’s disease throughout pregnancy.

Dr. Murase pointed out that, in the registry study, exposures to certolizumab, which is pegylated and does not cross the placental barrier, were not separated from other cases. It is important to consider “the cross over late in the second trimester and especially third trimester as the infant is getting the ‘antibody boost’ from the mother as it gets ready to set foot in this world and needs the maternal antibodies to prepare its immune system. If the IgG biologics cross third trimester and immunosuppress the infant ... then I think a medication that does not cross the placental barrier is important to consider.”

The study was sponsored by Janssen Scientific Affairs. Dr. Kimball’s disclosures included serving as a consultant and investigator for companies that included AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Janssen; several other authors also had disclosures related to multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Murase’s disclosures included serving as a consultant for Dermira, UCB Pharma, Sanofi, Ferndale, and Regeneron.

Women with psoriasis can expect healthy pregnancy outcomes at a rate similar to that of the general population, according to one of the largest studies to examine the issue to date.

However, “pregnancy-specific registries that include a larger number of pregnant women with psoriasis ... are needed to more fully characterize the association between psoriasis and treatment and birth outcomes,” acknowledged first author Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

The cohort study, published in JAMA Dermatology, used data from the Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR), which “is not a pregnancy specific registry, and medical history is captured only at baseline,” they noted.

Their findings showed pregnancy outcomes such as spontaneous abortion, neonatal problems, and congenital anomalies among women with moderate to severe psoriasis were similar to rates in the general U.S. population, and are “consistent with previously reported data,” they reported. “And pregnancy outcomes for women exposed to biologics were similar to those for women with exposure to nonbiologics.”

The study “provides further reassurance that the biologics appear safe at least related to pregnancy outcomes,” commented Jenny Murase, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the study. In an interview, she noted that the study “did not examine any potential immunosuppression of the fetus in the first 6 months of life,” which she described as “the heart of the concern, more than whether or not the psoriasis or the biologic affects the pregnancy itself.”

The study used data from the PSOLAR registry collected from June 20, 2007, to Aug.23, 2019, which included 2,224 women of childbearing age (18-45 years) who were collectively followed up for 12,929 patient-years. Among these women, 220 had 298 pregnancies, with 244 live births (81.9%).

“Birth outcomes among all 244 births included 231 healthy newborns (94.7%), 10 infants with a neonatal problem (4.1%), 1 stillbirth (0.4%), and 2 congenital anomalies (0.8%),” the authors reported.

There were also 41 spontaneous abortions (13.8%), and 13 elective terminations (4.4%). “No elective terminations were known to derive from a congenital anomaly or other medical issue,” they added.

Among the documented pregnancies, 252 occurred in women with exposure to biologic therapy either before or during pregnancy, including 168 (56.4%) during the prenatal period, while 46 pregnancies occurred in women with no exposure to biologic therapy.

Dr. Murase, director of medical consultative dermatology for the Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group in Mountain View, Calif., said that a more detailed comparison of the different psoriasis treatments, as well as the offspring outcomes during the first 6 months of life, might offer some further important insight,.

Infants born after exposure to infliximab “and potentially other anti–tumor necrosis factor–alpha agents during the third trimester may be unable to develop an appropriate immune response to live vaccines,” she and her coauthors cautioned in a letter published in 2011, which referred to a case of an infant with disseminated bacillus Calmette-Guérin infection, whose mother had received infliximab for Crohn’s disease throughout pregnancy.

Dr. Murase pointed out that, in the registry study, exposures to certolizumab, which is pegylated and does not cross the placental barrier, were not separated from other cases. It is important to consider “the cross over late in the second trimester and especially third trimester as the infant is getting the ‘antibody boost’ from the mother as it gets ready to set foot in this world and needs the maternal antibodies to prepare its immune system. If the IgG biologics cross third trimester and immunosuppress the infant ... then I think a medication that does not cross the placental barrier is important to consider.”

The study was sponsored by Janssen Scientific Affairs. Dr. Kimball’s disclosures included serving as a consultant and investigator for companies that included AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Janssen; several other authors also had disclosures related to multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Murase’s disclosures included serving as a consultant for Dermira, UCB Pharma, Sanofi, Ferndale, and Regeneron.

From time to time, Joslyn Kirby, MD, asks other physicians about their experience with certain medications used in dermatology, especially when something new hits the market.

“Sometimes I get an answer like, ‘The last time I used that medicine, my patient needed a liver transplant,’ ” Dr. Kirby, associate professor of dermatology, Penn State University, Hershey, said during the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference. “It’s typically a story of something rare, uncommon, and awful. The challenge with an anecdote is that for all its power, it has a lower level of evidence. But it sticks with us and influences us more than a better level of evidence because it’s a situation and a story that we might relate to.”

Isotretinoin

But another aspect of prescribing a new drug for patients can be less clear-cut, Dr. Kirby continued, such as the rationale for routine lab monitoring. She began by discussing one of her male patients with moderate to severe acne. After he failed oral antibiotics and topical retinoids, she recommended isotretinoin, which carries a risk of hypertriglyceridemia-associated pancreatitis. “Early in my career, I was getting a lot of monthly labs in patients on this drug that were totally normal and not influencing my practice,” Dr. Kirby recalled. “We’ve seen studies coming out on isotretinoin lab monitoring, showing us that we can keep our patients safe and that we really don’t need to be checking labs as often, because lab changes are infrequent.”

In one of those studies, researchers evaluated 1,863 patients treated with isotretinoin for acne between Jan. 1, 2008, and June 30, 2017 (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jan;82[1]:72-9).Over time, fewer than 1% of patients screened developed grade 3 or greater triglyceride testing abnormalities, while fewer than 0.5% developed liver function testing (LFT) abnormalities. Authors of a separate systematic review concluded that for patients on isotretinoin therapy without elevated baseline triglycerides, or risk thereof, monitoring triglycerides is of little value (Br J Dermatol. 2017 Oct;177[4]:960-6). Of the 25 patients in the analysis who developed pancreatitis on isotretinoin, only 3 had elevated triglycerides at baseline.

“I was taught that I need to check triglycerides frequently due to the risk of pancreatitis developing with isotretinoin use,” Dr. Kirby said. “Lipid changes on therapy are expected, but they tend to peak early, meaning the first 3 months of treatment when we’re ramping up from a starting dose to a maintenance dose. It’s rare for somebody to be a late bloomer, meaning that they have totally normal labs in the first 3 months and then suddenly develop an abnormality. People are either going to demonstrate an abnormality early or not have one at all.”

When Dr. Kirby starts patients on isotretinoin, she orders baseline LFTs and a lipid panel and repeats them 60 days later. “If everything is fine or only mildly high, we don’t do more testing, only a review of systems,” she said. “This is valuable to our patients because fear of needles and fainting peak during adolescence.”
 

Spironolactone

The clinical use of regularly monitoring potassium levels in young women taking spironolactone for acne has also been questioned. The drug has been linked to an increased risk for hyperkalemia, but the prevalence is unclear. “I got a lot of normal potassium levels in these patients [when] I was in training and I really questioned, ‘Why am I doing this? What is the rationale?’ ” Dr. Kirby said.

In a study that informed her own practice, researchers reviewed the rate of hyperkalemia in 974 healthy young women taking spironolactone for acne or for an endocrine disorder with associated acne between Dec. 1, 2000, and March 31, 2014 (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Sep;151[9]:941-4). Of the total of 1,802 serum potassium measurements taken during treatment, 13 (0.72%) were mildly elevated levels and none of the patients had a potassium level above 5.5 mEq/L. Retesting within 1 to 3 weeks in 6 of 13 patients with elevated levels found that potassium levels were normal. “The recommendation for spironolactone in healthy women is not to check the potassium level,” Dr. Kirby said, adding that she does counsel patients about the risk of breast tenderness (which can occur 5% to 40% of the time) and spotting (which can occur in 10% to 20% of patients). Gynecomastia can occur in 10% to 30% of men, which is one of the reasons she does not use spironolactone in male patients.
 

TB testing and biologics

Whether or not to test for TB in patients with psoriasis taking biologic therapies represents another conundrum, she continued. Patients taking biologics are at risk of reactivation of latent TB infection, but in her experience, package inserts contain language like “perform TB testing at baseline, then periodically,” or “use at baseline, then with active TB symptoms,” and “after treatment is discontinued.”

“What the inserts didn’t recommend was to perform TB testing every year, which is what my routine had been,” Dr. Kirby said. “In the United States, thankfully we don’t have a lot of TB.” In a study that informed her own practice, researchers at a single academic medical center retrospectively reviewed the TB seroconversion rate among 316 patients treated with second-generation biologics (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Oct 1;S0190-9622[20]32676-1. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.09.075). It found that only six patients (2%) converted and had a positive TB test later during treatment with the biologic. “Of these six people, all had grown up outside the U.S., had traveled outside of the U.S., or were in a group living situation,” said Dr. Kirby, who was not affiliated with the study.

“This informs our rationale for how we can do this testing. If insurance requires it every year, fine. But if they don’t, I ask patients about travel, about their living situation, and how they’re feeling. If everything’s going great, I don’t order TB testing. I do favor the interferon-gamma release assays because they’re a lot more effective than PPDs [purified protein derivative skin tests]. Also, PPDs are difficult for patients who have a low rate of returning to have that test read.”
 

Terbinafine for onychomycosis

Dr. Kirby also discussed the rationale for ordering regular LFTs in patients taking terbinafine for onychomycosis. “There is a risk of drug-induced liver injury from taking terbinafine, but it’s rare,” she said. “Can we be thoughtful about which patients we expose?”

Evidence suggests that patients with hyperkeratosis greater than 2 mm, with nail matrix involvement, with 50% or more of the nail involved, or having concomitant peripheral vascular disease and diabetes are recalcitrant to treatment with terbinafine

(J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Apr;80[4]:853-67). “If we can frame this risk, then we can frame it for our patients,” she said. “We’re more likely to cause liver injury with an antibiotic. When it comes to an oral antifungal, itraconazole is more likely than terbinafine to cause liver injury. The rate of liver injury with terbinafine is only about 2 out of 100,000. It’s five times more likely with itraconazole and 21 times more likely with Augmentin.”

She recommends obtaining a baseline LFT in patients starting terbinafine therapy “to make sure their liver is normal from the start.” In addition, she advised, “let them know that there is a TB seroconversion risk of about 1 in 50,000 people, and that if it happens there would be symptomatic changes. They would maybe notice pruritus and have a darkening in their urine, and they’d have some flu-like symptoms, which would mean stop the drug and get some care.”

Dr. Kirby emphasized that a patient’s propensity for developing drug-induced liver injury from terbinafine use is not predictable from LFT monitoring. “What you’re more likely to find is an asymptomatic LFT rise in about 1% of people,” she said.

She disclosed that she has received honoraria from AbbVie, ChemoCentryx, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB Pharma.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

From time to time, Joslyn Kirby, MD, asks other physicians about their experience with certain medications used in dermatology, especially when something new hits the market.

“Sometimes I get an answer like, ‘The last time I used that medicine, my patient needed a liver transplant,’ ” Dr. Kirby, associate professor of dermatology, Penn State University, Hershey, said during the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference. “It’s typically a story of something rare, uncommon, and awful. The challenge with an anecdote is that for all its power, it has a lower level of evidence. But it sticks with us and influences us more than a better level of evidence because it’s a situation and a story that we might relate to.”

Isotretinoin

But another aspect of prescribing a new drug for patients can be less clear-cut, Dr. Kirby continued, such as the rationale for routine lab monitoring. She began by discussing one of her male patients with moderate to severe acne. After he failed oral antibiotics and topical retinoids, she recommended isotretinoin, which carries a risk of hypertriglyceridemia-associated pancreatitis. “Early in my career, I was getting a lot of monthly labs in patients on this drug that were totally normal and not influencing my practice,” Dr. Kirby recalled. “We’ve seen studies coming out on isotretinoin lab monitoring, showing us that we can keep our patients safe and that we really don’t need to be checking labs as often, because lab changes are infrequent.”

In one of those studies, researchers evaluated 1,863 patients treated with isotretinoin for acne between Jan. 1, 2008, and June 30, 2017 (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jan;82[1]:72-9).Over time, fewer than 1% of patients screened developed grade 3 or greater triglyceride testing abnormalities, while fewer than 0.5% developed liver function testing (LFT) abnormalities. Authors of a separate systematic review concluded that for patients on isotretinoin therapy without elevated baseline triglycerides, or risk thereof, monitoring triglycerides is of little value (Br J Dermatol. 2017 Oct;177[4]:960-6). Of the 25 patients in the analysis who developed pancreatitis on isotretinoin, only 3 had elevated triglycerides at baseline.

“I was taught that I need to check triglycerides frequently due to the risk of pancreatitis developing with isotretinoin use,” Dr. Kirby said. “Lipid changes on therapy are expected, but they tend to peak early, meaning the first 3 months of treatment when we’re ramping up from a starting dose to a maintenance dose. It’s rare for somebody to be a late bloomer, meaning that they have totally normal labs in the first 3 months and then suddenly develop an abnormality. People are either going to demonstrate an abnormality early or not have one at all.”

When Dr. Kirby starts patients on isotretinoin, she orders baseline LFTs and a lipid panel and repeats them 60 days later. “If everything is fine or only mildly high, we don’t do more testing, only a review of systems,” she said. “This is valuable to our patients because fear of needles and fainting peak during adolescence.”
 

Spironolactone

The clinical use of regularly monitoring potassium levels in young women taking spironolactone for acne has also been questioned. The drug has been linked to an increased risk for hyperkalemia, but the prevalence is unclear. “I got a lot of normal potassium levels in these patients [when] I was in training and I really questioned, ‘Why am I doing this? What is the rationale?’ ” Dr. Kirby said.

In a study that informed her own practice, researchers reviewed the rate of hyperkalemia in 974 healthy young women taking spironolactone for acne or for an endocrine disorder with associated acne between Dec. 1, 2000, and March 31, 2014 (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Sep;151[9]:941-4). Of the total of 1,802 serum potassium measurements taken during treatment, 13 (0.72%) were mildly elevated levels and none of the patients had a potassium level above 5.5 mEq/L. Retesting within 1 to 3 weeks in 6 of 13 patients with elevated levels found that potassium levels were normal. “The recommendation for spironolactone in healthy women is not to check the potassium level,” Dr. Kirby said, adding that she does counsel patients about the risk of breast tenderness (which can occur 5% to 40% of the time) and spotting (which can occur in 10% to 20% of patients). Gynecomastia can occur in 10% to 30% of men, which is one of the reasons she does not use spironolactone in male patients.
 

TB testing and biologics

Whether or not to test for TB in patients with psoriasis taking biologic therapies represents another conundrum, she continued. Patients taking biologics are at risk of reactivation of latent TB infection, but in her experience, package inserts contain language like “perform TB testing at baseline, then periodically,” or “use at baseline, then with active TB symptoms,” and “after treatment is discontinued.”

“What the inserts didn’t recommend was to perform TB testing every year, which is what my routine had been,” Dr. Kirby said. “In the United States, thankfully we don’t have a lot of TB.” In a study that informed her own practice, researchers at a single academic medical center retrospectively reviewed the TB seroconversion rate among 316 patients treated with second-generation biologics (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Oct 1;S0190-9622[20]32676-1. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.09.075). It found that only six patients (2%) converted and had a positive TB test later during treatment with the biologic. “Of these six people, all had grown up outside the U.S., had traveled outside of the U.S., or were in a group living situation,” said Dr. Kirby, who was not affiliated with the study.

“This informs our rationale for how we can do this testing. If insurance requires it every year, fine. But if they don’t, I ask patients about travel, about their living situation, and how they’re feeling. If everything’s going great, I don’t order TB testing. I do favor the interferon-gamma release assays because they’re a lot more effective than PPDs [purified protein derivative skin tests]. Also, PPDs are difficult for patients who have a low rate of returning to have that test read.”
 

Terbinafine for onychomycosis

Dr. Kirby also discussed the rationale for ordering regular LFTs in patients taking terbinafine for onychomycosis. “There is a risk of drug-induced liver injury from taking terbinafine, but it’s rare,” she said. “Can we be thoughtful about which patients we expose?”

Evidence suggests that patients with hyperkeratosis greater than 2 mm, with nail matrix involvement, with 50% or more of the nail involved, or having concomitant peripheral vascular disease and diabetes are recalcitrant to treatment with terbinafine

(J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Apr;80[4]:853-67). “If we can frame this risk, then we can frame it for our patients,” she said. “We’re more likely to cause liver injury with an antibiotic. When it comes to an oral antifungal, itraconazole is more likely than terbinafine to cause liver injury. The rate of liver injury with terbinafine is only about 2 out of 100,000. It’s five times more likely with itraconazole and 21 times more likely with Augmentin.”

She recommends obtaining a baseline LFT in patients starting terbinafine therapy “to make sure their liver is normal from the start.” In addition, she advised, “let them know that there is a TB seroconversion risk of about 1 in 50,000 people, and that if it happens there would be symptomatic changes. They would maybe notice pruritus and have a darkening in their urine, and they’d have some flu-like symptoms, which would mean stop the drug and get some care.”

Dr. Kirby emphasized that a patient’s propensity for developing drug-induced liver injury from terbinafine use is not predictable from LFT monitoring. “What you’re more likely to find is an asymptomatic LFT rise in about 1% of people,” she said.

She disclosed that she has received honoraria from AbbVie, ChemoCentryx, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB Pharma.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

From time to time, Joslyn Kirby, MD, asks other physicians about their experience with certain medications used in dermatology, especially when something new hits the market.

“Sometimes I get an answer like, ‘The last time I used that medicine, my patient needed a liver transplant,’ ” Dr. Kirby, associate professor of dermatology, Penn State University, Hershey, said during the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference. “It’s typically a story of something rare, uncommon, and awful. The challenge with an anecdote is that for all its power, it has a lower level of evidence. But it sticks with us and influences us more than a better level of evidence because it’s a situation and a story that we might relate to.”

Isotretinoin

But another aspect of prescribing a new drug for patients can be less clear-cut, Dr. Kirby continued, such as the rationale for routine lab monitoring. She began by discussing one of her male patients with moderate to severe acne. After he failed oral antibiotics and topical retinoids, she recommended isotretinoin, which carries a risk of hypertriglyceridemia-associated pancreatitis. “Early in my career, I was getting a lot of monthly labs in patients on this drug that were totally normal and not influencing my practice,” Dr. Kirby recalled. “We’ve seen studies coming out on isotretinoin lab monitoring, showing us that we can keep our patients safe and that we really don’t need to be checking labs as often, because lab changes are infrequent.”

In one of those studies, researchers evaluated 1,863 patients treated with isotretinoin for acne between Jan. 1, 2008, and June 30, 2017 (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jan;82[1]:72-9).Over time, fewer than 1% of patients screened developed grade 3 or greater triglyceride testing abnormalities, while fewer than 0.5% developed liver function testing (LFT) abnormalities. Authors of a separate systematic review concluded that for patients on isotretinoin therapy without elevated baseline triglycerides, or risk thereof, monitoring triglycerides is of little value (Br J Dermatol. 2017 Oct;177[4]:960-6). Of the 25 patients in the analysis who developed pancreatitis on isotretinoin, only 3 had elevated triglycerides at baseline.

“I was taught that I need to check triglycerides frequently due to the risk of pancreatitis developing with isotretinoin use,” Dr. Kirby said. “Lipid changes on therapy are expected, but they tend to peak early, meaning the first 3 months of treatment when we’re ramping up from a starting dose to a maintenance dose. It’s rare for somebody to be a late bloomer, meaning that they have totally normal labs in the first 3 months and then suddenly develop an abnormality. People are either going to demonstrate an abnormality early or not have one at all.”

When Dr. Kirby starts patients on isotretinoin, she orders baseline LFTs and a lipid panel and repeats them 60 days later. “If everything is fine or only mildly high, we don’t do more testing, only a review of systems,” she said. “This is valuable to our patients because fear of needles and fainting peak during adolescence.”
 

Spironolactone

The clinical use of regularly monitoring potassium levels in young women taking spironolactone for acne has also been questioned. The drug has been linked to an increased risk for hyperkalemia, but the prevalence is unclear. “I got a lot of normal potassium levels in these patients [when] I was in training and I really questioned, ‘Why am I doing this? What is the rationale?’ ” Dr. Kirby said.

In a study that informed her own practice, researchers reviewed the rate of hyperkalemia in 974 healthy young women taking spironolactone for acne or for an endocrine disorder with associated acne between Dec. 1, 2000, and March 31, 2014 (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Sep;151[9]:941-4). Of the total of 1,802 serum potassium measurements taken during treatment, 13 (0.72%) were mildly elevated levels and none of the patients had a potassium level above 5.5 mEq/L. Retesting within 1 to 3 weeks in 6 of 13 patients with elevated levels found that potassium levels were normal. “The recommendation for spironolactone in healthy women is not to check the potassium level,” Dr. Kirby said, adding that she does counsel patients about the risk of breast tenderness (which can occur 5% to 40% of the time) and spotting (which can occur in 10% to 20% of patients). Gynecomastia can occur in 10% to 30% of men, which is one of the reasons she does not use spironolactone in male patients.
 

TB testing and biologics

Whether or not to test for TB in patients with psoriasis taking biologic therapies represents another conundrum, she continued. Patients taking biologics are at risk of reactivation of latent TB infection, but in her experience, package inserts contain language like “perform TB testing at baseline, then periodically,” or “use at baseline, then with active TB symptoms,” and “after treatment is discontinued.”

“What the inserts didn’t recommend was to perform TB testing every year, which is what my routine had been,” Dr. Kirby said. “In the United States, thankfully we don’t have a lot of TB.” In a study that informed her own practice, researchers at a single academic medical center retrospectively reviewed the TB seroconversion rate among 316 patients treated with second-generation biologics (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Oct 1;S0190-9622[20]32676-1. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.09.075). It found that only six patients (2%) converted and had a positive TB test later during treatment with the biologic. “Of these six people, all had grown up outside the U.S., had traveled outside of the U.S., or were in a group living situation,” said Dr. Kirby, who was not affiliated with the study.

“This informs our rationale for how we can do this testing. If insurance requires it every year, fine. But if they don’t, I ask patients about travel, about their living situation, and how they’re feeling. If everything’s going great, I don’t order TB testing. I do favor the interferon-gamma release assays because they’re a lot more effective than PPDs [purified protein derivative skin tests]. Also, PPDs are difficult for patients who have a low rate of returning to have that test read.”
 

Terbinafine for onychomycosis

Dr. Kirby also discussed the rationale for ordering regular LFTs in patients taking terbinafine for onychomycosis. “There is a risk of drug-induced liver injury from taking terbinafine, but it’s rare,” she said. “Can we be thoughtful about which patients we expose?”

Evidence suggests that patients with hyperkeratosis greater than 2 mm, with nail matrix involvement, with 50% or more of the nail involved, or having concomitant peripheral vascular disease and diabetes are recalcitrant to treatment with terbinafine

(J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Apr;80[4]:853-67). “If we can frame this risk, then we can frame it for our patients,” she said. “We’re more likely to cause liver injury with an antibiotic. When it comes to an oral antifungal, itraconazole is more likely than terbinafine to cause liver injury. The rate of liver injury with terbinafine is only about 2 out of 100,000. It’s five times more likely with itraconazole and 21 times more likely with Augmentin.”

She recommends obtaining a baseline LFT in patients starting terbinafine therapy “to make sure their liver is normal from the start.” In addition, she advised, “let them know that there is a TB seroconversion risk of about 1 in 50,000 people, and that if it happens there would be symptomatic changes. They would maybe notice pruritus and have a darkening in their urine, and they’d have some flu-like symptoms, which would mean stop the drug and get some care.”

Dr. Kirby emphasized that a patient’s propensity for developing drug-induced liver injury from terbinafine use is not predictable from LFT monitoring. “What you’re more likely to find is an asymptomatic LFT rise in about 1% of people,” she said.

She disclosed that she has received honoraria from AbbVie, ChemoCentryx, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB Pharma.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Sonelokinab, an investigational interleukin-17A/F (IL-A/F)–targeted agent utilizing a novel therapeutic platform known as a nanobody, achieved exceptionally rapid and clinically meaningful improvement in moderate to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis in a phase 2b randomized trial, Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

A nanobody is a tiny antibody fragment with a much smaller molecular weight than the monoclonal antibodies utilized today in treating psoriasis or atopic dermatitis. The sonelokinab nanobody, derived from animals in the camel family, is a recombinant sequence-optimized nanobody specific for human IL-17F, IL-17A, the heterodimer IL-17A/F, and serum albumin. The binding to serum albumin give sonelokinab a lengthy half-life of 10-12 hours, which may be therapeutically relevant, explained Dr. Papp, president and founder of Probity Medical Research in Waterloo, Ont.

He presented the 24-week results of a multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy randomized trial including 313 North American and European adults with an average 18-year history of psoriasis and a baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score of about 21. They were randomized to one of six treatment arms for the first 12 weeks: subcutaneous injection of sonelokinab at 30, 60, or 120 mg at weeks 0, 2, 4, and 8; enhanced–loading-dose sonelokinab at 120 mg every 2 weeks through week 10; the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) at its standard dosing as an active comparator; or placebo. Data analysis was by rigorous nonresponder imputation, meaning anyone who didn’t complete the study was scored as a nonresponder.

“This yields a conservative data analysis somewhat biased against sonelokinab,” the dermatologist pointed out.

The primary outcome in the trial was the week-12 rate of an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1, indicative of clear or almost clear skin. This was achieved in 88.2% of patients in the highest-dose arm of sonelokinab. That group also had a week-12 PASI 90 response rate of 76.5% and a PASI 100 response rate of 33.3%. By comparison, patients on standard-dose secukinumab had a less robust week-12 IGA 0/1 rate of 77.4%, a PASI 90 of 64.2%, and a PASI 100 of 28.3%. Of note, however, this secukinumab performance was better than seen in the 30-mg sonelokinab group, and comparable to outcomes with 60 mg of sonelokinab.

Dose escalation was performed from weeks 12-24. Patients with a week-12 IGA score greater than 1 after being on sonelokinab at 30 or 60 mg were upgraded to 120 mg at week 12 and again every 4 weeks thereafter. Placebo-treated controls were switched to 120 mg at weeks 12, 14, 16, and every 4 weeks thereafter. The group on the enhanced–loading-dose sonelokinab moved to 120 mg every 4 weeks, while those who had gotten four doses of sonelokinab at 120 mg during the first 12 weeks were switched to 120 mg every 8 weeks. The secukinumab group remained on the approved dosing through week 24.

At week 24, superior outcomes were seen in the enhanced–loading-dose sonelokinab group, with an IGA 0/1 response rate of 94.2%, a PASI 90 of 90.4%, and a PASI 100 of 56.9%. The corresponding week-24 rates in patients on 120 mg of sonelokinab every 8 weeks from week 12 on were 80.4%, 79.2%, and 40.4%, outcomes similar to those seen with secukinumab.

The rapidity of response to sonelokinab at 120 mg was striking, with approximately one-third of treated patients achieving a PASI 90 response by week 4.

“This could reflect the smaller molecular profile. There is possibly rapid increased absorption or bioavailability, quicker time to achieving serum half-life, better penetration into target tissue, and perhaps more effective engagement at the target. All of those things are possibilities. These are things that are yet to be explored, but it’s very enticing to see that uncharacteristically rapid initial response. It’s all very gratifying – and tantalizing,” Dr. Papp said in response to an audience question.

The safety profile of sonelokinab was reassuring. The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis in 13.5% of patients and pruritus in 6.7%, with most cases being mild or moderate. As with other IL-17 blockers, there was an increase in oral candidiasis. This side effect appeared to occur in dose-dependent fashion: The incidence was zero in the 30-mg group, 1.9% with 60 mg, 3.8% with sonelokinab at 120 mg without an enhanced loading dose, and 5.9% with the enhanced loading dose.

The study was conducted by Avillion in partnership with Merck. Dr. Papp reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to those and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Sonelokinab, an investigational interleukin-17A/F (IL-A/F)–targeted agent utilizing a novel therapeutic platform known as a nanobody, achieved exceptionally rapid and clinically meaningful improvement in moderate to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis in a phase 2b randomized trial, Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

A nanobody is a tiny antibody fragment with a much smaller molecular weight than the monoclonal antibodies utilized today in treating psoriasis or atopic dermatitis. The sonelokinab nanobody, derived from animals in the camel family, is a recombinant sequence-optimized nanobody specific for human IL-17F, IL-17A, the heterodimer IL-17A/F, and serum albumin. The binding to serum albumin give sonelokinab a lengthy half-life of 10-12 hours, which may be therapeutically relevant, explained Dr. Papp, president and founder of Probity Medical Research in Waterloo, Ont.

He presented the 24-week results of a multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy randomized trial including 313 North American and European adults with an average 18-year history of psoriasis and a baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score of about 21. They were randomized to one of six treatment arms for the first 12 weeks: subcutaneous injection of sonelokinab at 30, 60, or 120 mg at weeks 0, 2, 4, and 8; enhanced–loading-dose sonelokinab at 120 mg every 2 weeks through week 10; the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) at its standard dosing as an active comparator; or placebo. Data analysis was by rigorous nonresponder imputation, meaning anyone who didn’t complete the study was scored as a nonresponder.

“This yields a conservative data analysis somewhat biased against sonelokinab,” the dermatologist pointed out.

The primary outcome in the trial was the week-12 rate of an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1, indicative of clear or almost clear skin. This was achieved in 88.2% of patients in the highest-dose arm of sonelokinab. That group also had a week-12 PASI 90 response rate of 76.5% and a PASI 100 response rate of 33.3%. By comparison, patients on standard-dose secukinumab had a less robust week-12 IGA 0/1 rate of 77.4%, a PASI 90 of 64.2%, and a PASI 100 of 28.3%. Of note, however, this secukinumab performance was better than seen in the 30-mg sonelokinab group, and comparable to outcomes with 60 mg of sonelokinab.

Dose escalation was performed from weeks 12-24. Patients with a week-12 IGA score greater than 1 after being on sonelokinab at 30 or 60 mg were upgraded to 120 mg at week 12 and again every 4 weeks thereafter. Placebo-treated controls were switched to 120 mg at weeks 12, 14, 16, and every 4 weeks thereafter. The group on the enhanced–loading-dose sonelokinab moved to 120 mg every 4 weeks, while those who had gotten four doses of sonelokinab at 120 mg during the first 12 weeks were switched to 120 mg every 8 weeks. The secukinumab group remained on the approved dosing through week 24.

At week 24, superior outcomes were seen in the enhanced–loading-dose sonelokinab group, with an IGA 0/1 response rate of 94.2%, a PASI 90 of 90.4%, and a PASI 100 of 56.9%. The corresponding week-24 rates in patients on 120 mg of sonelokinab every 8 weeks from week 12 on were 80.4%, 79.2%, and 40.4%, outcomes similar to those seen with secukinumab.

The rapidity of response to sonelokinab at 120 mg was striking, with approximately one-third of treated patients achieving a PASI 90 response by week 4.

“This could reflect the smaller molecular profile. There is possibly rapid increased absorption or bioavailability, quicker time to achieving serum half-life, better penetration into target tissue, and perhaps more effective engagement at the target. All of those things are possibilities. These are things that are yet to be explored, but it’s very enticing to see that uncharacteristically rapid initial response. It’s all very gratifying – and tantalizing,” Dr. Papp said in response to an audience question.

The safety profile of sonelokinab was reassuring. The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis in 13.5% of patients and pruritus in 6.7%, with most cases being mild or moderate. As with other IL-17 blockers, there was an increase in oral candidiasis. This side effect appeared to occur in dose-dependent fashion: The incidence was zero in the 30-mg group, 1.9% with 60 mg, 3.8% with sonelokinab at 120 mg without an enhanced loading dose, and 5.9% with the enhanced loading dose.

The study was conducted by Avillion in partnership with Merck. Dr. Papp reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to those and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Sonelokinab, an investigational interleukin-17A/F (IL-A/F)–targeted agent utilizing a novel therapeutic platform known as a nanobody, achieved exceptionally rapid and clinically meaningful improvement in moderate to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis in a phase 2b randomized trial, Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

A nanobody is a tiny antibody fragment with a much smaller molecular weight than the monoclonal antibodies utilized today in treating psoriasis or atopic dermatitis. The sonelokinab nanobody, derived from animals in the camel family, is a recombinant sequence-optimized nanobody specific for human IL-17F, IL-17A, the heterodimer IL-17A/F, and serum albumin. The binding to serum albumin give sonelokinab a lengthy half-life of 10-12 hours, which may be therapeutically relevant, explained Dr. Papp, president and founder of Probity Medical Research in Waterloo, Ont.

He presented the 24-week results of a multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy randomized trial including 313 North American and European adults with an average 18-year history of psoriasis and a baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score of about 21. They were randomized to one of six treatment arms for the first 12 weeks: subcutaneous injection of sonelokinab at 30, 60, or 120 mg at weeks 0, 2, 4, and 8; enhanced–loading-dose sonelokinab at 120 mg every 2 weeks through week 10; the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) at its standard dosing as an active comparator; or placebo. Data analysis was by rigorous nonresponder imputation, meaning anyone who didn’t complete the study was scored as a nonresponder.

“This yields a conservative data analysis somewhat biased against sonelokinab,” the dermatologist pointed out.

The primary outcome in the trial was the week-12 rate of an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1, indicative of clear or almost clear skin. This was achieved in 88.2% of patients in the highest-dose arm of sonelokinab. That group also had a week-12 PASI 90 response rate of 76.5% and a PASI 100 response rate of 33.3%. By comparison, patients on standard-dose secukinumab had a less robust week-12 IGA 0/1 rate of 77.4%, a PASI 90 of 64.2%, and a PASI 100 of 28.3%. Of note, however, this secukinumab performance was better than seen in the 30-mg sonelokinab group, and comparable to outcomes with 60 mg of sonelokinab.

Dose escalation was performed from weeks 12-24. Patients with a week-12 IGA score greater than 1 after being on sonelokinab at 30 or 60 mg were upgraded to 120 mg at week 12 and again every 4 weeks thereafter. Placebo-treated controls were switched to 120 mg at weeks 12, 14, 16, and every 4 weeks thereafter. The group on the enhanced–loading-dose sonelokinab moved to 120 mg every 4 weeks, while those who had gotten four doses of sonelokinab at 120 mg during the first 12 weeks were switched to 120 mg every 8 weeks. The secukinumab group remained on the approved dosing through week 24.

At week 24, superior outcomes were seen in the enhanced–loading-dose sonelokinab group, with an IGA 0/1 response rate of 94.2%, a PASI 90 of 90.4%, and a PASI 100 of 56.9%. The corresponding week-24 rates in patients on 120 mg of sonelokinab every 8 weeks from week 12 on were 80.4%, 79.2%, and 40.4%, outcomes similar to those seen with secukinumab.

The rapidity of response to sonelokinab at 120 mg was striking, with approximately one-third of treated patients achieving a PASI 90 response by week 4.

“This could reflect the smaller molecular profile. There is possibly rapid increased absorption or bioavailability, quicker time to achieving serum half-life, better penetration into target tissue, and perhaps more effective engagement at the target. All of those things are possibilities. These are things that are yet to be explored, but it’s very enticing to see that uncharacteristically rapid initial response. It’s all very gratifying – and tantalizing,” Dr. Papp said in response to an audience question.

The safety profile of sonelokinab was reassuring. The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis in 13.5% of patients and pruritus in 6.7%, with most cases being mild or moderate. As with other IL-17 blockers, there was an increase in oral candidiasis. This side effect appeared to occur in dose-dependent fashion: The incidence was zero in the 30-mg group, 1.9% with 60 mg, 3.8% with sonelokinab at 120 mg without an enhanced loading dose, and 5.9% with the enhanced loading dose.

The study was conducted by Avillion in partnership with Merck. Dr. Papp reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to those and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Bimekizumab, an experimental biologic for the treatment of psoriasis that inhibits both interleukin-17A and IL-17F, achieves rates of skin clearance greater than those reported in phase 3 trials with other biologics, according to data from two simultaneously published trials, one of which was a head-to-head comparison with ustekinumab.

In the head-to-head trial called BE VIVID, which included a placebo arm, there was a large advantage of bimekizumab over ustekinumab, a biologic that targets IL-12 and IL-23 and is approved for treating psoriasis, for both coprimary endpoints, according to a multinational group of investigators led by Kristian Reich, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University Medical Center, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.

The proportion of patients with skin clearance was not only greater but faster, “with responses observed after one dose,” Dr. Reich and coinvestigators reported.

The data from the BE VIVID trial was published simultaneously with the BE READY trial, which was placebo-controlled but did not include an active comparator.

Evaluated at week 16, the coprimary endpoints in both studies were skin clearance as measured by a Psoriasis Area Severity Index greater than 90% (PASI 90) and Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear).

In BE VIVID, 567 patients were randomized in 11 countries, including the United States. The dose of bimekizumab was 320 mg administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks. In a randomization scheme of 4:2:1, half as many patients (163) were randomized to ustekinumab (Stelara), which was administered in weight-based dosing of 45 mg or 90 mg at enrollment, at 4 weeks, and then every 12 weeks. The placebo arm had 83 patients. All were switched to bimekizumab at 16 weeks.

At week 16, PASI 90 was achieved in 85% of patients randomized to bimekizumab, compared with 50% of patients randomized to ustekinumab (P < .0001). The rate in the placebo group was 5%.

The bimekizumab advantage for an IGA response of 0 or 1 was of similar magnitude, relative to ustekinumab (84% vs. 53%; P < .0001) and placebo (5%). All secondary efficacy endpoints, such as PASI 90 at week 12 (85% vs. 44%) and PASI 100 at week 16 (59% vs. 21%), favored bimekizumab over ustekinumab.

In the BE READY trial, which evaluated the same dose and schedule of bimekizumab, the rates of PASI 90 at week 16 were 91% and 1% (P < .0001) for the experimental arm and placebo, respectively. The proportion of patients with an IGA score of 0 or 1 were 93% and 1% (P < .0001), respectively.

In BE READY, patients who achieved PASI 90 at week 16 were reallocated to receive bimekizumab every 4 weeks, bimekizumab every 8 weeks (also 320 mg), or placebo. Both schedules of bimekizumab maintained responses through week 56, according to the authors, led by Kenneth B. Gordon, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

In both trials, safety was evaluated over the first 16 weeks as well as over a subsequent maintenance period, which extended to 52 weeks in BE VIVID and 56 weeks in BE READY. For bimekizumab, oral candidiasis was the most common treatment-related adverse event. In BE VIVID, this adverse event was reported in 9% of bimekizumab patients, compared with 0% of either the ustekinumab or placebo groups, up to week 16. Out to week 52, the rates were 15% in the bimekizumab group and 1% in the ustekinumab group.

In the BE READY trial, the rates of oral candidiasis were 6% and 0% for bimekizumab and placebo, respectively, through week 16. Over the maintenance periods, the rates were 9% and 11% for the every-8-week and every-4-week doses, respectively.

Discontinuation for adverse events was not higher on bimekizumab than placebo in either trial, nor was the proportion of serious treatment-emergent adverse events.

Nevertheless, the potential for adverse events was a key part of the discussion regarding the future role of bimekizumab, if approved, in an editorial that accompanied the publication of these studies.

“Bimekizumab might be our most effective biologic for psoriasis yet,” coauthors, William W. Huang, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, and Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, both at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, wrote in the editorial. “If the goal of psoriasis treatment is complete clearance, bimekizumab seems like a good option from an efficacy perspective.”

However, they noted that other IL-17 blockers, like secukinumab (Cosentyx) and brodalumab (Siliq), have been associated with risks, including the development of inflammatory bowel disease. In addition to the oral candidiasis seen in the BE VIVID and BE READY trials, they cautioned that other issues might arise with longer follow-up and greater numbers of patients exposed to this therapy.

In an interview, Dr. Feldman said adequately informed patients might be willing to accept these risks for the potential of greater efficacy, but he emphasized the need for appropriate warnings and education.

“We have a lot of very good treatments that offer patients an excellent chance of an excellent outcome – treatments that have been around and in use in large numbers of people for years,” Dr. Feldman said. “Unless the doctor and patient felt strongly about the need to use this new, perhaps more potent option, I would be personally inclined to use treatment with well-established safety profiles first.”

The senior author of the BE VIVID trial, Mark Lebwohl, MD, dean for clinical therapeutics and professor of dermatology, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, disagreed. He acknowledged that other agents targeting IL-17 have been associated with IBD, but risk of IBD is already elevated in patients with psoriasis and the risk appears to be lower with bimekizumab relative to prior agents in this class.

“Bimekizumab has now been studied in thousands of patients over several years. We can say with support from a sizable amount of data that IBD is very uncommon,” he said. While oral candidiasis is associated with bimekizumab, it is “easy to treat.”

Asked specifically if he will consider using bimekizumab as a first-line agent in psoriasis patients who are candidates for a biologic, Dr. Lebwohl said he would. Based on the evidence that this agent is more effective than other options and has manageable side effects, he believes it will be an important new treatment option.

Dr. Reich, Dr. Lebwohl, Dr. Gordon, and Dr. Feldman have financial relationships with multiple companies that produce therapies for psoriasis, including UCB Pharma, the sponsor of these studies.
 

Bimekizumab, an experimental biologic for the treatment of psoriasis that inhibits both interleukin-17A and IL-17F, achieves rates of skin clearance greater than those reported in phase 3 trials with other biologics, according to data from two simultaneously published trials, one of which was a head-to-head comparison with ustekinumab.

In the head-to-head trial called BE VIVID, which included a placebo arm, there was a large advantage of bimekizumab over ustekinumab, a biologic that targets IL-12 and IL-23 and is approved for treating psoriasis, for both coprimary endpoints, according to a multinational group of investigators led by Kristian Reich, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University Medical Center, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.

The proportion of patients with skin clearance was not only greater but faster, “with responses observed after one dose,” Dr. Reich and coinvestigators reported.

The data from the BE VIVID trial was published simultaneously with the BE READY trial, which was placebo-controlled but did not include an active comparator.

Evaluated at week 16, the coprimary endpoints in both studies were skin clearance as measured by a Psoriasis Area Severity Index greater than 90% (PASI 90) and Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear).

In BE VIVID, 567 patients were randomized in 11 countries, including the United States. The dose of bimekizumab was 320 mg administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks. In a randomization scheme of 4:2:1, half as many patients (163) were randomized to ustekinumab (Stelara), which was administered in weight-based dosing of 45 mg or 90 mg at enrollment, at 4 weeks, and then every 12 weeks. The placebo arm had 83 patients. All were switched to bimekizumab at 16 weeks.

At week 16, PASI 90 was achieved in 85% of patients randomized to bimekizumab, compared with 50% of patients randomized to ustekinumab (P < .0001). The rate in the placebo group was 5%.

The bimekizumab advantage for an IGA response of 0 or 1 was of similar magnitude, relative to ustekinumab (84% vs. 53%; P < .0001) and placebo (5%). All secondary efficacy endpoints, such as PASI 90 at week 12 (85% vs. 44%) and PASI 100 at week 16 (59% vs. 21%), favored bimekizumab over ustekinumab.

In the BE READY trial, which evaluated the same dose and schedule of bimekizumab, the rates of PASI 90 at week 16 were 91% and 1% (P < .0001) for the experimental arm and placebo, respectively. The proportion of patients with an IGA score of 0 or 1 were 93% and 1% (P < .0001), respectively.

In BE READY, patients who achieved PASI 90 at week 16 were reallocated to receive bimekizumab every 4 weeks, bimekizumab every 8 weeks (also 320 mg), or placebo. Both schedules of bimekizumab maintained responses through week 56, according to the authors, led by Kenneth B. Gordon, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

In both trials, safety was evaluated over the first 16 weeks as well as over a subsequent maintenance period, which extended to 52 weeks in BE VIVID and 56 weeks in BE READY. For bimekizumab, oral candidiasis was the most common treatment-related adverse event. In BE VIVID, this adverse event was reported in 9% of bimekizumab patients, compared with 0% of either the ustekinumab or placebo groups, up to week 16. Out to week 52, the rates were 15% in the bimekizumab group and 1% in the ustekinumab group.

In the BE READY trial, the rates of oral candidiasis were 6% and 0% for bimekizumab and placebo, respectively, through week 16. Over the maintenance periods, the rates were 9% and 11% for the every-8-week and every-4-week doses, respectively.

Discontinuation for adverse events was not higher on bimekizumab than placebo in either trial, nor was the proportion of serious treatment-emergent adverse events.

Nevertheless, the potential for adverse events was a key part of the discussion regarding the future role of bimekizumab, if approved, in an editorial that accompanied the publication of these studies.

“Bimekizumab might be our most effective biologic for psoriasis yet,” coauthors, William W. Huang, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, and Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, both at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, wrote in the editorial. “If the goal of psoriasis treatment is complete clearance, bimekizumab seems like a good option from an efficacy perspective.”

However, they noted that other IL-17 blockers, like secukinumab (Cosentyx) and brodalumab (Siliq), have been associated with risks, including the development of inflammatory bowel disease. In addition to the oral candidiasis seen in the BE VIVID and BE READY trials, they cautioned that other issues might arise with longer follow-up and greater numbers of patients exposed to this therapy.

In an interview, Dr. Feldman said adequately informed patients might be willing to accept these risks for the potential of greater efficacy, but he emphasized the need for appropriate warnings and education.

“We have a lot of very good treatments that offer patients an excellent chance of an excellent outcome – treatments that have been around and in use in large numbers of people for years,” Dr. Feldman said. “Unless the doctor and patient felt strongly about the need to use this new, perhaps more potent option, I would be personally inclined to use treatment with well-established safety profiles first.”

The senior author of the BE VIVID trial, Mark Lebwohl, MD, dean for clinical therapeutics and professor of dermatology, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, disagreed. He acknowledged that other agents targeting IL-17 have been associated with IBD, but risk of IBD is already elevated in patients with psoriasis and the risk appears to be lower with bimekizumab relative to prior agents in this class.

“Bimekizumab has now been studied in thousands of patients over several years. We can say with support from a sizable amount of data that IBD is very uncommon,” he said. While oral candidiasis is associated with bimekizumab, it is “easy to treat.”

Asked specifically if he will consider using bimekizumab as a first-line agent in psoriasis patients who are candidates for a biologic, Dr. Lebwohl said he would. Based on the evidence that this agent is more effective than other options and has manageable side effects, he believes it will be an important new treatment option.

Dr. Reich, Dr. Lebwohl, Dr. Gordon, and Dr. Feldman have financial relationships with multiple companies that produce therapies for psoriasis, including UCB Pharma, the sponsor of these studies.
 

Bimekizumab, an experimental biologic for the treatment of psoriasis that inhibits both interleukin-17A and IL-17F, achieves rates of skin clearance greater than those reported in phase 3 trials with other biologics, according to data from two simultaneously published trials, one of which was a head-to-head comparison with ustekinumab.

In the head-to-head trial called BE VIVID, which included a placebo arm, there was a large advantage of bimekizumab over ustekinumab, a biologic that targets IL-12 and IL-23 and is approved for treating psoriasis, for both coprimary endpoints, according to a multinational group of investigators led by Kristian Reich, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University Medical Center, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.

The proportion of patients with skin clearance was not only greater but faster, “with responses observed after one dose,” Dr. Reich and coinvestigators reported.

The data from the BE VIVID trial was published simultaneously with the BE READY trial, which was placebo-controlled but did not include an active comparator.

Evaluated at week 16, the coprimary endpoints in both studies were skin clearance as measured by a Psoriasis Area Severity Index greater than 90% (PASI 90) and Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear).

In BE VIVID, 567 patients were randomized in 11 countries, including the United States. The dose of bimekizumab was 320 mg administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks. In a randomization scheme of 4:2:1, half as many patients (163) were randomized to ustekinumab (Stelara), which was administered in weight-based dosing of 45 mg or 90 mg at enrollment, at 4 weeks, and then every 12 weeks. The placebo arm had 83 patients. All were switched to bimekizumab at 16 weeks.

At week 16, PASI 90 was achieved in 85% of patients randomized to bimekizumab, compared with 50% of patients randomized to ustekinumab (P < .0001). The rate in the placebo group was 5%.

The bimekizumab advantage for an IGA response of 0 or 1 was of similar magnitude, relative to ustekinumab (84% vs. 53%; P < .0001) and placebo (5%). All secondary efficacy endpoints, such as PASI 90 at week 12 (85% vs. 44%) and PASI 100 at week 16 (59% vs. 21%), favored bimekizumab over ustekinumab.

In the BE READY trial, which evaluated the same dose and schedule of bimekizumab, the rates of PASI 90 at week 16 were 91% and 1% (P < .0001) for the experimental arm and placebo, respectively. The proportion of patients with an IGA score of 0 or 1 were 93% and 1% (P < .0001), respectively.

In BE READY, patients who achieved PASI 90 at week 16 were reallocated to receive bimekizumab every 4 weeks, bimekizumab every 8 weeks (also 320 mg), or placebo. Both schedules of bimekizumab maintained responses through week 56, according to the authors, led by Kenneth B. Gordon, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

In both trials, safety was evaluated over the first 16 weeks as well as over a subsequent maintenance period, which extended to 52 weeks in BE VIVID and 56 weeks in BE READY. For bimekizumab, oral candidiasis was the most common treatment-related adverse event. In BE VIVID, this adverse event was reported in 9% of bimekizumab patients, compared with 0% of either the ustekinumab or placebo groups, up to week 16. Out to week 52, the rates were 15% in the bimekizumab group and 1% in the ustekinumab group.

In the BE READY trial, the rates of oral candidiasis were 6% and 0% for bimekizumab and placebo, respectively, through week 16. Over the maintenance periods, the rates were 9% and 11% for the every-8-week and every-4-week doses, respectively.

Discontinuation for adverse events was not higher on bimekizumab than placebo in either trial, nor was the proportion of serious treatment-emergent adverse events.

Nevertheless, the potential for adverse events was a key part of the discussion regarding the future role of bimekizumab, if approved, in an editorial that accompanied the publication of these studies.

“Bimekizumab might be our most effective biologic for psoriasis yet,” coauthors, William W. Huang, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, and Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, both at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, wrote in the editorial. “If the goal of psoriasis treatment is complete clearance, bimekizumab seems like a good option from an efficacy perspective.”

However, they noted that other IL-17 blockers, like secukinumab (Cosentyx) and brodalumab (Siliq), have been associated with risks, including the development of inflammatory bowel disease. In addition to the oral candidiasis seen in the BE VIVID and BE READY trials, they cautioned that other issues might arise with longer follow-up and greater numbers of patients exposed to this therapy.

In an interview, Dr. Feldman said adequately informed patients might be willing to accept these risks for the potential of greater efficacy, but he emphasized the need for appropriate warnings and education.

“We have a lot of very good treatments that offer patients an excellent chance of an excellent outcome – treatments that have been around and in use in large numbers of people for years,” Dr. Feldman said. “Unless the doctor and patient felt strongly about the need to use this new, perhaps more potent option, I would be personally inclined to use treatment with well-established safety profiles first.”

The senior author of the BE VIVID trial, Mark Lebwohl, MD, dean for clinical therapeutics and professor of dermatology, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, disagreed. He acknowledged that other agents targeting IL-17 have been associated with IBD, but risk of IBD is already elevated in patients with psoriasis and the risk appears to be lower with bimekizumab relative to prior agents in this class.

“Bimekizumab has now been studied in thousands of patients over several years. We can say with support from a sizable amount of data that IBD is very uncommon,” he said. While oral candidiasis is associated with bimekizumab, it is “easy to treat.”

Asked specifically if he will consider using bimekizumab as a first-line agent in psoriasis patients who are candidates for a biologic, Dr. Lebwohl said he would. Based on the evidence that this agent is more effective than other options and has manageable side effects, he believes it will be an important new treatment option.

Dr. Reich, Dr. Lebwohl, Dr. Gordon, and Dr. Feldman have financial relationships with multiple companies that produce therapies for psoriasis, including UCB Pharma, the sponsor of these studies.
 

Office-based phototherapy practices have closed or are operating below capacity because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.¹ Social distancing measures to reduce virus transmission are a significant driving factor.^1-3 In the age of biologics, other options requiring fewer patient visits are available, such as UVB phototherapy. UV phototherapy is considered first line when more than 10% of the body surface area is affected.⁴ Although phototherapy often is performed in the office, it also may be delivered at home.² Home-based phototherapy is safe, effective, and similar in cost to office-based phototherapy.⁴ Currently, there are limited COVID-19–specific guidelines for home-based phototherapy.

The risks and sequelae of COVID-19 are still being investigated, with cases varying by location. As such, local and national public health recommendations are evolving. Dermatologists must make individualized decisions about practice services, as local restrictions differ. As office-based phototherapy services may struggle to implement mitigation strategies, home-based phototherapy is an increasingly viable treatment option.^1,4,5 Patient benefits of home therapy include improved treatment compliance; greater patient satisfaction; reduced travel/waiting time; and reduced long-term cost, including co-pays, depending on insurance coverage.^2,4

We aim to provide recommendations on home-based phototherapy during the pandemic. Throughout the decision-making process, careful consideration of safety, risks, benefits, and treatment options for physicians, staff, and patients will be vital to the successful implementation of home-based phototherapy. Our recommendations are based on maximizing benefits and minimizing risks.

Considerations for Physicians

Physicians should take the following steps when assessing if home phototherapy is an option for each patient.^1,2,4

• Determine patient eligibility for phototherapy treatment if currently not on phototherapy

• Carefully review patient and provider requirements for home phototherapy supplier

• Review patient history of treatment compliance

• Determine insurance coverage and consider exclusion criteria

• Review prior treatments

• Provide education on side effects

• Provide education on signs of adequate treatment response

• Indicate the type of UV light and unit on the prescription

• Consider whether the patient is in the maintenance or initiation phase when providing recommendations

• Work with the supplier if the light therapy unit is denied by submitting an appeal or prescribing a different unit

• Follow up with telemedicine to assess treatment effectiveness and monitor for adverse effects

Considerations for Patients

Counsel patients to weigh the risks and benefits of home phototherapy prescription and usage.^1,2,4

• Evaluate cost

• Carefully review patient and provider requirements for home phototherapy supplier

• Ensure a complete understanding of treatment schedule

• Properly utilize protective equipment (eg, genital shields for men, eye shields for all)

• Avoid sharing phototherapy units with household members

• Disinfect and maintain units

• Maintain proper ventilation of spaces

• Maintain treatment log

• Attend follow-up

Treatment Alternatives

For patients with severe psoriasis, there are alternative treatments to office and home phototherapy. Biologics, immunosuppressive therapies, and other treatment options may be considered on a case-by-case basis.^3,4,6 Currently, recommendations for the risk of COVID-19 with biologics or systemic immunosuppressive therapies remains inconsistent and should be carefully considered when providing alternative treatments.^7-11

Final Thoughts

As restrictions are lifted according to local public health measures, prepandemic office phototherapy practices may resume operations. Home phototherapy is a practical and effective alternative for treatment of psoriasis when access to the office setting is limited.

Office-based phototherapy practices have closed or are operating below capacity because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.¹ Social distancing measures to reduce virus transmission are a significant driving factor.^1-3 In the age of biologics, other options requiring fewer patient visits are available, such as UVB phototherapy. UV phototherapy is considered first line when more than 10% of the body surface area is affected.⁴ Although phototherapy often is performed in the office, it also may be delivered at home.² Home-based phototherapy is safe, effective, and similar in cost to office-based phototherapy.⁴ Currently, there are limited COVID-19–specific guidelines for home-based phototherapy.

The risks and sequelae of COVID-19 are still being investigated, with cases varying by location. As such, local and national public health recommendations are evolving. Dermatologists must make individualized decisions about practice services, as local restrictions differ. As office-based phototherapy services may struggle to implement mitigation strategies, home-based phototherapy is an increasingly viable treatment option.^1,4,5 Patient benefits of home therapy include improved treatment compliance; greater patient satisfaction; reduced travel/waiting time; and reduced long-term cost, including co-pays, depending on insurance coverage.^2,4

We aim to provide recommendations on home-based phototherapy during the pandemic. Throughout the decision-making process, careful consideration of safety, risks, benefits, and treatment options for physicians, staff, and patients will be vital to the successful implementation of home-based phototherapy. Our recommendations are based on maximizing benefits and minimizing risks.

Considerations for Physicians

Physicians should take the following steps when assessing if home phototherapy is an option for each patient.^1,2,4

• Determine patient eligibility for phototherapy treatment if currently not on phototherapy

• Carefully review patient and provider requirements for home phototherapy supplier

• Review patient history of treatment compliance

• Determine insurance coverage and consider exclusion criteria

• Review prior treatments

• Provide education on side effects

• Provide education on signs of adequate treatment response

• Indicate the type of UV light and unit on the prescription

• Consider whether the patient is in the maintenance or initiation phase when providing recommendations

• Work with the supplier if the light therapy unit is denied by submitting an appeal or prescribing a different unit

• Follow up with telemedicine to assess treatment effectiveness and monitor for adverse effects

Considerations for Patients

Counsel patients to weigh the risks and benefits of home phototherapy prescription and usage.^1,2,4

• Evaluate cost

• Carefully review patient and provider requirements for home phototherapy supplier

• Ensure a complete understanding of treatment schedule

• Properly utilize protective equipment (eg, genital shields for men, eye shields for all)

• Avoid sharing phototherapy units with household members

• Disinfect and maintain units

• Maintain proper ventilation of spaces

• Maintain treatment log

• Attend follow-up

Treatment Alternatives

For patients with severe psoriasis, there are alternative treatments to office and home phototherapy. Biologics, immunosuppressive therapies, and other treatment options may be considered on a case-by-case basis.^3,4,6 Currently, recommendations for the risk of COVID-19 with biologics or systemic immunosuppressive therapies remains inconsistent and should be carefully considered when providing alternative treatments.^7-11

Final Thoughts

As restrictions are lifted according to local public health measures, prepandemic office phototherapy practices may resume operations. Home phototherapy is a practical and effective alternative for treatment of psoriasis when access to the office setting is limited.

Office-based phototherapy practices have closed or are operating below capacity because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.¹ Social distancing measures to reduce virus transmission are a significant driving factor.^1-3 In the age of biologics, other options requiring fewer patient visits are available, such as UVB phototherapy. UV phototherapy is considered first line when more than 10% of the body surface area is affected.⁴ Although phototherapy often is performed in the office, it also may be delivered at home.² Home-based phototherapy is safe, effective, and similar in cost to office-based phototherapy.⁴ Currently, there are limited COVID-19–specific guidelines for home-based phototherapy.

The risks and sequelae of COVID-19 are still being investigated, with cases varying by location. As such, local and national public health recommendations are evolving. Dermatologists must make individualized decisions about practice services, as local restrictions differ. As office-based phototherapy services may struggle to implement mitigation strategies, home-based phototherapy is an increasingly viable treatment option.^1,4,5 Patient benefits of home therapy include improved treatment compliance; greater patient satisfaction; reduced travel/waiting time; and reduced long-term cost, including co-pays, depending on insurance coverage.^2,4

We aim to provide recommendations on home-based phototherapy during the pandemic. Throughout the decision-making process, careful consideration of safety, risks, benefits, and treatment options for physicians, staff, and patients will be vital to the successful implementation of home-based phototherapy. Our recommendations are based on maximizing benefits and minimizing risks.

Considerations for Physicians

Physicians should take the following steps when assessing if home phototherapy is an option for each patient.^1,2,4

• Determine patient eligibility for phototherapy treatment if currently not on phototherapy

• Carefully review patient and provider requirements for home phototherapy supplier

• Review patient history of treatment compliance

• Determine insurance coverage and consider exclusion criteria

• Review prior treatments

• Provide education on side effects

• Provide education on signs of adequate treatment response

• Indicate the type of UV light and unit on the prescription

• Consider whether the patient is in the maintenance or initiation phase when providing recommendations

• Work with the supplier if the light therapy unit is denied by submitting an appeal or prescribing a different unit

• Follow up with telemedicine to assess treatment effectiveness and monitor for adverse effects

Considerations for Patients

Counsel patients to weigh the risks and benefits of home phototherapy prescription and usage.^1,2,4

• Evaluate cost

• Carefully review patient and provider requirements for home phototherapy supplier

• Ensure a complete understanding of treatment schedule

• Properly utilize protective equipment (eg, genital shields for men, eye shields for all)

• Avoid sharing phototherapy units with household members

• Disinfect and maintain units

• Maintain proper ventilation of spaces

• Maintain treatment log

• Attend follow-up

Treatment Alternatives

For patients with severe psoriasis, there are alternative treatments to office and home phototherapy. Biologics, immunosuppressive therapies, and other treatment options may be considered on a case-by-case basis.^3,4,6 Currently, recommendations for the risk of COVID-19 with biologics or systemic immunosuppressive therapies remains inconsistent and should be carefully considered when providing alternative treatments.^7-11

Final Thoughts

As restrictions are lifted according to local public health measures, prepandemic office phototherapy practices may resume operations. Home phototherapy is a practical and effective alternative for treatment of psoriasis when access to the office setting is limited.

Psoriasis is a chronic relapsing skin condition characterized by keratinocyte hyperproliferation and a chronic inflammatory cascade. Therefore, controlling inflammatory responses with systemic medications is beneficial in managing psoriatic lesions and their accompanying symptoms, especially in disease inadequately controlled by topicals. Ease of drug administration and treatment availability are benefits that systemic nonbiologic therapies may have over biologic therapies.

In 2020, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) and the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) published guidelines for managing psoriasis in adults with systemic nonbiologic therapies.¹ Dosing, efficacy, toxicity, drug-related interactions, and contraindications are addressed alongside evidence-based treatment recommendations. This review addresses current recommendations for systemic nonbiologics in psoriasis with a focus on the treatments approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): acitretin, apremilast, cyclosporine, and methotrexate (eTable). Fumaric acid esters and tofacitinib are FDA approved for psoriatic arthritis but not for plaque psoriasis. Additional long-term safety analyses of tofacitinib for plaque psoriasis were requested by the FDA. Dimethyl fumarate is approved by the European Medicines Agency for treatment of psoriasis and is among the first-line systemic treatments used in Germany.²

Selecting a Systemic Nonbiologic Agent

Methotrexate and apremilast have a strength level A recommendation for treating moderate to severe psoriasis in adults. However, methotrexate is less effective than biologic agents, including adalimumab and infliximab, for cutaneous psoriasis. Methotrexate is believed to improve psoriasis because of its direct immunosuppressive effect and inhibition of lymphoid cell proliferation. It typically is administered orally but can be administered subcutaneously for decreased gastrointestinal (GI) adverse effects. Compliance with close laboratory monitoring and lifestyle modifications, such as contraceptive use (because of teratogenicity) and alcohol cessation (because of the risk of liver damage) are essential in patients using methotrexate.

Apremilast, the most recently FDA-approved oral systemic medication for psoriasis, inhibits phosphodiesterase 4, subsequently decreasing inflammatory responses involving helper T cells T_H1 and T_H17 as well as type 1 interferon pathways. Apremilast is particularly effective in treating psoriasis with scalp and palmoplantar involvement.³ Additionally, it has an encouraging safety profile and is favorable in patients with multiple comorbidities.

Among the 4 oral agents, cyclosporine has the quickest onset of effect and has a strength level A recommendation for treating severe and recalcitrant psoriasis. Because of its high-risk profile, it is recommended for short periods of time, acute flares, or during transitions to safer long-term treatment. Patients with multiple comorbidities should avoid cyclosporine as a treatment option.

Acitretin, an FDA-approved oral retinoid, is an optimal treatment option for immunosuppressed patients or patients with HIV on antiretroviral therapy because it is not immunosuppressive.⁴ Unlike cyclosporine, acitretin is less helpful for acute flares because it takes 3 to 6 months to reach peak therapeutic response for treating plaque psoriasis. Similar to cyclosporine, acitretin can be recommended for severe psoriatic variants of erythrodermic, generalized pustular, and palmoplantar psoriasis. Acitretin has been reported to be more effective and have a more rapid onset of action in erythrodermic and pustular psoriasis than in plaque psoriasis.⁵

Patient Comorbidities

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a common comorbidity that affects treatment choice. Patients with coexisting PsA could be treated with apremilast, as it is approved for both psoriasis and PsA. In a phase 3 randomized, controlled trial, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response at weeks 16 and 52 was achieved by significantly more patients on apremilast at 20 mg twice daily (BID)(P=.0166) or 30 mg BID (P=.0001) than placebo.⁶ Although not FDA approved for PsA, methotrexate has been shown to improve concomitant PsA of the peripheral joints in patients with psoriasis. Furthermore, a trial of methotrexate has shown considerable improvements in PsA symptoms in patients with psoriasis—a 62.7% decrease in proportion of patients with dactylitis, 25.7% decrease in enthesitis, and improvements in ACR outcomes (ACR20 in 40.8%, ACR50 in 18.8%, and ACR70 in 8.6%, with 22.4% achieving minimal disease activity).⁷

Prior to starting a systemic medication for psoriasis, it is necessary to discuss effects on pregnancy and fertility. Pregnancy is an absolute contraindication for methotrexate and acitretin use because of the drugs’ teratogenicity. Fetal death and fetal abnormalities have been reported with methotrexate use in pregnant women.⁸ Bone, central nervous system, auditory, ocular, and cardiovascular fetal abnormalities have been reported with maternal acitretin use.⁹ Breastfeeding also is an absolute contraindication for methotrexate use, as methotrexate passes into breastmilk in small quantities. Patients taking acitretin also are strongly discouraged from nursing because of the long half-life (168 days) of etretinate, a reverse metabolism product of acitretin that is increased in the presence of alcohol. Women should wait 3 months after discontinuing methotrexate for complete drug clearance before conceiving compared to 3 years in women who have discontinued acitretin.^8,10 Men also are recommended to wait 3 months after discontinuing methotrexate before attempting to conceive, as its effect on male spermatogenesis and teratogenicity is unclear. Acitretin has no documented teratogenic effect in men. For women planning to become pregnant, apremilast and cyclosporine can be continued throughout pregnancy on an individual basis. The benefit of apremilast should be weighed against its potential risk to the fetus. There is no evidence of teratogenicity of apremilast at doses of 20 mg/kg daily.¹¹ Current research regarding cyclosporine use in pregnancy only exists in transplant patients and has revealed higher rates of prematurity and lower birth weight without teratogenic effects.^10,12 The risks and benefits of continuing cyclosporine while nursing should be evaluated, as cyclosporine (and ethanol-methanol components used in some formulations) is detectable in breast milk.

Drug Contraindications

Hypersensitivity to a specific systemic nonbiologic medication is a contraindication to its use and is an absolute contraindication for methotrexate. Other absolute contraindications to methotrexate are pregnancy and nursing, alcoholism, alcoholic liver disease, chronic liver disease, immunodeficiency, and cytopenia. Contraindications to acitretin include pregnancy, severely impaired liver and kidney function, and chronic abnormally elevated lipid levels. There are no additional contraindications for apremilast, but patients must be informed of the risk for depression before initiating therapy. Cyclosporine is contraindicated in patients with prior psoralen plus UVA (PUVA) treatment or radiation therapy, abnormal renal function, uncontrolled hypertension, uncontrolled and active infections, and a history of systemic malignancy. Live vaccines should be avoided in patients on cyclosporine, and caution is advised when cyclosporine is prescribed for patients with poorly controlled diabetes.

Pretreatment Screening

Because of drug interactions, a detailed medication history is essential prior to starting any systemic medication for psoriasis. Apremilast and cyclosporine are metabolized by cytochrome P450 and therefore are more susceptible to drug-related interactions. Cyclosporine use can affect levels of other medications that are metabolized by cytochrome P450, such as statins, calcium channel blockers, and warfarin. Similarly, acitretin’s metabolism is affected by drugs that interfere with cytochrome P450. Additionally, screening laboratory tests are needed before initiating systemic nonbiologic agents for psoriasis, with the exception of apremilast.

Prior to initiating methotrexate treatment, patients may require tuberculosis (TB), hepatitis B, and hepatitis C screening tests, depending on their risk factors. A baseline liver fibrosis assessment is recommended because of the potential of hepatotoxicity in patients receiving methotrexate. Noninvasive serology tests utilized to evaluate the presence of pre-existing liver disease include Fibrosis-4, FibroMeter, FibroSure, and Hepascore. Patients with impaired renal function have an increased predisposition to methotrexate-induced hematologic toxicity. Thus, it is necessary to administer a test dose of methotrexate in these patients followed by a complete blood cell count (CBC) 5 to 7 days later. An unremarkable CBC after the test dose suggests the absence of myelosuppression, and methotrexate dosage can be increased weekly. Patients on methotrexate also must receive folate supplementation to reduce the risk for adverse effects during treatment.

Patients considering cyclosporine must undergo screening for family and personal history of renal disease. Prior to initiating treatment, patients require 2 blood pressure measurements, hepatitis screening, TB screening, urinalysis, serum creatinine (Cr), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), CBC, potassium and magnesium levels, uric acid levels, lipid profile, bilirubin, and liver function tests (LFTs). A pregnancy test also is warranted for women of childbearing potential (WOCP).

Patients receiving acitretin should receive screening laboratory tests consisting of fasting cholesterol and triglycerides, CBC, renal function tests, LFTs, and a pregnancy test, if applicable.

After baseline evaluations, the selected oral systemic can be initiated using specific dosing regimens to ensure optimal drug efficacy and reduce incidence of adverse effects (eTable).

Monitoring During Active Treatment

Physicians need to counsel patients on potential adverse effects of their medications. Because of its relatively safe profile among the systemic nonbiologic agents, apremilast requires the least monitoring during treatment. There is no required routine laboratory monitoring for patients using apremilast, though testing may be pursued at the clinician’s discretion. However, weight should be regularly measured in patients on apremilast. In a phase 3 clinical trial of patients with psoriasis, 12% of patients on apremilast experienced a 5% to 10% weight loss compared to 5% of patients on placebo.^11,13 Thus, it is recommended that physicians consider discontinuing apremilast in patients with a weight loss of more than 5% from baseline, especially if it may lead to other unfavorable health effects. Because depression is reported among 1% of patients on apremilast, close monitoring for new or worsening symptoms of depression should be performed during treatment.^11,13 To avoid common GI side effects, apremilast is initiated at 10 mg/d and is increased by 10 mg/d over the first 5 days to a final dose of 30 mg BID. Elderly patients in particular should be cautioned about the risk of dehydration associated with GI side effects. Patients with severe renal impairment (Cr clearance, <30 mL/min) should use apremilast at a dosage of 30 mg once daily.

For patients on methotrexate, laboratory monitoring is essential after each dose increase. It also is important for physicians to obtain regular blood work to assess for hematologic abnormalities and hepatoxicity. Patients with risk factors such as renal insufficiency, increased age, hypoalbuminemia, alcohol abuse and alcoholic liver disease, and methotrexate dosing errors, as well as those prone to drug-related interactions, must be monitored closely for pancytopenia.^14,15 The protocol for screening for methotrexate-induced hepatotoxicity during treatment depends on patient risk factors. Risk factors for hepatoxicity include history of or current alcohol abuse, abnormal LFTs, personal or family history of liver disease, diabetes, obesity, use of other hepatotoxic drugs, and hyperlipidemia.¹⁶ In patients without blood work abnormalities, CBC and LFTs can be performed every 3 to 6 months. Patients with abnormally elevated LFTs require repeat blood work every 2 to 4 weeks. Persistent elevations in LFTs require further evaluation by a GI specialist. After a cumulative dose of 3.5 to 4 g, patients should receive a GI referral and further studies (such as vibration-controlled transient elastography or liver biopsy) to assess for liver fibrosis. Patients with signs of stage 3 liver fibrosis are recommended to discontinue methotrexate and switch to another medication for psoriasis. For patients with impaired renal function, periodic BUN and Cr monitoring are needed. Common adverse effects of methotrexate include diarrhea, nausea, and anorexia, which can be mitigated by taking methotrexate with food or lowering the dosage.⁸ Patients on methotrexate should be monitored for rare but potential risks of infection and reactivation of latent TB, hepatitis, and lymphoma. To reduce the incidence of methotrexate toxicity from drug interactions, a review of current medications at each follow-up visit is recommended.

Nephrotoxicity and hypertension are the most common adverse effects of cyclosporine. It is important to monitor BUN and Cr biweekly for the initial 3 months, then at monthly intervals if there are no persistent abnormalities. Patients also must receive monthly CBC, potassium and magnesium levels, uric acid levels, lipid panel, serum bilirubin, and LFTs to monitor for adverse effects.¹⁷ Physicians should obtain regular pregnancy tests in WOCP. Weekly monitoring of early-morning blood pressure is recommended for patients on cyclosporine to detect early cyclosporine-induced nephrotoxicity. Hypertension on 2 separate occasions warrants a reduction in cyclosporine dosage or an addition of a calcium channel blocker for blood pressure control. Dose reduction also should be performed in patients with an increase in Cr above baseline greater than 25%.¹⁷ If Cr level is persistently elevated or if blood pressure does not normalize to lower than 140/90 after dose reduction, cyclosporine should be immediately discontinued. Patients on cyclosporine for more than a year warrant an annual estimation of glomerular filtration rate because of irreversible kidney damage associated with long-term use. A systematic review of patients treated with cyclosporine for more than 2 years found that at least 50% of patients experienced a 30% increase in Cr above baseline.¹⁸

Patients taking acitretin should be monitored for hyperlipidemia, the most common laboratory abnormality seen in 25% to 50% of patients.¹⁹ Fasting lipid panel and LFTs should be performed monthly for the initial 3 months on acitretin, then at 3-month intervals. Lifestyle changes should be encouraged to reduce hyperlipidemia, and fibrates may be given to treat elevated triglyceride levels, the most common type of hyperlipidemia seen with acitretin. Acitretin-induced toxic hepatitis is a rare occurrence that warrants immediate discontinuation of the medication.²⁰ Monthly pregnancy tests must be performed in WOCP.

Combination Therapy

For apremilast, there is anecdotal evidence supporting its use in conjunction with phototherapy or biologics in some cases, but no high-quality data.²¹ On the other hand, using combination therapy with other systemic therapies can reduce adverse effects and decrease the amount of medication needed to achieve psoriasis clearance. Methotrexate used with etanercept, for example, has been more effective than methotrexate monotherapy in treating psoriasis, which has been attributed to a methotrexate-mediated reduction in the production of antidrug antibodies.^22,23

Methotrexate, cyclosporine, and acitretin have synergistic effects when used with phototherapy. Narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) phototherapy combined with methotrexate is more effective in clearing psoriasis than methotrexate or NB-UVB phototherapy alone. Similarly, acitretin and PUVA combination therapy is more effective than acitretin or PUVA phototherapy alone. Combination regimens of acitretin and broadband UVB phototherapy, acitretin and NB-UVB phototherapy, and acitretin and PUVA phototherapy also have been more effective than individual modalities alone. Combination therapy reduces the cumulative doses of both therapies and reduces the frequency and duration of phototherapy needed for psoriatic clearance.²⁴ In acitretin combination therapy with UVB phototherapy, the recommended regimen is 2 weeks of acitretin monotherapy followed by UVB phototherapy. For patients with an inadequate response to UVB phototherapy, the UVB dose can be reduced by 30% to 50%, and acitretin 25 mg/d can be added to phototherapy treatment. Acitretin-UVB combination therapy has been shown to reduce the risk of UVB-induced erythema seen in UVB monotherapy. Similarly, the risk of squamous cell carcinoma is reduced in acitretin-PUVA combination therapy compared to PUVA monotherapy.²⁵

The timing of phototherapy in combination with systemic nonbiologic agents is critical. Phototherapy used simultaneously with cyclosporine is contraindicated owing to increased risk of photocarcinogenesis, whereas phototherapy used in sequence with cyclosporine is well tolerated and effective. Furthermore, cyclosporine 3 mg/kg/d for 4 weeks followed by a rapid cyclosporine taper and initiation of NB-UVB phototherapy demonstrated resolution of psoriasis with fewer NB-UVB treatments and less UVB exposure than NB-UVB therapy alone.²⁶

Final Thoughts

The FDA-approved systemic nonbiologic agents are accessible and effective treatment options for adults with widespread or inadequately controlled psoriasis. Selecting the ideal therapy requires careful consideration of medication toxicity, contraindications, monitoring requirements, and patient comorbidities. The AAD-NPF guidelines guide dermatologists in prescribing systemic nonbiologic treatments in adults with psoriasis. Utilizing these recommendations in combination with clinician judgment will help patients achieve safe and optimal psoriasis clearance.

Psoriasis is a chronic relapsing skin condition characterized by keratinocyte hyperproliferation and a chronic inflammatory cascade. Therefore, controlling inflammatory responses with systemic medications is beneficial in managing psoriatic lesions and their accompanying symptoms, especially in disease inadequately controlled by topicals. Ease of drug administration and treatment availability are benefits that systemic nonbiologic therapies may have over biologic therapies.

In 2020, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) and the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) published guidelines for managing psoriasis in adults with systemic nonbiologic therapies.¹ Dosing, efficacy, toxicity, drug-related interactions, and contraindications are addressed alongside evidence-based treatment recommendations. This review addresses current recommendations for systemic nonbiologics in psoriasis with a focus on the treatments approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): acitretin, apremilast, cyclosporine, and methotrexate (eTable). Fumaric acid esters and tofacitinib are FDA approved for psoriatic arthritis but not for plaque psoriasis. Additional long-term safety analyses of tofacitinib for plaque psoriasis were requested by the FDA. Dimethyl fumarate is approved by the European Medicines Agency for treatment of psoriasis and is among the first-line systemic treatments used in Germany.²

Selecting a Systemic Nonbiologic Agent

Methotrexate and apremilast have a strength level A recommendation for treating moderate to severe psoriasis in adults. However, methotrexate is less effective than biologic agents, including adalimumab and infliximab, for cutaneous psoriasis. Methotrexate is believed to improve psoriasis because of its direct immunosuppressive effect and inhibition of lymphoid cell proliferation. It typically is administered orally but can be administered subcutaneously for decreased gastrointestinal (GI) adverse effects. Compliance with close laboratory monitoring and lifestyle modifications, such as contraceptive use (because of teratogenicity) and alcohol cessation (because of the risk of liver damage) are essential in patients using methotrexate.

Apremilast, the most recently FDA-approved oral systemic medication for psoriasis, inhibits phosphodiesterase 4, subsequently decreasing inflammatory responses involving helper T cells T_H1 and T_H17 as well as type 1 interferon pathways. Apremilast is particularly effective in treating psoriasis with scalp and palmoplantar involvement.³ Additionally, it has an encouraging safety profile and is favorable in patients with multiple comorbidities.

Among the 4 oral agents, cyclosporine has the quickest onset of effect and has a strength level A recommendation for treating severe and recalcitrant psoriasis. Because of its high-risk profile, it is recommended for short periods of time, acute flares, or during transitions to safer long-term treatment. Patients with multiple comorbidities should avoid cyclosporine as a treatment option.

Acitretin, an FDA-approved oral retinoid, is an optimal treatment option for immunosuppressed patients or patients with HIV on antiretroviral therapy because it is not immunosuppressive.⁴ Unlike cyclosporine, acitretin is less helpful for acute flares because it takes 3 to 6 months to reach peak therapeutic response for treating plaque psoriasis. Similar to cyclosporine, acitretin can be recommended for severe psoriatic variants of erythrodermic, generalized pustular, and palmoplantar psoriasis. Acitretin has been reported to be more effective and have a more rapid onset of action in erythrodermic and pustular psoriasis than in plaque psoriasis.⁵

Patient Comorbidities

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a common comorbidity that affects treatment choice. Patients with coexisting PsA could be treated with apremilast, as it is approved for both psoriasis and PsA. In a phase 3 randomized, controlled trial, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response at weeks 16 and 52 was achieved by significantly more patients on apremilast at 20 mg twice daily (BID)(P=.0166) or 30 mg BID (P=.0001) than placebo.⁶ Although not FDA approved for PsA, methotrexate has been shown to improve concomitant PsA of the peripheral joints in patients with psoriasis. Furthermore, a trial of methotrexate has shown considerable improvements in PsA symptoms in patients with psoriasis—a 62.7% decrease in proportion of patients with dactylitis, 25.7% decrease in enthesitis, and improvements in ACR outcomes (ACR20 in 40.8%, ACR50 in 18.8%, and ACR70 in 8.6%, with 22.4% achieving minimal disease activity).⁷

Prior to starting a systemic medication for psoriasis, it is necessary to discuss effects on pregnancy and fertility. Pregnancy is an absolute contraindication for methotrexate and acitretin use because of the drugs’ teratogenicity. Fetal death and fetal abnormalities have been reported with methotrexate use in pregnant women.⁸ Bone, central nervous system, auditory, ocular, and cardiovascular fetal abnormalities have been reported with maternal acitretin use.⁹ Breastfeeding also is an absolute contraindication for methotrexate use, as methotrexate passes into breastmilk in small quantities. Patients taking acitretin also are strongly discouraged from nursing because of the long half-life (168 days) of etretinate, a reverse metabolism product of acitretin that is increased in the presence of alcohol. Women should wait 3 months after discontinuing methotrexate for complete drug clearance before conceiving compared to 3 years in women who have discontinued acitretin.^8,10 Men also are recommended to wait 3 months after discontinuing methotrexate before attempting to conceive, as its effect on male spermatogenesis and teratogenicity is unclear. Acitretin has no documented teratogenic effect in men. For women planning to become pregnant, apremilast and cyclosporine can be continued throughout pregnancy on an individual basis. The benefit of apremilast should be weighed against its potential risk to the fetus. There is no evidence of teratogenicity of apremilast at doses of 20 mg/kg daily.¹¹ Current research regarding cyclosporine use in pregnancy only exists in transplant patients and has revealed higher rates of prematurity and lower birth weight without teratogenic effects.^10,12 The risks and benefits of continuing cyclosporine while nursing should be evaluated, as cyclosporine (and ethanol-methanol components used in some formulations) is detectable in breast milk.

Drug Contraindications

Hypersensitivity to a specific systemic nonbiologic medication is a contraindication to its use and is an absolute contraindication for methotrexate. Other absolute contraindications to methotrexate are pregnancy and nursing, alcoholism, alcoholic liver disease, chronic liver disease, immunodeficiency, and cytopenia. Contraindications to acitretin include pregnancy, severely impaired liver and kidney function, and chronic abnormally elevated lipid levels. There are no additional contraindications for apremilast, but patients must be informed of the risk for depression before initiating therapy. Cyclosporine is contraindicated in patients with prior psoralen plus UVA (PUVA) treatment or radiation therapy, abnormal renal function, uncontrolled hypertension, uncontrolled and active infections, and a history of systemic malignancy. Live vaccines should be avoided in patients on cyclosporine, and caution is advised when cyclosporine is prescribed for patients with poorly controlled diabetes.

Pretreatment Screening

Because of drug interactions, a detailed medication history is essential prior to starting any systemic medication for psoriasis. Apremilast and cyclosporine are metabolized by cytochrome P450 and therefore are more susceptible to drug-related interactions. Cyclosporine use can affect levels of other medications that are metabolized by cytochrome P450, such as statins, calcium channel blockers, and warfarin. Similarly, acitretin’s metabolism is affected by drugs that interfere with cytochrome P450. Additionally, screening laboratory tests are needed before initiating systemic nonbiologic agents for psoriasis, with the exception of apremilast.

Prior to initiating methotrexate treatment, patients may require tuberculosis (TB), hepatitis B, and hepatitis C screening tests, depending on their risk factors. A baseline liver fibrosis assessment is recommended because of the potential of hepatotoxicity in patients receiving methotrexate. Noninvasive serology tests utilized to evaluate the presence of pre-existing liver disease include Fibrosis-4, FibroMeter, FibroSure, and Hepascore. Patients with impaired renal function have an increased predisposition to methotrexate-induced hematologic toxicity. Thus, it is necessary to administer a test dose of methotrexate in these patients followed by a complete blood cell count (CBC) 5 to 7 days later. An unremarkable CBC after the test dose suggests the absence of myelosuppression, and methotrexate dosage can be increased weekly. Patients on methotrexate also must receive folate supplementation to reduce the risk for adverse effects during treatment.

Patients considering cyclosporine must undergo screening for family and personal history of renal disease. Prior to initiating treatment, patients require 2 blood pressure measurements, hepatitis screening, TB screening, urinalysis, serum creatinine (Cr), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), CBC, potassium and magnesium levels, uric acid levels, lipid profile, bilirubin, and liver function tests (LFTs). A pregnancy test also is warranted for women of childbearing potential (WOCP).

Patients receiving acitretin should receive screening laboratory tests consisting of fasting cholesterol and triglycerides, CBC, renal function tests, LFTs, and a pregnancy test, if applicable.

After baseline evaluations, the selected oral systemic can be initiated using specific dosing regimens to ensure optimal drug efficacy and reduce incidence of adverse effects (eTable).

Monitoring During Active Treatment

Physicians need to counsel patients on potential adverse effects of their medications. Because of its relatively safe profile among the systemic nonbiologic agents, apremilast requires the least monitoring during treatment. There is no required routine laboratory monitoring for patients using apremilast, though testing may be pursued at the clinician’s discretion. However, weight should be regularly measured in patients on apremilast. In a phase 3 clinical trial of patients with psoriasis, 12% of patients on apremilast experienced a 5% to 10% weight loss compared to 5% of patients on placebo.^11,13 Thus, it is recommended that physicians consider discontinuing apremilast in patients with a weight loss of more than 5% from baseline, especially if it may lead to other unfavorable health effects. Because depression is reported among 1% of patients on apremilast, close monitoring for new or worsening symptoms of depression should be performed during treatment.^11,13 To avoid common GI side effects, apremilast is initiated at 10 mg/d and is increased by 10 mg/d over the first 5 days to a final dose of 30 mg BID. Elderly patients in particular should be cautioned about the risk of dehydration associated with GI side effects. Patients with severe renal impairment (Cr clearance, <30 mL/min) should use apremilast at a dosage of 30 mg once daily.

For patients on methotrexate, laboratory monitoring is essential after each dose increase. It also is important for physicians to obtain regular blood work to assess for hematologic abnormalities and hepatoxicity. Patients with risk factors such as renal insufficiency, increased age, hypoalbuminemia, alcohol abuse and alcoholic liver disease, and methotrexate dosing errors, as well as those prone to drug-related interactions, must be monitored closely for pancytopenia.^14,15 The protocol for screening for methotrexate-induced hepatotoxicity during treatment depends on patient risk factors. Risk factors for hepatoxicity include history of or current alcohol abuse, abnormal LFTs, personal or family history of liver disease, diabetes, obesity, use of other hepatotoxic drugs, and hyperlipidemia.¹⁶ In patients without blood work abnormalities, CBC and LFTs can be performed every 3 to 6 months. Patients with abnormally elevated LFTs require repeat blood work every 2 to 4 weeks. Persistent elevations in LFTs require further evaluation by a GI specialist. After a cumulative dose of 3.5 to 4 g, patients should receive a GI referral and further studies (such as vibration-controlled transient elastography or liver biopsy) to assess for liver fibrosis. Patients with signs of stage 3 liver fibrosis are recommended to discontinue methotrexate and switch to another medication for psoriasis. For patients with impaired renal function, periodic BUN and Cr monitoring are needed. Common adverse effects of methotrexate include diarrhea, nausea, and anorexia, which can be mitigated by taking methotrexate with food or lowering the dosage.⁸ Patients on methotrexate should be monitored for rare but potential risks of infection and reactivation of latent TB, hepatitis, and lymphoma. To reduce the incidence of methotrexate toxicity from drug interactions, a review of current medications at each follow-up visit is recommended.

Nephrotoxicity and hypertension are the most common adverse effects of cyclosporine. It is important to monitor BUN and Cr biweekly for the initial 3 months, then at monthly intervals if there are no persistent abnormalities. Patients also must receive monthly CBC, potassium and magnesium levels, uric acid levels, lipid panel, serum bilirubin, and LFTs to monitor for adverse effects.¹⁷ Physicians should obtain regular pregnancy tests in WOCP. Weekly monitoring of early-morning blood pressure is recommended for patients on cyclosporine to detect early cyclosporine-induced nephrotoxicity. Hypertension on 2 separate occasions warrants a reduction in cyclosporine dosage or an addition of a calcium channel blocker for blood pressure control. Dose reduction also should be performed in patients with an increase in Cr above baseline greater than 25%.¹⁷ If Cr level is persistently elevated or if blood pressure does not normalize to lower than 140/90 after dose reduction, cyclosporine should be immediately discontinued. Patients on cyclosporine for more than a year warrant an annual estimation of glomerular filtration rate because of irreversible kidney damage associated with long-term use. A systematic review of patients treated with cyclosporine for more than 2 years found that at least 50% of patients experienced a 30% increase in Cr above baseline.¹⁸

Patients taking acitretin should be monitored for hyperlipidemia, the most common laboratory abnormality seen in 25% to 50% of patients.¹⁹ Fasting lipid panel and LFTs should be performed monthly for the initial 3 months on acitretin, then at 3-month intervals. Lifestyle changes should be encouraged to reduce hyperlipidemia, and fibrates may be given to treat elevated triglyceride levels, the most common type of hyperlipidemia seen with acitretin. Acitretin-induced toxic hepatitis is a rare occurrence that warrants immediate discontinuation of the medication.²⁰ Monthly pregnancy tests must be performed in WOCP.

Combination Therapy

For apremilast, there is anecdotal evidence supporting its use in conjunction with phototherapy or biologics in some cases, but no high-quality data.²¹ On the other hand, using combination therapy with other systemic therapies can reduce adverse effects and decrease the amount of medication needed to achieve psoriasis clearance. Methotrexate used with etanercept, for example, has been more effective than methotrexate monotherapy in treating psoriasis, which has been attributed to a methotrexate-mediated reduction in the production of antidrug antibodies.^22,23

Methotrexate, cyclosporine, and acitretin have synergistic effects when used with phototherapy. Narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) phototherapy combined with methotrexate is more effective in clearing psoriasis than methotrexate or NB-UVB phototherapy alone. Similarly, acitretin and PUVA combination therapy is more effective than acitretin or PUVA phototherapy alone. Combination regimens of acitretin and broadband UVB phototherapy, acitretin and NB-UVB phototherapy, and acitretin and PUVA phototherapy also have been more effective than individual modalities alone. Combination therapy reduces the cumulative doses of both therapies and reduces the frequency and duration of phototherapy needed for psoriatic clearance.²⁴ In acitretin combination therapy with UVB phototherapy, the recommended regimen is 2 weeks of acitretin monotherapy followed by UVB phototherapy. For patients with an inadequate response to UVB phototherapy, the UVB dose can be reduced by 30% to 50%, and acitretin 25 mg/d can be added to phototherapy treatment. Acitretin-UVB combination therapy has been shown to reduce the risk of UVB-induced erythema seen in UVB monotherapy. Similarly, the risk of squamous cell carcinoma is reduced in acitretin-PUVA combination therapy compared to PUVA monotherapy.²⁵

The timing of phototherapy in combination with systemic nonbiologic agents is critical. Phototherapy used simultaneously with cyclosporine is contraindicated owing to increased risk of photocarcinogenesis, whereas phototherapy used in sequence with cyclosporine is well tolerated and effective. Furthermore, cyclosporine 3 mg/kg/d for 4 weeks followed by a rapid cyclosporine taper and initiation of NB-UVB phototherapy demonstrated resolution of psoriasis with fewer NB-UVB treatments and less UVB exposure than NB-UVB therapy alone.²⁶

Final Thoughts

The FDA-approved systemic nonbiologic agents are accessible and effective treatment options for adults with widespread or inadequately controlled psoriasis. Selecting the ideal therapy requires careful consideration of medication toxicity, contraindications, monitoring requirements, and patient comorbidities. The AAD-NPF guidelines guide dermatologists in prescribing systemic nonbiologic treatments in adults with psoriasis. Utilizing these recommendations in combination with clinician judgment will help patients achieve safe and optimal psoriasis clearance.

Psoriasis is a chronic relapsing skin condition characterized by keratinocyte hyperproliferation and a chronic inflammatory cascade. Therefore, controlling inflammatory responses with systemic medications is beneficial in managing psoriatic lesions and their accompanying symptoms, especially in disease inadequately controlled by topicals. Ease of drug administration and treatment availability are benefits that systemic nonbiologic therapies may have over biologic therapies.

In 2020, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) and the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) published guidelines for managing psoriasis in adults with systemic nonbiologic therapies.¹ Dosing, efficacy, toxicity, drug-related interactions, and contraindications are addressed alongside evidence-based treatment recommendations. This review addresses current recommendations for systemic nonbiologics in psoriasis with a focus on the treatments approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): acitretin, apremilast, cyclosporine, and methotrexate (eTable). Fumaric acid esters and tofacitinib are FDA approved for psoriatic arthritis but not for plaque psoriasis. Additional long-term safety analyses of tofacitinib for plaque psoriasis were requested by the FDA. Dimethyl fumarate is approved by the European Medicines Agency for treatment of psoriasis and is among the first-line systemic treatments used in Germany.²

Selecting a Systemic Nonbiologic Agent

Methotrexate and apremilast have a strength level A recommendation for treating moderate to severe psoriasis in adults. However, methotrexate is less effective than biologic agents, including adalimumab and infliximab, for cutaneous psoriasis. Methotrexate is believed to improve psoriasis because of its direct immunosuppressive effect and inhibition of lymphoid cell proliferation. It typically is administered orally but can be administered subcutaneously for decreased gastrointestinal (GI) adverse effects. Compliance with close laboratory monitoring and lifestyle modifications, such as contraceptive use (because of teratogenicity) and alcohol cessation (because of the risk of liver damage) are essential in patients using methotrexate.

Apremilast, the most recently FDA-approved oral systemic medication for psoriasis, inhibits phosphodiesterase 4, subsequently decreasing inflammatory responses involving helper T cells T_H1 and T_H17 as well as type 1 interferon pathways. Apremilast is particularly effective in treating psoriasis with scalp and palmoplantar involvement.³ Additionally, it has an encouraging safety profile and is favorable in patients with multiple comorbidities.

Among the 4 oral agents, cyclosporine has the quickest onset of effect and has a strength level A recommendation for treating severe and recalcitrant psoriasis. Because of its high-risk profile, it is recommended for short periods of time, acute flares, or during transitions to safer long-term treatment. Patients with multiple comorbidities should avoid cyclosporine as a treatment option.

Acitretin, an FDA-approved oral retinoid, is an optimal treatment option for immunosuppressed patients or patients with HIV on antiretroviral therapy because it is not immunosuppressive.⁴ Unlike cyclosporine, acitretin is less helpful for acute flares because it takes 3 to 6 months to reach peak therapeutic response for treating plaque psoriasis. Similar to cyclosporine, acitretin can be recommended for severe psoriatic variants of erythrodermic, generalized pustular, and palmoplantar psoriasis. Acitretin has been reported to be more effective and have a more rapid onset of action in erythrodermic and pustular psoriasis than in plaque psoriasis.⁵

Patient Comorbidities

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a common comorbidity that affects treatment choice. Patients with coexisting PsA could be treated with apremilast, as it is approved for both psoriasis and PsA. In a phase 3 randomized, controlled trial, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response at weeks 16 and 52 was achieved by significantly more patients on apremilast at 20 mg twice daily (BID)(P=.0166) or 30 mg BID (P=.0001) than placebo.⁶ Although not FDA approved for PsA, methotrexate has been shown to improve concomitant PsA of the peripheral joints in patients with psoriasis. Furthermore, a trial of methotrexate has shown considerable improvements in PsA symptoms in patients with psoriasis—a 62.7% decrease in proportion of patients with dactylitis, 25.7% decrease in enthesitis, and improvements in ACR outcomes (ACR20 in 40.8%, ACR50 in 18.8%, and ACR70 in 8.6%, with 22.4% achieving minimal disease activity).⁷

Prior to starting a systemic medication for psoriasis, it is necessary to discuss effects on pregnancy and fertility. Pregnancy is an absolute contraindication for methotrexate and acitretin use because of the drugs’ teratogenicity. Fetal death and fetal abnormalities have been reported with methotrexate use in pregnant women.⁸ Bone, central nervous system, auditory, ocular, and cardiovascular fetal abnormalities have been reported with maternal acitretin use.⁹ Breastfeeding also is an absolute contraindication for methotrexate use, as methotrexate passes into breastmilk in small quantities. Patients taking acitretin also are strongly discouraged from nursing because of the long half-life (168 days) of etretinate, a reverse metabolism product of acitretin that is increased in the presence of alcohol. Women should wait 3 months after discontinuing methotrexate for complete drug clearance before conceiving compared to 3 years in women who have discontinued acitretin.^8,10 Men also are recommended to wait 3 months after discontinuing methotrexate before attempting to conceive, as its effect on male spermatogenesis and teratogenicity is unclear. Acitretin has no documented teratogenic effect in men. For women planning to become pregnant, apremilast and cyclosporine can be continued throughout pregnancy on an individual basis. The benefit of apremilast should be weighed against its potential risk to the fetus. There is no evidence of teratogenicity of apremilast at doses of 20 mg/kg daily.¹¹ Current research regarding cyclosporine use in pregnancy only exists in transplant patients and has revealed higher rates of prematurity and lower birth weight without teratogenic effects.^10,12 The risks and benefits of continuing cyclosporine while nursing should be evaluated, as cyclosporine (and ethanol-methanol components used in some formulations) is detectable in breast milk.

Drug Contraindications

Hypersensitivity to a specific systemic nonbiologic medication is a contraindication to its use and is an absolute contraindication for methotrexate. Other absolute contraindications to methotrexate are pregnancy and nursing, alcoholism, alcoholic liver disease, chronic liver disease, immunodeficiency, and cytopenia. Contraindications to acitretin include pregnancy, severely impaired liver and kidney function, and chronic abnormally elevated lipid levels. There are no additional contraindications for apremilast, but patients must be informed of the risk for depression before initiating therapy. Cyclosporine is contraindicated in patients with prior psoralen plus UVA (PUVA) treatment or radiation therapy, abnormal renal function, uncontrolled hypertension, uncontrolled and active infections, and a history of systemic malignancy. Live vaccines should be avoided in patients on cyclosporine, and caution is advised when cyclosporine is prescribed for patients with poorly controlled diabetes.

Pretreatment Screening

Because of drug interactions, a detailed medication history is essential prior to starting any systemic medication for psoriasis. Apremilast and cyclosporine are metabolized by cytochrome P450 and therefore are more susceptible to drug-related interactions. Cyclosporine use can affect levels of other medications that are metabolized by cytochrome P450, such as statins, calcium channel blockers, and warfarin. Similarly, acitretin’s metabolism is affected by drugs that interfere with cytochrome P450. Additionally, screening laboratory tests are needed before initiating systemic nonbiologic agents for psoriasis, with the exception of apremilast.

Prior to initiating methotrexate treatment, patients may require tuberculosis (TB), hepatitis B, and hepatitis C screening tests, depending on their risk factors. A baseline liver fibrosis assessment is recommended because of the potential of hepatotoxicity in patients receiving methotrexate. Noninvasive serology tests utilized to evaluate the presence of pre-existing liver disease include Fibrosis-4, FibroMeter, FibroSure, and Hepascore. Patients with impaired renal function have an increased predisposition to methotrexate-induced hematologic toxicity. Thus, it is necessary to administer a test dose of methotrexate in these patients followed by a complete blood cell count (CBC) 5 to 7 days later. An unremarkable CBC after the test dose suggests the absence of myelosuppression, and methotrexate dosage can be increased weekly. Patients on methotrexate also must receive folate supplementation to reduce the risk for adverse effects during treatment.

Patients considering cyclosporine must undergo screening for family and personal history of renal disease. Prior to initiating treatment, patients require 2 blood pressure measurements, hepatitis screening, TB screening, urinalysis, serum creatinine (Cr), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), CBC, potassium and magnesium levels, uric acid levels, lipid profile, bilirubin, and liver function tests (LFTs). A pregnancy test also is warranted for women of childbearing potential (WOCP).

Patients receiving acitretin should receive screening laboratory tests consisting of fasting cholesterol and triglycerides, CBC, renal function tests, LFTs, and a pregnancy test, if applicable.

After baseline evaluations, the selected oral systemic can be initiated using specific dosing regimens to ensure optimal drug efficacy and reduce incidence of adverse effects (eTable).

Monitoring During Active Treatment

Physicians need to counsel patients on potential adverse effects of their medications. Because of its relatively safe profile among the systemic nonbiologic agents, apremilast requires the least monitoring during treatment. There is no required routine laboratory monitoring for patients using apremilast, though testing may be pursued at the clinician’s discretion. However, weight should be regularly measured in patients on apremilast. In a phase 3 clinical trial of patients with psoriasis, 12% of patients on apremilast experienced a 5% to 10% weight loss compared to 5% of patients on placebo.^11,13 Thus, it is recommended that physicians consider discontinuing apremilast in patients with a weight loss of more than 5% from baseline, especially if it may lead to other unfavorable health effects. Because depression is reported among 1% of patients on apremilast, close monitoring for new or worsening symptoms of depression should be performed during treatment.^11,13 To avoid common GI side effects, apremilast is initiated at 10 mg/d and is increased by 10 mg/d over the first 5 days to a final dose of 30 mg BID. Elderly patients in particular should be cautioned about the risk of dehydration associated with GI side effects. Patients with severe renal impairment (Cr clearance, <30 mL/min) should use apremilast at a dosage of 30 mg once daily.

For patients on methotrexate, laboratory monitoring is essential after each dose increase. It also is important for physicians to obtain regular blood work to assess for hematologic abnormalities and hepatoxicity. Patients with risk factors such as renal insufficiency, increased age, hypoalbuminemia, alcohol abuse and alcoholic liver disease, and methotrexate dosing errors, as well as those prone to drug-related interactions, must be monitored closely for pancytopenia.^14,15 The protocol for screening for methotrexate-induced hepatotoxicity during treatment depends on patient risk factors. Risk factors for hepatoxicity include history of or current alcohol abuse, abnormal LFTs, personal or family history of liver disease, diabetes, obesity, use of other hepatotoxic drugs, and hyperlipidemia.¹⁶ In patients without blood work abnormalities, CBC and LFTs can be performed every 3 to 6 months. Patients with abnormally elevated LFTs require repeat blood work every 2 to 4 weeks. Persistent elevations in LFTs require further evaluation by a GI specialist. After a cumulative dose of 3.5 to 4 g, patients should receive a GI referral and further studies (such as vibration-controlled transient elastography or liver biopsy) to assess for liver fibrosis. Patients with signs of stage 3 liver fibrosis are recommended to discontinue methotrexate and switch to another medication for psoriasis. For patients with impaired renal function, periodic BUN and Cr monitoring are needed. Common adverse effects of methotrexate include diarrhea, nausea, and anorexia, which can be mitigated by taking methotrexate with food or lowering the dosage.⁸ Patients on methotrexate should be monitored for rare but potential risks of infection and reactivation of latent TB, hepatitis, and lymphoma. To reduce the incidence of methotrexate toxicity from drug interactions, a review of current medications at each follow-up visit is recommended.

Nephrotoxicity and hypertension are the most common adverse effects of cyclosporine. It is important to monitor BUN and Cr biweekly for the initial 3 months, then at monthly intervals if there are no persistent abnormalities. Patients also must receive monthly CBC, potassium and magnesium levels, uric acid levels, lipid panel, serum bilirubin, and LFTs to monitor for adverse effects.¹⁷ Physicians should obtain regular pregnancy tests in WOCP. Weekly monitoring of early-morning blood pressure is recommended for patients on cyclosporine to detect early cyclosporine-induced nephrotoxicity. Hypertension on 2 separate occasions warrants a reduction in cyclosporine dosage or an addition of a calcium channel blocker for blood pressure control. Dose reduction also should be performed in patients with an increase in Cr above baseline greater than 25%.¹⁷ If Cr level is persistently elevated or if blood pressure does not normalize to lower than 140/90 after dose reduction, cyclosporine should be immediately discontinued. Patients on cyclosporine for more than a year warrant an annual estimation of glomerular filtration rate because of irreversible kidney damage associated with long-term use. A systematic review of patients treated with cyclosporine for more than 2 years found that at least 50% of patients experienced a 30% increase in Cr above baseline.¹⁸

Patients taking acitretin should be monitored for hyperlipidemia, the most common laboratory abnormality seen in 25% to 50% of patients.¹⁹ Fasting lipid panel and LFTs should be performed monthly for the initial 3 months on acitretin, then at 3-month intervals. Lifestyle changes should be encouraged to reduce hyperlipidemia, and fibrates may be given to treat elevated triglyceride levels, the most common type of hyperlipidemia seen with acitretin. Acitretin-induced toxic hepatitis is a rare occurrence that warrants immediate discontinuation of the medication.²⁰ Monthly pregnancy tests must be performed in WOCP.

Combination Therapy

For apremilast, there is anecdotal evidence supporting its use in conjunction with phototherapy or biologics in some cases, but no high-quality data.²¹ On the other hand, using combination therapy with other systemic therapies can reduce adverse effects and decrease the amount of medication needed to achieve psoriasis clearance. Methotrexate used with etanercept, for example, has been more effective than methotrexate monotherapy in treating psoriasis, which has been attributed to a methotrexate-mediated reduction in the production of antidrug antibodies.^22,23

Methotrexate, cyclosporine, and acitretin have synergistic effects when used with phototherapy. Narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) phototherapy combined with methotrexate is more effective in clearing psoriasis than methotrexate or NB-UVB phototherapy alone. Similarly, acitretin and PUVA combination therapy is more effective than acitretin or PUVA phototherapy alone. Combination regimens of acitretin and broadband UVB phototherapy, acitretin and NB-UVB phototherapy, and acitretin and PUVA phototherapy also have been more effective than individual modalities alone. Combination therapy reduces the cumulative doses of both therapies and reduces the frequency and duration of phototherapy needed for psoriatic clearance.²⁴ In acitretin combination therapy with UVB phototherapy, the recommended regimen is 2 weeks of acitretin monotherapy followed by UVB phototherapy. For patients with an inadequate response to UVB phototherapy, the UVB dose can be reduced by 30% to 50%, and acitretin 25 mg/d can be added to phototherapy treatment. Acitretin-UVB combination therapy has been shown to reduce the risk of UVB-induced erythema seen in UVB monotherapy. Similarly, the risk of squamous cell carcinoma is reduced in acitretin-PUVA combination therapy compared to PUVA monotherapy.²⁵

The timing of phototherapy in combination with systemic nonbiologic agents is critical. Phototherapy used simultaneously with cyclosporine is contraindicated owing to increased risk of photocarcinogenesis, whereas phototherapy used in sequence with cyclosporine is well tolerated and effective. Furthermore, cyclosporine 3 mg/kg/d for 4 weeks followed by a rapid cyclosporine taper and initiation of NB-UVB phototherapy demonstrated resolution of psoriasis with fewer NB-UVB treatments and less UVB exposure than NB-UVB therapy alone.²⁶

Final Thoughts

The FDA-approved systemic nonbiologic agents are accessible and effective treatment options for adults with widespread or inadequately controlled psoriasis. Selecting the ideal therapy requires careful consideration of medication toxicity, contraindications, monitoring requirements, and patient comorbidities. The AAD-NPF guidelines guide dermatologists in prescribing systemic nonbiologic treatments in adults with psoriasis. Utilizing these recommendations in combination with clinician judgment will help patients achieve safe and optimal psoriasis clearance.

The treatment landscape for psoriasis has evolved rapidly over the last decade. Biologic therapies have demonstrated robust efficacy and acceptable safety profiles among many patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. However, the use of biologics among immunocompromised patients with psoriasis rarely is discussed in the literature. As new biologics for psoriasis are being developed, a critical gap exists in the literature regarding the safety and efficacy of these medications in immunocompromised patients. Per American Academy of Dermatology–National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines, caution should be exercised when using biologics in patients with immunocompromising conditions.¹ In organ transplant recipients, the potential risks of combining systemic medications used for organ transplantation and biologic treatments for psoriasis are unknown.²

In the posttransplant period, the immunosuppressive regimens for transplantation likely will improve psoriasis. However, patients with organ transplant and psoriasis still experience flares that can be challenging to treat.³ Prior treatment modalities to prevent psoriasis flares in organ transplant recipients have relied largely on topical therapies, posttransplant immunosuppressive medications (eg, cyclosporine, tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil) that prevent graft rejection, and systemic corticosteroids. We report a case of a 50-year-old man with a recent history of liver transplantation who presented with severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

Case Report

A 50-year-old man presented to the dermatology clinic with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis that had been present for 15 years. His plaque psoriasis covered approximately 40% of the body surface area, including the scalp, trunk, arms, and legs. In addition, he had diffuse joint pain in the hands and feet; a radiograph revealed active psoriatic arthritis involving the joints of the fingers and toes.

One year prior to presentation to our dermatology clinic, the patient underwent an an orthotopic liver transplant for history of Child-Pugh class C liver cirrhosis secondary to untreated hepatitis C virus (HCV) and alcohol use that was complicated by hepatocellular carcinoma. He acquired a high-risk donor liver that was HCV positive with HCV genotype 1a. Starting 2 months after the transplant, he underwent 12 weeks of treatment for HCV with glecaprevir-pibrentasvir. Once his HCV treatment course was completed, he achieved a sustained virologic response with an undetectable viral load. To prevent transplant rejection, he was on chronic immunosuppression with tacrolimus, a calcineurin inhibitor, and mycophenolate mofetil, an inhibitor of inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase whose action leads to decreased proliferation of T cells and B cells.

The patient’s psoriasis initially was treated with triamcinolone acetonide ointment 0.1% applied twice daily to the psoriasis lesions for 1 year by another dermatologist. However, his psoriasis progressed to involve 40% of the body surface area. Following our evaluation 1 year posttransplant, the patient was started on subcutaneous brodalumab 210 mg at weeks 0, 1, and 2, then every 2 weeks thereafter. Approximately 10 weeks after initiation of brodalumab, the patient’s psoriasis was completely clear, and he was asymptomatic from psoriatic arthritis. The patient’s improvement persisted at 6 months, and his liver enzymes, including alkaline phosphatase, total bilirubin, alanine transaminase, and aspartate transaminase, continued to be within reference range. To date, there has been no evidence of posttransplant complications such as graft-vs-host disease, serious infections, or skin cancers.

Comment

Increased Risk for Infection and Malignancies in Transplant Patients
Transplant patients are on immunosuppressive regimens that increase their risk for infection and malignancies. For example, high doses of immunosuppresants predispose these patients to reactivation of viral infections, including BK and JC viruses.⁴ In addition, the incidence of squamous cell carcinoma is 65- to 250-fold higher in transplant patients compared to the general population.⁵ The risk for Merkel cell carcinoma is increased after solid organ transplantation compared to the general population.⁶ Importantly, transplant patients have a higher mortality from skin cancers than other types of cancers, including breast and colon cancer.⁷

Psoriasis in Organ Transplant Recipients
Psoriasis is a chronic, immune-mediated, inflammatory disease with a prevalence of approximately 3% in the United States.⁸ Approximately one-third of patients with psoriasis develop psoriatic arthritis.⁹ Organ transplant recipients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis represent a unique patient population whereby their use of chronic immunosuppressive medications to prevent graft rejection may put them at risk for developing infections and malignancies.

Special Considerations for Brodalumab
Brodalumab is an immunomodulatory biologic that binds to and inhibits IL-17RA, thereby inhibiting the actions of IL-17A, F, E, and C.² The blockade of IL-17RA by brodalumab has been shown to result in reversal of psoriatic phenotype and gene expression patterns.¹⁰ Brodalumab was chosen as the treatment in our patient because it has a rapid onset of action, sustained efficacy, and an acceptable safety profile.¹¹ Brodalumab is well tolerated, with approximately 60% of patients achieving clearance long-term.¹² Candidal infections can occur in patients with brodalumab, but the rates are low and they are reversible with antifungal treatment.¹³ The increased mucocutaneous candidal infections are consistent with medications whose mechanism of action is IL-17 inhibition.^14,15 The most common adverse reactions found were nasopharyngitis and headache.¹⁶ The causal link between brodalumab and suicidality has not been established.¹⁷

The use of brodalumab for psoriasis in organ transplant recipients has not been previously reported in the literature. A few case reports have been published on the successful use of etanercept and ixekizumab as biologic treatment options for psoriasis in transplant patients.^18-23 In addition to choosing an appropriate biologic for psoriasis in transplant patients, transplant providers may evaluate the choice of immunosuppression regimen for the organ transplant in the context of psoriasis. In a retrospective analysis of liver transplant patients with psoriasis, Foroncewicz et al³ found cyclosporine, which was used as an antirejection immunosuppressive agent in the posttransplant period, to be more effective than tacrolimus in treating recurrent psoriasis in liver transplant recipients.

Our case illustrates one example of the successful use of brodalumab in a patient with a solid organ transplant. Our patient’s psoriasis and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis greatly improved after initiation of brodalumab. In the posttransplant period, the patient did not develop graft-vs-host disease, infections, malignancies, depression, or suicidal ideation while taking brodalumab.

Conclusion

It is important that the patient, dermatology team, and transplant team work together to navigate the challenges and relatively unknown landscape of psoriasis treatment in organ transplant recipients. As the number of organ transplant recipients continues to increase, this issue will become more clinically relevant. Case reports and future prospective studies will continue to inform us regarding the role of biologics in psoriasis treatment posttransplantation.

The treatment landscape for psoriasis has evolved rapidly over the last decade. Biologic therapies have demonstrated robust efficacy and acceptable safety profiles among many patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. However, the use of biologics among immunocompromised patients with psoriasis rarely is discussed in the literature. As new biologics for psoriasis are being developed, a critical gap exists in the literature regarding the safety and efficacy of these medications in immunocompromised patients. Per American Academy of Dermatology–National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines, caution should be exercised when using biologics in patients with immunocompromising conditions.¹ In organ transplant recipients, the potential risks of combining systemic medications used for organ transplantation and biologic treatments for psoriasis are unknown.²

In the posttransplant period, the immunosuppressive regimens for transplantation likely will improve psoriasis. However, patients with organ transplant and psoriasis still experience flares that can be challenging to treat.³ Prior treatment modalities to prevent psoriasis flares in organ transplant recipients have relied largely on topical therapies, posttransplant immunosuppressive medications (eg, cyclosporine, tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil) that prevent graft rejection, and systemic corticosteroids. We report a case of a 50-year-old man with a recent history of liver transplantation who presented with severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

Case Report

A 50-year-old man presented to the dermatology clinic with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis that had been present for 15 years. His plaque psoriasis covered approximately 40% of the body surface area, including the scalp, trunk, arms, and legs. In addition, he had diffuse joint pain in the hands and feet; a radiograph revealed active psoriatic arthritis involving the joints of the fingers and toes.

One year prior to presentation to our dermatology clinic, the patient underwent an an orthotopic liver transplant for history of Child-Pugh class C liver cirrhosis secondary to untreated hepatitis C virus (HCV) and alcohol use that was complicated by hepatocellular carcinoma. He acquired a high-risk donor liver that was HCV positive with HCV genotype 1a. Starting 2 months after the transplant, he underwent 12 weeks of treatment for HCV with glecaprevir-pibrentasvir. Once his HCV treatment course was completed, he achieved a sustained virologic response with an undetectable viral load. To prevent transplant rejection, he was on chronic immunosuppression with tacrolimus, a calcineurin inhibitor, and mycophenolate mofetil, an inhibitor of inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase whose action leads to decreased proliferation of T cells and B cells.

The patient’s psoriasis initially was treated with triamcinolone acetonide ointment 0.1% applied twice daily to the psoriasis lesions for 1 year by another dermatologist. However, his psoriasis progressed to involve 40% of the body surface area. Following our evaluation 1 year posttransplant, the patient was started on subcutaneous brodalumab 210 mg at weeks 0, 1, and 2, then every 2 weeks thereafter. Approximately 10 weeks after initiation of brodalumab, the patient’s psoriasis was completely clear, and he was asymptomatic from psoriatic arthritis. The patient’s improvement persisted at 6 months, and his liver enzymes, including alkaline phosphatase, total bilirubin, alanine transaminase, and aspartate transaminase, continued to be within reference range. To date, there has been no evidence of posttransplant complications such as graft-vs-host disease, serious infections, or skin cancers.

Comment

Increased Risk for Infection and Malignancies in Transplant Patients
Transplant patients are on immunosuppressive regimens that increase their risk for infection and malignancies. For example, high doses of immunosuppresants predispose these patients to reactivation of viral infections, including BK and JC viruses.⁴ In addition, the incidence of squamous cell carcinoma is 65- to 250-fold higher in transplant patients compared to the general population.⁵ The risk for Merkel cell carcinoma is increased after solid organ transplantation compared to the general population.⁶ Importantly, transplant patients have a higher mortality from skin cancers than other types of cancers, including breast and colon cancer.⁷

Psoriasis in Organ Transplant Recipients
Psoriasis is a chronic, immune-mediated, inflammatory disease with a prevalence of approximately 3% in the United States.⁸ Approximately one-third of patients with psoriasis develop psoriatic arthritis.⁹ Organ transplant recipients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis represent a unique patient population whereby their use of chronic immunosuppressive medications to prevent graft rejection may put them at risk for developing infections and malignancies.

Special Considerations for Brodalumab
Brodalumab is an immunomodulatory biologic that binds to and inhibits IL-17RA, thereby inhibiting the actions of IL-17A, F, E, and C.² The blockade of IL-17RA by brodalumab has been shown to result in reversal of psoriatic phenotype and gene expression patterns.¹⁰ Brodalumab was chosen as the treatment in our patient because it has a rapid onset of action, sustained efficacy, and an acceptable safety profile.¹¹ Brodalumab is well tolerated, with approximately 60% of patients achieving clearance long-term.¹² Candidal infections can occur in patients with brodalumab, but the rates are low and they are reversible with antifungal treatment.¹³ The increased mucocutaneous candidal infections are consistent with medications whose mechanism of action is IL-17 inhibition.^14,15 The most common adverse reactions found were nasopharyngitis and headache.¹⁶ The causal link between brodalumab and suicidality has not been established.¹⁷

The use of brodalumab for psoriasis in organ transplant recipients has not been previously reported in the literature. A few case reports have been published on the successful use of etanercept and ixekizumab as biologic treatment options for psoriasis in transplant patients.^18-23 In addition to choosing an appropriate biologic for psoriasis in transplant patients, transplant providers may evaluate the choice of immunosuppression regimen for the organ transplant in the context of psoriasis. In a retrospective analysis of liver transplant patients with psoriasis, Foroncewicz et al³ found cyclosporine, which was used as an antirejection immunosuppressive agent in the posttransplant period, to be more effective than tacrolimus in treating recurrent psoriasis in liver transplant recipients.

Our case illustrates one example of the successful use of brodalumab in a patient with a solid organ transplant. Our patient’s psoriasis and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis greatly improved after initiation of brodalumab. In the posttransplant period, the patient did not develop graft-vs-host disease, infections, malignancies, depression, or suicidal ideation while taking brodalumab.

Conclusion

It is important that the patient, dermatology team, and transplant team work together to navigate the challenges and relatively unknown landscape of psoriasis treatment in organ transplant recipients. As the number of organ transplant recipients continues to increase, this issue will become more clinically relevant. Case reports and future prospective studies will continue to inform us regarding the role of biologics in psoriasis treatment posttransplantation.

The treatment landscape for psoriasis has evolved rapidly over the last decade. Biologic therapies have demonstrated robust efficacy and acceptable safety profiles among many patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. However, the use of biologics among immunocompromised patients with psoriasis rarely is discussed in the literature. As new biologics for psoriasis are being developed, a critical gap exists in the literature regarding the safety and efficacy of these medications in immunocompromised patients. Per American Academy of Dermatology–National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines, caution should be exercised when using biologics in patients with immunocompromising conditions.¹ In organ transplant recipients, the potential risks of combining systemic medications used for organ transplantation and biologic treatments for psoriasis are unknown.²

In the posttransplant period, the immunosuppressive regimens for transplantation likely will improve psoriasis. However, patients with organ transplant and psoriasis still experience flares that can be challenging to treat.³ Prior treatment modalities to prevent psoriasis flares in organ transplant recipients have relied largely on topical therapies, posttransplant immunosuppressive medications (eg, cyclosporine, tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil) that prevent graft rejection, and systemic corticosteroids. We report a case of a 50-year-old man with a recent history of liver transplantation who presented with severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

Case Report

A 50-year-old man presented to the dermatology clinic with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis that had been present for 15 years. His plaque psoriasis covered approximately 40% of the body surface area, including the scalp, trunk, arms, and legs. In addition, he had diffuse joint pain in the hands and feet; a radiograph revealed active psoriatic arthritis involving the joints of the fingers and toes.

One year prior to presentation to our dermatology clinic, the patient underwent an an orthotopic liver transplant for history of Child-Pugh class C liver cirrhosis secondary to untreated hepatitis C virus (HCV) and alcohol use that was complicated by hepatocellular carcinoma. He acquired a high-risk donor liver that was HCV positive with HCV genotype 1a. Starting 2 months after the transplant, he underwent 12 weeks of treatment for HCV with glecaprevir-pibrentasvir. Once his HCV treatment course was completed, he achieved a sustained virologic response with an undetectable viral load. To prevent transplant rejection, he was on chronic immunosuppression with tacrolimus, a calcineurin inhibitor, and mycophenolate mofetil, an inhibitor of inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase whose action leads to decreased proliferation of T cells and B cells.

The patient’s psoriasis initially was treated with triamcinolone acetonide ointment 0.1% applied twice daily to the psoriasis lesions for 1 year by another dermatologist. However, his psoriasis progressed to involve 40% of the body surface area. Following our evaluation 1 year posttransplant, the patient was started on subcutaneous brodalumab 210 mg at weeks 0, 1, and 2, then every 2 weeks thereafter. Approximately 10 weeks after initiation of brodalumab, the patient’s psoriasis was completely clear, and he was asymptomatic from psoriatic arthritis. The patient’s improvement persisted at 6 months, and his liver enzymes, including alkaline phosphatase, total bilirubin, alanine transaminase, and aspartate transaminase, continued to be within reference range. To date, there has been no evidence of posttransplant complications such as graft-vs-host disease, serious infections, or skin cancers.

Comment

Increased Risk for Infection and Malignancies in Transplant Patients
Transplant patients are on immunosuppressive regimens that increase their risk for infection and malignancies. For example, high doses of immunosuppresants predispose these patients to reactivation of viral infections, including BK and JC viruses.⁴ In addition, the incidence of squamous cell carcinoma is 65- to 250-fold higher in transplant patients compared to the general population.⁵ The risk for Merkel cell carcinoma is increased after solid organ transplantation compared to the general population.⁶ Importantly, transplant patients have a higher mortality from skin cancers than other types of cancers, including breast and colon cancer.⁷

Psoriasis in Organ Transplant Recipients
Psoriasis is a chronic, immune-mediated, inflammatory disease with a prevalence of approximately 3% in the United States.⁸ Approximately one-third of patients with psoriasis develop psoriatic arthritis.⁹ Organ transplant recipients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis represent a unique patient population whereby their use of chronic immunosuppressive medications to prevent graft rejection may put them at risk for developing infections and malignancies.

Special Considerations for Brodalumab
Brodalumab is an immunomodulatory biologic that binds to and inhibits IL-17RA, thereby inhibiting the actions of IL-17A, F, E, and C.² The blockade of IL-17RA by brodalumab has been shown to result in reversal of psoriatic phenotype and gene expression patterns.¹⁰ Brodalumab was chosen as the treatment in our patient because it has a rapid onset of action, sustained efficacy, and an acceptable safety profile.¹¹ Brodalumab is well tolerated, with approximately 60% of patients achieving clearance long-term.¹² Candidal infections can occur in patients with brodalumab, but the rates are low and they are reversible with antifungal treatment.¹³ The increased mucocutaneous candidal infections are consistent with medications whose mechanism of action is IL-17 inhibition.^14,15 The most common adverse reactions found were nasopharyngitis and headache.¹⁶ The causal link between brodalumab and suicidality has not been established.¹⁷

The use of brodalumab for psoriasis in organ transplant recipients has not been previously reported in the literature. A few case reports have been published on the successful use of etanercept and ixekizumab as biologic treatment options for psoriasis in transplant patients.^18-23 In addition to choosing an appropriate biologic for psoriasis in transplant patients, transplant providers may evaluate the choice of immunosuppression regimen for the organ transplant in the context of psoriasis. In a retrospective analysis of liver transplant patients with psoriasis, Foroncewicz et al³ found cyclosporine, which was used as an antirejection immunosuppressive agent in the posttransplant period, to be more effective than tacrolimus in treating recurrent psoriasis in liver transplant recipients.

Our case illustrates one example of the successful use of brodalumab in a patient with a solid organ transplant. Our patient’s psoriasis and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis greatly improved after initiation of brodalumab. In the posttransplant period, the patient did not develop graft-vs-host disease, infections, malignancies, depression, or suicidal ideation while taking brodalumab.

Conclusion

It is important that the patient, dermatology team, and transplant team work together to navigate the challenges and relatively unknown landscape of psoriasis treatment in organ transplant recipients. As the number of organ transplant recipients continues to increase, this issue will become more clinically relevant. Case reports and future prospective studies will continue to inform us regarding the role of biologics in psoriasis treatment posttransplantation.