Psoriasis

Current evidence indicates that obesity may initiate psoriasis or worsen existing disease. Various factors contribute to the development of obesity, including eating disorders (EDs). The aim of this study was to screen for and identify factors associated with EDs in patients with psoriasis and their impact on the development of obesity in this population. Demographic information including body mass index (BMI), Eating Attitude Test (EAT-26), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Attitude Scale for Healthy Nutrition (ASHN), and Depression Anxiety Stress Scale 21 (DASS-21) scores were statistically analyzed for 82 participants with psoriasis at a tertiary dermatology clinic. It is important to manage obesity and other comorbidities of psoriasis in addition to treating its cutaneous manifestations, which may require a biopsychosocial approach.

Psoriasis is a chronic multisystemic inflammatory skin disease with a worldwide prevalence of 2% to 3%.¹ Psoriasis can be accompanied by other conditions such as psoriatic arthritis, obesity, metabolic syndrome, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dyslipidemia, atherosclerotic disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and anxiety/depression. It is important to manage comorbidities of psoriasis in addition to treating the cutaneous manifestations of the disease.¹

Obesity is a major public health concern worldwide. Numerous observational and epidemiologic studies have reported a high prevalence of obesity among patients with psoriasis.² Current evidence indicates that obesity may initiate or worsen psoriasis; furthermore, it is important to note that obesity may negatively impact the effectiveness of psoriasis-specific treatments or increase the incidence of adverse effects. Therefore, managing obesity is crucial in the treatment of psoriasis.³ Numerous studies have investigated the association between psoriasis and obesity, and they commonly conclude that both conditions share the same genetic metabolic pathways.^2-4 However, it is important to consider environmental factors such as dietary habits, smoking, alcohol consumption, and a sedentary lifestyle—all of which are associated with psoriasis and also can contribute to the development of obesity.⁵ Because of the effects of obesity in psoriasis patients, factors that impact the development of obesity have become a popular research topic.

Eating disorders (EDs) are a crucial risk factor for both developing and maintaining obesity. In particular, two EDs that are associated with obesity include binge eating disorder and bulimia nervosa.⁶ According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition,⁷ binge eating disorder can be diagnosed when a patient has at least 1 episode of binge eating per week over a 3-month period. Bulimia nervosa can be diagnosed when a patient is excessively concerned with their body weight and shape and engages in behaviors to prevent weight gain (eg, forced vomiting, excessive use of laxatives).⁷ Psychiatrists who specialize in EDs make diagnoses based on these criteria. In daily practice, there are several quick and simple questionnaires available to screen for EDs that can be used by nonpsychiatrist physicians, including the commonly used 26-item Eating Attitudes Test (EAT-26).⁸ The EAT-26 has been used to screen for EDs in patients with inflammatory disorders.⁹

The aim of this study was to screen for EDs in patients with psoriasis to identify potential risk factors for development of obesity.

Materials and Methods

This study included patients with psoriasis who were screened for EDs at a tertiary dermatology clinic in Turkey between January 2021 and December 2023. This study was approved by the local ethics committee and was in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (decision number E-93471371-514.99-225000079).

Study Design and Patient Inclusion Criteria—This quantitative cross-sectional study utilized EAT-26, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Attitude Scale for Healthy Nutrition (ASHN), and Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) scores. All the questionnaire scales used in the study were adapted and validated in Turkey.^8,10-12 The inclusion criteria consisted of being older than 18 years of age, being literate, having psoriasis for at least 1 year that was not treated topically or systemically, and having no psychiatric diseases outside an ED. The questionnaires were presented in written format following the clinical examination. Literacy was an inclusion criterion in this study due to the absence of auxiliary health personnel.

Study Variables—The study variables included age, sex, marital status (single/divorced or married), education status (primary/secondary school or high school/university), employment status (employed or unemployed/retired), body mass index (BMI), smoking status, alcohol-consumption status, Psoriasis Area Severity Index score, presence of nail psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, duration of psoriasis, family history of psoriasis, EAT-26 score, ASHN score, DLQI score, and DASS-21 score. Body mass index was calculated by taking a participant’s weight in kilograms and dividing it by their height in meters squared. The BMI values were classified into 3 categories: normal (18.5–24.9 kg/m²), overweight (25.0–29.9 kg/m²), and obese (≥30 kg/m²).¹³

Questionnaires—The EAT-26 questionnaire includes 26 questions that are used to detect EDs. Responses to each question include Likert-type answer options (ie, “always,” “usually,” “often,” “sometimes,” “rarely,” and “never.”) Patients with scores of 20 points or higher (range, 0–78) are classified as high risk for EDs.⁸ In our study, EAT-26 scores were grouped into 2 categories: patients scoring less than 20 points and those scoring 20 points or higher.

The DLQI questionnaire includes 10 questions to measure dermatologic symptoms and qualiy of life. Responses to each question include Likert-type answer options (ie, “not at all,” “a little,” “a lot,” or “very much.”) On the DLQI scale, the higher the score, the lower the quality of life (score range, 0–30).¹⁰

The ASHN questionnaire includes 21 questions that measure attitudes toward healthy nutrition with 5 possible answer options (“strongly disagree,” “disagree,” “undecided,” “agree,” and “strongly agree”). On this scale, higher scores indicate the participant is more knowledgeable about healthy nutrition (score range, 0–78).¹¹

The DASS-21 questionnaire includes 21 questions that measure the severity of a range of symptoms common to depression, anxiety, and stress. Responses include Likert-type answer options (eg, “never,” “sometimes,” “often,” and “almost always.”) On this scale, a higher score (range of 0–21 for each) indicates higher levels of depression, anxiety, and stress.¹²

Statistical Analysis—Descriptive statistics were analyzed using SPSS software version 22.0 (IBM). The Shapiro-Wilk test was applied to determine whether the data were normally distributed. For categorical variables, frequency differences among groups were compared using the Pearson χ² test. A t test was used to compare the means of 2 independent groups with a normal distribution. One-way analysis of variance and Tukey Honest Significant Difference post hoc analysis were used to test whether there was a statistically significant difference among the normally distributed means of independent groups. Pearson correlation analysis was used to determine whether there was a linear relationship between 2 numeric measurements and, if so, to determine the direction and severity of this relationship. P<.05 indicated statistical significance in this study.

Results

Study Participant Demographics—This study included 82 participants with a mean age of 44.3 years; 52.4% (43/82) were female, and 85.4% (70/82) were married. The questionnaire took an average of 4.2 minutes for participants to complete. A total of 57.3% (47/82) of patients had completed primary/secondary education and 59.8% (49/82) were employed. The mean BMI was 28.1 kg/m². According to the BMI classification, 26.8% (22/82) participants had a normal weight, 36.6% (30/82) were overweight, and 43.9% (36/82) were obese. A total of 48.8% (40/82) of participants smoked, and 4.9% (4/82) consumed alcohol. The mean Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score was 5.4. A total of 54.9% (45/82) of participants had nail psoriasis, and 24.4% (20/82) had psoriatic arthritis. The mean duration of psoriasis was 153 months. A total of 29.3% (24/82) of participants had a positive family history of psoriasis. The mean EAT-26 score was 11.1. A total of 12.2% (10/82) of participants had an EAT-26 score of 20 points or higher and were considered at high risk for an ED. The mean ASHN score was 72.9; the mean DLQI score was 5.5; and on the DASS-21 scale, mean scores for depression, anxiety, and stress were 6.3, 8.7, and 10.0, respectively (Table).

Comparative Evaluation of the BMI Groups—The only statistically significant differences among the 3 BMI groups were related to marital status, EAT-26 score, and anxiety and stress scores (P=.02, <.01, <.01, and <.01, respectively)(eTable 1). The number of single/divorced participants in the overweight group was significantly (P=.02) greater than in the normal weight group. The mean EAT-26 score for the normal weight group was significantly (P<.01) lower than for the overweight and obese groups; there was no significant difference in mean EAT-26 scores between the overweight and obese groups. The mean anxiety score was significantly (P<.01) lower in the normal weight group compared with the overweight and obese groups. There was no significant difference between the overweight and obese groups according to the mean depression score. The mean stress and anxiety scores were significantly (P<.01) lower in the normal weight group than in the overweight and obese groups. There was no significant difference between the overweight and obese groups according to the mean anxiety score.

Comparative Evaluation of the EAT-26 Scores—There were statistically significant differences among the EAT-26 scores related to sex; BMI; and depression, anxiety, and stress scores (P=.04, .02, <.01, <.01, and <.01, respectively). The number of females in the group with a score of 20 points or higher was significantly (P=.04) less than that in the group scoring less than 20 points. The mean BMI in the group with a score of 20 points or higher was significantly (P=.02) greater than in group scoring less than 20 points. The mean depression, anxiety, and stress scores of the group scoring 20 points or higher were significantly (P<.01 for all) greater than in the group scoring less than 20 points (eTable 2).

Correlation Analysis of the Study Variables—The EAT-26 scores were positively correlated with BMI, anxiety, depression, and stress (P<.01 for all)(eTable 3).

Comment

Eating disorders are psychiatric conditions that require a multidisciplinary approach. Nonpsychiatric medical departments may be involved due to the severe consequences (eg, various skin changes¹⁴) of these disorders. Psoriasis is not known to be directly affected by the presence of an ED; however, it is possible that EDs could indirectly affect patients with psoriasis by influencing obesity. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the relationship between ED risk factors and obesity in this population.

The relationship between psoriasis and obesity has been a popular research topic in dermatology since the 1990s.¹⁵ Epidemiologic and observational studies have reported that patients with psoriasis are more likely to be overweight or have obesity, which is an independent risk factor for psoriasis.^3,16 However, the causal relationship between psoriasis and obesity remains unclear. In a comprehensive review, Barros et al¹⁷ emphasized the causal relationship between obesity and psoriasis under several headings. Firstly, a higher BMI increases the risk for psoriasis by promoting cytokine release and immune system dysregulation. Secondly, a Western diet (eg, processed foods and fast food) triggers obesity and psoriasis by increasing adipose tissue. Thirdly, the alteration of the skin and gut microbiota triggers chronic inflammation as a result of bacterial translocation in patients with obesity. Fourthly, a high-fat diet and palmitic acid disrupt the intestinal integrity of the gut and increase the risk for psoriasis and obesity by triggering chronic inflammation of bacterial fragments that pass into the blood. Finally, the decrease in the amount of adiponectin and the increase in the amount of leptin in patients with obesity may cause psoriasis by increasing proinflammatory cytokines, which are similar to those involved in the pathogenesis of psoriasis.¹⁷ Additionally, psoriatic inflammation can cause insulin resistance and metabolic dysfunction, leading to obesity.¹⁸ The relationship between psoriasis and obesity cannot be solely explained by metabolic pathways. Smoking, alcohol consumption, and a sedentary lifestyle all are associated with psoriasis and also can contribute to obesity.⁵ Our study revealed no significant difference in smoking or alcohol consumption between the normal weight and overweight/obesity groups. Based on our data, we determined that smoking and alcohol consumption did not affect obesity in our patients with psoriasis.

Observational and epidemiologic studies have shown that patients with psoriasis experience increased rates of depression, anxiety, and stress.¹⁹ In studies of pathogenesis, a connection between depression and psoriatic inflammation has been established.²⁰ It is known that inflammatory cytokines similar to those in psoriasis are involved in the development of obesity.¹⁸ In addition, depression and anxiety can lead to binge eating, unhealthy food choices, and a more sedentary lifestyle.⁵ All of these variables may contribute to the associations between depression and anxiety with psoriasis and obesity. Zafiriou et al²¹ conducted a study to investigate the relationship between psoriasis, obesity, and depression through inflammatory pathways with a focus on the importance of IL-17. Data showing that IL-17–producing Th17-cell subgroups play a considerable role in the development of obesity and depression prompted the authors to suggest that psoriasis, obesity, and ­anxiety/depression may be interconnected manifestations of immune dysregulation, potentially linked to IL-17 and its associated cells.²¹ Mrowietz et al²² also suggested that metabolic inflammation may contribute to obesity and depression in patients with psoriasis and highlighted the importance of several cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor α, IL-6, IL-8, IL-17, and IL-23. Our study revealed no significant differences in depression scores between BMI groups. Another meta-analysis reported conflicting findings on the incidence of depression in obese patients with psoriasis.²³ Some of the studies had a small number of participants. Compared to depression, anxiety has received less attention in studies of patients with obesity with psoriasis. However, these studies have shown a positive correlation between anxiety scores and BMI in patients with psoriasis.^24,25 In our study, similar to the findings of previous studies, overweight patients and those with obesitywho have psoriasis had significantly (P<.01) greater anxiety and stress scores than did normal weight patients with psoriasis.

Obesity should be assessed in patients with psoriasis via a biopsychosocial approach that takes into account genetic, behavioral, and environmental factors.²⁶ Eating disorders are considered to be one of the factors contributing to obesity. Numerous studies in the literature have demonstrated a greater incidence of EDs in patients with obesity vs those without obesity.^5,6,27 Obesity and EDs have a bidirectional relationship: individuals with obesity are at risk for EDs due to body dissatisfaction, dieting habits, and depressive states. Conversely, poor eating behaviors in individuals with a normal weight can lead to obesity.²⁸

There are few studies in the literature exploring the relationship between psoriasis and EDs. Crosta et al²⁹ demonstrated that patients with psoriasis had impaired results on ED screening tests and that these scores deteriorated further as BMI increased. Moreover, Altunay et al³⁰ demonstrated that patients with psoriasis and metabolic syndrome had higher scores on the ED screening test. In this study, patients with higher scores also exhibited high levels of anxiety.³⁰ In our study, similar to the findings of previous studies, patients with psoriasis who were overweight or had obesity had significantly (P<.01) greater EAT-26 scores than those in the normal weight group. Patients with high EAT-26 scores also exhibited elevated levels of depression, anxiety, and stress. Additionally, EAT-26 scores were positively correlated with BMI, anxiety, depression, and stress scores. Our study as well as other studies in the literature indicate that additional research is needed to determine the associations between EDs and obesity in psoriasis.

Conclusion

Managing obesity is crucial for patients with psoriasis. This study showed that EAT-26 scores were higher in patients with psoriasis who were overweight or had obesity than in those who were normal weight. Participants with high EAT-26 scores (≥20 points) were more likely to be female and have higher anxiety and stress scores. In addition, EAT-26 scores were positively correlated with BMI as well as depression, anxiety, and stress scores. Eating disorders may contribute to the development of obesity in patients with psoriasis. Although our study was limited by a small sample size, the results suggest that there is a need for large-scale multicenter studies to investigate the relationship between psoriasis and EDs.

References

1. Kalkan G. Comorbidities in psoriasis: the recognition of psoriasis as a systemic disease and current management. Turkderm-Turk Arch Dermatol Venereol. 2017;51:71-77.

2. Armstrong AW, Harskamp CT, Armstrong EJ. The association between psoriasis and obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Nutr Diabetes. 2012;2:E54.

3. Jensen P, Skov L. Psoriasis and obesity. Dermatology. 2016;232:633-639.

4. Mirghani H, Altemani AT, Altemani ST, et al. The cross talk between psoriasis, obesity, and dyslipidemia: a meta-analysis. Cureus. 2023;15:e49253.

5. Roehring M, Mashep MR, White MA, et al. The metabolic syndrome and behavioral correlates in obese patients with binge disorders. Obesity. 2009;17:481-486.

6. da Luz FQ, Hay P, Touyz S, et al. Obesity with comorbid eating disorders: associated health risks and treatment approaches. Nutrients. 2018;10:829.

7. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. American Psychiatric Association; 2013.

8. Ergüney Okumus¸ FE, Sertel Berk HÖ. The psychometric properties of the Eating Attitudes Test short form (EAT-26) in a college sample. Stud Psychol. 2020;40:57-78.

9. Stoleru G, Leopold A, Auerbach A, et al. Female gender, dissatisfaction with weight, and number of IBD related surgeries as independent risk factors for eating disorders among patients with inflammatory bowel diseases. BMC Gastroenterol. 2022;22:438.

10. Öztürkcan S, Ermertcan AT, Eser E, et al. Cross validation of the Turkish version of dermatology life quality index. Int J Dermatol. 2006;45:1300-1307.

11. Demir GT, Ciciog˘lu HI˙. Attitude scale for healthy nutrition (ASHN): validity and reliability study. Gaziantep Univ J Sport Sci. 2019;4:256-274.

12. Yılmaz O, Boz H, Arslan A. The validity and reliability of depression stress and anxiety scale (DASS 21) Turkish short form. Res Financial Econ Soc Stud. 2017;2:78-91.

13. Nuttall FQ. Body mass index: obesity, BMI, and health: a critical review. Nutr Today. 2015;50:117-128.

14. Strumia R, Manzata E, Gualandi M. Is there a role for dermatologists in eating disorders? Expert Rev Dermatol. 2017; 2:109-112.

15. Henseler T, Christophers E. Disease concomitance in psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1995;32:982-986.

16. Naldi L, Addis A, Chimenti S, et al. Impact of body mass index and obesity on clinical response to systemic treatment for psoriasis. evidence from the Psocare project. Dermatology. 2008;217:365-373.

17. Barros G, Duran P, Vera I, et al. Exploring the links between obesity and psoriasis: a comprehensive review. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23:7499.

18. Hao Y, Zhu YJ, Zou S, et al. Metabolic syndrome and psoriasis: mechanisms and future directions. Front Immunol. 2021;12:711060.

19. Jing D, Xiao H, Shen M, et al. Association of psoriasis with anxiety and depression: a case–control study in Chinese patients. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8:771645.

20. Sahi FM, Masood A, Danawar NA, et al. Association between psoriasis and depression: a traditional review. Cureus. 2020;12:E9708.

21. Zafiriou E, Daponte AI, Siokas V, et al. Depression and obesity in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: is IL-17–mediated immune dysregulation the connecting link? Front Immunol. 2021;12:699848.

22. Mrowietz U, Sümbül M, Gerdes S. Depression, a major comorbidity of psoriatic disease, is caused by metabolic inflammation. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2023;37:1731-1738.

23. Pavlova NT, Kioskli K, Smith C, et al. Psychosocial aspects of obesity in adults with psoriasis: a systematic review. Skin Health Dis. 2021;1:E33.

24. Innamorati M, Quinto RM, Imperatori C, et al. Health-related quality of life and its association with alexithymia and difficulties in emotion regulation in patients with psoriasis. Compr Psychiatry. 2016;70:200-208.

25. Tabolli S, Naldi L, Pagliarello C, et al. Evaluation of the impact of writing exercises interventions on quality of life in patients with psoriasis undergoing systemic treatments. Br J Dermatol. 2012;167:1254‐1264.

26. Albuquerque D, Nóbrega C, Manco L, et al. The contribution of genetics and environment to obesity. Br Med Bull. 2017;123:159‐173.

27. Balantekin KN, Grammer AC, Fitzsimmons-Craft EE, et al. Overweight and obesity are associated with increased eating disorder correlates and general psychopathology in university women with eating disorders. Eat Behav. 2021;41:101482.

28. Jebeile H, Lister NB, Baur LA, et al. Eating disorder risk in adolescents with obesity. Obes Rev. 2021;22:E13173.

29. Crosta ML, Caldarola G, Fraietta S, et al. Psychopathology and eating disorders in patients with psoriasis. G Ital Dermatol Venereol. 2014;149:355-361.

30. Altunay I, Demirci GT, Ates B, et al. Do eating disorders accompany metabolic syndrome in psoriasis patients? results of a preliminary study. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2011;4:139-143.

Current evidence indicates that obesity may initiate psoriasis or worsen existing disease. Various factors contribute to the development of obesity, including eating disorders (EDs). The aim of this study was to screen for and identify factors associated with EDs in patients with psoriasis and their impact on the development of obesity in this population. Demographic information including body mass index (BMI), Eating Attitude Test (EAT-26), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Attitude Scale for Healthy Nutrition (ASHN), and Depression Anxiety Stress Scale 21 (DASS-21) scores were statistically analyzed for 82 participants with psoriasis at a tertiary dermatology clinic. It is important to manage obesity and other comorbidities of psoriasis in addition to treating its cutaneous manifestations, which may require a biopsychosocial approach.

Psoriasis is a chronic multisystemic inflammatory skin disease with a worldwide prevalence of 2% to 3%.¹ Psoriasis can be accompanied by other conditions such as psoriatic arthritis, obesity, metabolic syndrome, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dyslipidemia, atherosclerotic disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and anxiety/depression. It is important to manage comorbidities of psoriasis in addition to treating the cutaneous manifestations of the disease.¹

Obesity is a major public health concern worldwide. Numerous observational and epidemiologic studies have reported a high prevalence of obesity among patients with psoriasis.² Current evidence indicates that obesity may initiate or worsen psoriasis; furthermore, it is important to note that obesity may negatively impact the effectiveness of psoriasis-specific treatments or increase the incidence of adverse effects. Therefore, managing obesity is crucial in the treatment of psoriasis.³ Numerous studies have investigated the association between psoriasis and obesity, and they commonly conclude that both conditions share the same genetic metabolic pathways.^2-4 However, it is important to consider environmental factors such as dietary habits, smoking, alcohol consumption, and a sedentary lifestyle—all of which are associated with psoriasis and also can contribute to the development of obesity.⁵ Because of the effects of obesity in psoriasis patients, factors that impact the development of obesity have become a popular research topic.

Eating disorders (EDs) are a crucial risk factor for both developing and maintaining obesity. In particular, two EDs that are associated with obesity include binge eating disorder and bulimia nervosa.⁶ According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition,⁷ binge eating disorder can be diagnosed when a patient has at least 1 episode of binge eating per week over a 3-month period. Bulimia nervosa can be diagnosed when a patient is excessively concerned with their body weight and shape and engages in behaviors to prevent weight gain (eg, forced vomiting, excessive use of laxatives).⁷ Psychiatrists who specialize in EDs make diagnoses based on these criteria. In daily practice, there are several quick and simple questionnaires available to screen for EDs that can be used by nonpsychiatrist physicians, including the commonly used 26-item Eating Attitudes Test (EAT-26).⁸ The EAT-26 has been used to screen for EDs in patients with inflammatory disorders.⁹

The aim of this study was to screen for EDs in patients with psoriasis to identify potential risk factors for development of obesity.

Materials and Methods

This study included patients with psoriasis who were screened for EDs at a tertiary dermatology clinic in Turkey between January 2021 and December 2023. This study was approved by the local ethics committee and was in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (decision number E-93471371-514.99-225000079).

Study Design and Patient Inclusion Criteria—This quantitative cross-sectional study utilized EAT-26, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Attitude Scale for Healthy Nutrition (ASHN), and Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) scores. All the questionnaire scales used in the study were adapted and validated in Turkey.^8,10-12 The inclusion criteria consisted of being older than 18 years of age, being literate, having psoriasis for at least 1 year that was not treated topically or systemically, and having no psychiatric diseases outside an ED. The questionnaires were presented in written format following the clinical examination. Literacy was an inclusion criterion in this study due to the absence of auxiliary health personnel.

Study Variables—The study variables included age, sex, marital status (single/divorced or married), education status (primary/secondary school or high school/university), employment status (employed or unemployed/retired), body mass index (BMI), smoking status, alcohol-consumption status, Psoriasis Area Severity Index score, presence of nail psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, duration of psoriasis, family history of psoriasis, EAT-26 score, ASHN score, DLQI score, and DASS-21 score. Body mass index was calculated by taking a participant’s weight in kilograms and dividing it by their height in meters squared. The BMI values were classified into 3 categories: normal (18.5–24.9 kg/m²), overweight (25.0–29.9 kg/m²), and obese (≥30 kg/m²).¹³

Questionnaires—The EAT-26 questionnaire includes 26 questions that are used to detect EDs. Responses to each question include Likert-type answer options (ie, “always,” “usually,” “often,” “sometimes,” “rarely,” and “never.”) Patients with scores of 20 points or higher (range, 0–78) are classified as high risk for EDs.⁸ In our study, EAT-26 scores were grouped into 2 categories: patients scoring less than 20 points and those scoring 20 points or higher.

The DLQI questionnaire includes 10 questions to measure dermatologic symptoms and qualiy of life. Responses to each question include Likert-type answer options (ie, “not at all,” “a little,” “a lot,” or “very much.”) On the DLQI scale, the higher the score, the lower the quality of life (score range, 0–30).¹⁰

The ASHN questionnaire includes 21 questions that measure attitudes toward healthy nutrition with 5 possible answer options (“strongly disagree,” “disagree,” “undecided,” “agree,” and “strongly agree”). On this scale, higher scores indicate the participant is more knowledgeable about healthy nutrition (score range, 0–78).¹¹

The DASS-21 questionnaire includes 21 questions that measure the severity of a range of symptoms common to depression, anxiety, and stress. Responses include Likert-type answer options (eg, “never,” “sometimes,” “often,” and “almost always.”) On this scale, a higher score (range of 0–21 for each) indicates higher levels of depression, anxiety, and stress.¹²

Statistical Analysis—Descriptive statistics were analyzed using SPSS software version 22.0 (IBM). The Shapiro-Wilk test was applied to determine whether the data were normally distributed. For categorical variables, frequency differences among groups were compared using the Pearson χ² test. A t test was used to compare the means of 2 independent groups with a normal distribution. One-way analysis of variance and Tukey Honest Significant Difference post hoc analysis were used to test whether there was a statistically significant difference among the normally distributed means of independent groups. Pearson correlation analysis was used to determine whether there was a linear relationship between 2 numeric measurements and, if so, to determine the direction and severity of this relationship. P<.05 indicated statistical significance in this study.

Results

Study Participant Demographics—This study included 82 participants with a mean age of 44.3 years; 52.4% (43/82) were female, and 85.4% (70/82) were married. The questionnaire took an average of 4.2 minutes for participants to complete. A total of 57.3% (47/82) of patients had completed primary/secondary education and 59.8% (49/82) were employed. The mean BMI was 28.1 kg/m². According to the BMI classification, 26.8% (22/82) participants had a normal weight, 36.6% (30/82) were overweight, and 43.9% (36/82) were obese. A total of 48.8% (40/82) of participants smoked, and 4.9% (4/82) consumed alcohol. The mean Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score was 5.4. A total of 54.9% (45/82) of participants had nail psoriasis, and 24.4% (20/82) had psoriatic arthritis. The mean duration of psoriasis was 153 months. A total of 29.3% (24/82) of participants had a positive family history of psoriasis. The mean EAT-26 score was 11.1. A total of 12.2% (10/82) of participants had an EAT-26 score of 20 points or higher and were considered at high risk for an ED. The mean ASHN score was 72.9; the mean DLQI score was 5.5; and on the DASS-21 scale, mean scores for depression, anxiety, and stress were 6.3, 8.7, and 10.0, respectively (Table).

Comparative Evaluation of the BMI Groups—The only statistically significant differences among the 3 BMI groups were related to marital status, EAT-26 score, and anxiety and stress scores (P=.02, <.01, <.01, and <.01, respectively)(eTable 1). The number of single/divorced participants in the overweight group was significantly (P=.02) greater than in the normal weight group. The mean EAT-26 score for the normal weight group was significantly (P<.01) lower than for the overweight and obese groups; there was no significant difference in mean EAT-26 scores between the overweight and obese groups. The mean anxiety score was significantly (P<.01) lower in the normal weight group compared with the overweight and obese groups. There was no significant difference between the overweight and obese groups according to the mean depression score. The mean stress and anxiety scores were significantly (P<.01) lower in the normal weight group than in the overweight and obese groups. There was no significant difference between the overweight and obese groups according to the mean anxiety score.

Comparative Evaluation of the EAT-26 Scores—There were statistically significant differences among the EAT-26 scores related to sex; BMI; and depression, anxiety, and stress scores (P=.04, .02, <.01, <.01, and <.01, respectively). The number of females in the group with a score of 20 points or higher was significantly (P=.04) less than that in the group scoring less than 20 points. The mean BMI in the group with a score of 20 points or higher was significantly (P=.02) greater than in group scoring less than 20 points. The mean depression, anxiety, and stress scores of the group scoring 20 points or higher were significantly (P<.01 for all) greater than in the group scoring less than 20 points (eTable 2).

Correlation Analysis of the Study Variables—The EAT-26 scores were positively correlated with BMI, anxiety, depression, and stress (P<.01 for all)(eTable 3).

Comment

Eating disorders are psychiatric conditions that require a multidisciplinary approach. Nonpsychiatric medical departments may be involved due to the severe consequences (eg, various skin changes¹⁴) of these disorders. Psoriasis is not known to be directly affected by the presence of an ED; however, it is possible that EDs could indirectly affect patients with psoriasis by influencing obesity. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the relationship between ED risk factors and obesity in this population.

The relationship between psoriasis and obesity has been a popular research topic in dermatology since the 1990s.¹⁵ Epidemiologic and observational studies have reported that patients with psoriasis are more likely to be overweight or have obesity, which is an independent risk factor for psoriasis.^3,16 However, the causal relationship between psoriasis and obesity remains unclear. In a comprehensive review, Barros et al¹⁷ emphasized the causal relationship between obesity and psoriasis under several headings. Firstly, a higher BMI increases the risk for psoriasis by promoting cytokine release and immune system dysregulation. Secondly, a Western diet (eg, processed foods and fast food) triggers obesity and psoriasis by increasing adipose tissue. Thirdly, the alteration of the skin and gut microbiota triggers chronic inflammation as a result of bacterial translocation in patients with obesity. Fourthly, a high-fat diet and palmitic acid disrupt the intestinal integrity of the gut and increase the risk for psoriasis and obesity by triggering chronic inflammation of bacterial fragments that pass into the blood. Finally, the decrease in the amount of adiponectin and the increase in the amount of leptin in patients with obesity may cause psoriasis by increasing proinflammatory cytokines, which are similar to those involved in the pathogenesis of psoriasis.¹⁷ Additionally, psoriatic inflammation can cause insulin resistance and metabolic dysfunction, leading to obesity.¹⁸ The relationship between psoriasis and obesity cannot be solely explained by metabolic pathways. Smoking, alcohol consumption, and a sedentary lifestyle all are associated with psoriasis and also can contribute to obesity.⁵ Our study revealed no significant difference in smoking or alcohol consumption between the normal weight and overweight/obesity groups. Based on our data, we determined that smoking and alcohol consumption did not affect obesity in our patients with psoriasis.

Observational and epidemiologic studies have shown that patients with psoriasis experience increased rates of depression, anxiety, and stress.¹⁹ In studies of pathogenesis, a connection between depression and psoriatic inflammation has been established.²⁰ It is known that inflammatory cytokines similar to those in psoriasis are involved in the development of obesity.¹⁸ In addition, depression and anxiety can lead to binge eating, unhealthy food choices, and a more sedentary lifestyle.⁵ All of these variables may contribute to the associations between depression and anxiety with psoriasis and obesity. Zafiriou et al²¹ conducted a study to investigate the relationship between psoriasis, obesity, and depression through inflammatory pathways with a focus on the importance of IL-17. Data showing that IL-17–producing Th17-cell subgroups play a considerable role in the development of obesity and depression prompted the authors to suggest that psoriasis, obesity, and ­anxiety/depression may be interconnected manifestations of immune dysregulation, potentially linked to IL-17 and its associated cells.²¹ Mrowietz et al²² also suggested that metabolic inflammation may contribute to obesity and depression in patients with psoriasis and highlighted the importance of several cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor α, IL-6, IL-8, IL-17, and IL-23. Our study revealed no significant differences in depression scores between BMI groups. Another meta-analysis reported conflicting findings on the incidence of depression in obese patients with psoriasis.²³ Some of the studies had a small number of participants. Compared to depression, anxiety has received less attention in studies of patients with obesity with psoriasis. However, these studies have shown a positive correlation between anxiety scores and BMI in patients with psoriasis.^24,25 In our study, similar to the findings of previous studies, overweight patients and those with obesitywho have psoriasis had significantly (P<.01) greater anxiety and stress scores than did normal weight patients with psoriasis.

Obesity should be assessed in patients with psoriasis via a biopsychosocial approach that takes into account genetic, behavioral, and environmental factors.²⁶ Eating disorders are considered to be one of the factors contributing to obesity. Numerous studies in the literature have demonstrated a greater incidence of EDs in patients with obesity vs those without obesity.^5,6,27 Obesity and EDs have a bidirectional relationship: individuals with obesity are at risk for EDs due to body dissatisfaction, dieting habits, and depressive states. Conversely, poor eating behaviors in individuals with a normal weight can lead to obesity.²⁸

There are few studies in the literature exploring the relationship between psoriasis and EDs. Crosta et al²⁹ demonstrated that patients with psoriasis had impaired results on ED screening tests and that these scores deteriorated further as BMI increased. Moreover, Altunay et al³⁰ demonstrated that patients with psoriasis and metabolic syndrome had higher scores on the ED screening test. In this study, patients with higher scores also exhibited high levels of anxiety.³⁰ In our study, similar to the findings of previous studies, patients with psoriasis who were overweight or had obesity had significantly (P<.01) greater EAT-26 scores than those in the normal weight group. Patients with high EAT-26 scores also exhibited elevated levels of depression, anxiety, and stress. Additionally, EAT-26 scores were positively correlated with BMI, anxiety, depression, and stress scores. Our study as well as other studies in the literature indicate that additional research is needed to determine the associations between EDs and obesity in psoriasis.

Conclusion

Managing obesity is crucial for patients with psoriasis. This study showed that EAT-26 scores were higher in patients with psoriasis who were overweight or had obesity than in those who were normal weight. Participants with high EAT-26 scores (≥20 points) were more likely to be female and have higher anxiety and stress scores. In addition, EAT-26 scores were positively correlated with BMI as well as depression, anxiety, and stress scores. Eating disorders may contribute to the development of obesity in patients with psoriasis. Although our study was limited by a small sample size, the results suggest that there is a need for large-scale multicenter studies to investigate the relationship between psoriasis and EDs.

References

1. Kalkan G. Comorbidities in psoriasis: the recognition of psoriasis as a systemic disease and current management. Turkderm-Turk Arch Dermatol Venereol. 2017;51:71-77.

2. Armstrong AW, Harskamp CT, Armstrong EJ. The association between psoriasis and obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Nutr Diabetes. 2012;2:E54.

3. Jensen P, Skov L. Psoriasis and obesity. Dermatology. 2016;232:633-639.

4. Mirghani H, Altemani AT, Altemani ST, et al. The cross talk between psoriasis, obesity, and dyslipidemia: a meta-analysis. Cureus. 2023;15:e49253.

5. Roehring M, Mashep MR, White MA, et al. The metabolic syndrome and behavioral correlates in obese patients with binge disorders. Obesity. 2009;17:481-486.

6. da Luz FQ, Hay P, Touyz S, et al. Obesity with comorbid eating disorders: associated health risks and treatment approaches. Nutrients. 2018;10:829.

7. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. American Psychiatric Association; 2013.

8. Ergüney Okumus¸ FE, Sertel Berk HÖ. The psychometric properties of the Eating Attitudes Test short form (EAT-26) in a college sample. Stud Psychol. 2020;40:57-78.

9. Stoleru G, Leopold A, Auerbach A, et al. Female gender, dissatisfaction with weight, and number of IBD related surgeries as independent risk factors for eating disorders among patients with inflammatory bowel diseases. BMC Gastroenterol. 2022;22:438.

10. Öztürkcan S, Ermertcan AT, Eser E, et al. Cross validation of the Turkish version of dermatology life quality index. Int J Dermatol. 2006;45:1300-1307.

11. Demir GT, Ciciog˘lu HI˙. Attitude scale for healthy nutrition (ASHN): validity and reliability study. Gaziantep Univ J Sport Sci. 2019;4:256-274.

12. Yılmaz O, Boz H, Arslan A. The validity and reliability of depression stress and anxiety scale (DASS 21) Turkish short form. Res Financial Econ Soc Stud. 2017;2:78-91.

13. Nuttall FQ. Body mass index: obesity, BMI, and health: a critical review. Nutr Today. 2015;50:117-128.

14. Strumia R, Manzata E, Gualandi M. Is there a role for dermatologists in eating disorders? Expert Rev Dermatol. 2017; 2:109-112.

15. Henseler T, Christophers E. Disease concomitance in psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1995;32:982-986.

16. Naldi L, Addis A, Chimenti S, et al. Impact of body mass index and obesity on clinical response to systemic treatment for psoriasis. evidence from the Psocare project. Dermatology. 2008;217:365-373.

17. Barros G, Duran P, Vera I, et al. Exploring the links between obesity and psoriasis: a comprehensive review. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23:7499.

18. Hao Y, Zhu YJ, Zou S, et al. Metabolic syndrome and psoriasis: mechanisms and future directions. Front Immunol. 2021;12:711060.

19. Jing D, Xiao H, Shen M, et al. Association of psoriasis with anxiety and depression: a case–control study in Chinese patients. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8:771645.

20. Sahi FM, Masood A, Danawar NA, et al. Association between psoriasis and depression: a traditional review. Cureus. 2020;12:E9708.

21. Zafiriou E, Daponte AI, Siokas V, et al. Depression and obesity in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: is IL-17–mediated immune dysregulation the connecting link? Front Immunol. 2021;12:699848.

22. Mrowietz U, Sümbül M, Gerdes S. Depression, a major comorbidity of psoriatic disease, is caused by metabolic inflammation. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2023;37:1731-1738.

23. Pavlova NT, Kioskli K, Smith C, et al. Psychosocial aspects of obesity in adults with psoriasis: a systematic review. Skin Health Dis. 2021;1:E33.

24. Innamorati M, Quinto RM, Imperatori C, et al. Health-related quality of life and its association with alexithymia and difficulties in emotion regulation in patients with psoriasis. Compr Psychiatry. 2016;70:200-208.

25. Tabolli S, Naldi L, Pagliarello C, et al. Evaluation of the impact of writing exercises interventions on quality of life in patients with psoriasis undergoing systemic treatments. Br J Dermatol. 2012;167:1254‐1264.

26. Albuquerque D, Nóbrega C, Manco L, et al. The contribution of genetics and environment to obesity. Br Med Bull. 2017;123:159‐173.

27. Balantekin KN, Grammer AC, Fitzsimmons-Craft EE, et al. Overweight and obesity are associated with increased eating disorder correlates and general psychopathology in university women with eating disorders. Eat Behav. 2021;41:101482.

28. Jebeile H, Lister NB, Baur LA, et al. Eating disorder risk in adolescents with obesity. Obes Rev. 2021;22:E13173.

29. Crosta ML, Caldarola G, Fraietta S, et al. Psychopathology and eating disorders in patients with psoriasis. G Ital Dermatol Venereol. 2014;149:355-361.

30. Altunay I, Demirci GT, Ates B, et al. Do eating disorders accompany metabolic syndrome in psoriasis patients? results of a preliminary study. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2011;4:139-143.

Current evidence indicates that obesity may initiate psoriasis or worsen existing disease. Various factors contribute to the development of obesity, including eating disorders (EDs). The aim of this study was to screen for and identify factors associated with EDs in patients with psoriasis and their impact on the development of obesity in this population. Demographic information including body mass index (BMI), Eating Attitude Test (EAT-26), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Attitude Scale for Healthy Nutrition (ASHN), and Depression Anxiety Stress Scale 21 (DASS-21) scores were statistically analyzed for 82 participants with psoriasis at a tertiary dermatology clinic. It is important to manage obesity and other comorbidities of psoriasis in addition to treating its cutaneous manifestations, which may require a biopsychosocial approach.

Psoriasis is a chronic multisystemic inflammatory skin disease with a worldwide prevalence of 2% to 3%.¹ Psoriasis can be accompanied by other conditions such as psoriatic arthritis, obesity, metabolic syndrome, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dyslipidemia, atherosclerotic disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and anxiety/depression. It is important to manage comorbidities of psoriasis in addition to treating the cutaneous manifestations of the disease.¹

Obesity is a major public health concern worldwide. Numerous observational and epidemiologic studies have reported a high prevalence of obesity among patients with psoriasis.² Current evidence indicates that obesity may initiate or worsen psoriasis; furthermore, it is important to note that obesity may negatively impact the effectiveness of psoriasis-specific treatments or increase the incidence of adverse effects. Therefore, managing obesity is crucial in the treatment of psoriasis.³ Numerous studies have investigated the association between psoriasis and obesity, and they commonly conclude that both conditions share the same genetic metabolic pathways.^2-4 However, it is important to consider environmental factors such as dietary habits, smoking, alcohol consumption, and a sedentary lifestyle—all of which are associated with psoriasis and also can contribute to the development of obesity.⁵ Because of the effects of obesity in psoriasis patients, factors that impact the development of obesity have become a popular research topic.

Eating disorders (EDs) are a crucial risk factor for both developing and maintaining obesity. In particular, two EDs that are associated with obesity include binge eating disorder and bulimia nervosa.⁶ According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition,⁷ binge eating disorder can be diagnosed when a patient has at least 1 episode of binge eating per week over a 3-month period. Bulimia nervosa can be diagnosed when a patient is excessively concerned with their body weight and shape and engages in behaviors to prevent weight gain (eg, forced vomiting, excessive use of laxatives).⁷ Psychiatrists who specialize in EDs make diagnoses based on these criteria. In daily practice, there are several quick and simple questionnaires available to screen for EDs that can be used by nonpsychiatrist physicians, including the commonly used 26-item Eating Attitudes Test (EAT-26).⁸ The EAT-26 has been used to screen for EDs in patients with inflammatory disorders.⁹

The aim of this study was to screen for EDs in patients with psoriasis to identify potential risk factors for development of obesity.

Materials and Methods

This study included patients with psoriasis who were screened for EDs at a tertiary dermatology clinic in Turkey between January 2021 and December 2023. This study was approved by the local ethics committee and was in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (decision number E-93471371-514.99-225000079).

Study Design and Patient Inclusion Criteria—This quantitative cross-sectional study utilized EAT-26, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Attitude Scale for Healthy Nutrition (ASHN), and Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) scores. All the questionnaire scales used in the study were adapted and validated in Turkey.^8,10-12 The inclusion criteria consisted of being older than 18 years of age, being literate, having psoriasis for at least 1 year that was not treated topically or systemically, and having no psychiatric diseases outside an ED. The questionnaires were presented in written format following the clinical examination. Literacy was an inclusion criterion in this study due to the absence of auxiliary health personnel.

Study Variables—The study variables included age, sex, marital status (single/divorced or married), education status (primary/secondary school or high school/university), employment status (employed or unemployed/retired), body mass index (BMI), smoking status, alcohol-consumption status, Psoriasis Area Severity Index score, presence of nail psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, duration of psoriasis, family history of psoriasis, EAT-26 score, ASHN score, DLQI score, and DASS-21 score. Body mass index was calculated by taking a participant’s weight in kilograms and dividing it by their height in meters squared. The BMI values were classified into 3 categories: normal (18.5–24.9 kg/m²), overweight (25.0–29.9 kg/m²), and obese (≥30 kg/m²).¹³

Questionnaires—The EAT-26 questionnaire includes 26 questions that are used to detect EDs. Responses to each question include Likert-type answer options (ie, “always,” “usually,” “often,” “sometimes,” “rarely,” and “never.”) Patients with scores of 20 points or higher (range, 0–78) are classified as high risk for EDs.⁸ In our study, EAT-26 scores were grouped into 2 categories: patients scoring less than 20 points and those scoring 20 points or higher.

The DLQI questionnaire includes 10 questions to measure dermatologic symptoms and qualiy of life. Responses to each question include Likert-type answer options (ie, “not at all,” “a little,” “a lot,” or “very much.”) On the DLQI scale, the higher the score, the lower the quality of life (score range, 0–30).¹⁰

The ASHN questionnaire includes 21 questions that measure attitudes toward healthy nutrition with 5 possible answer options (“strongly disagree,” “disagree,” “undecided,” “agree,” and “strongly agree”). On this scale, higher scores indicate the participant is more knowledgeable about healthy nutrition (score range, 0–78).¹¹

The DASS-21 questionnaire includes 21 questions that measure the severity of a range of symptoms common to depression, anxiety, and stress. Responses include Likert-type answer options (eg, “never,” “sometimes,” “often,” and “almost always.”) On this scale, a higher score (range of 0–21 for each) indicates higher levels of depression, anxiety, and stress.¹²

Statistical Analysis—Descriptive statistics were analyzed using SPSS software version 22.0 (IBM). The Shapiro-Wilk test was applied to determine whether the data were normally distributed. For categorical variables, frequency differences among groups were compared using the Pearson χ² test. A t test was used to compare the means of 2 independent groups with a normal distribution. One-way analysis of variance and Tukey Honest Significant Difference post hoc analysis were used to test whether there was a statistically significant difference among the normally distributed means of independent groups. Pearson correlation analysis was used to determine whether there was a linear relationship between 2 numeric measurements and, if so, to determine the direction and severity of this relationship. P<.05 indicated statistical significance in this study.

Results

Study Participant Demographics—This study included 82 participants with a mean age of 44.3 years; 52.4% (43/82) were female, and 85.4% (70/82) were married. The questionnaire took an average of 4.2 minutes for participants to complete. A total of 57.3% (47/82) of patients had completed primary/secondary education and 59.8% (49/82) were employed. The mean BMI was 28.1 kg/m². According to the BMI classification, 26.8% (22/82) participants had a normal weight, 36.6% (30/82) were overweight, and 43.9% (36/82) were obese. A total of 48.8% (40/82) of participants smoked, and 4.9% (4/82) consumed alcohol. The mean Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score was 5.4. A total of 54.9% (45/82) of participants had nail psoriasis, and 24.4% (20/82) had psoriatic arthritis. The mean duration of psoriasis was 153 months. A total of 29.3% (24/82) of participants had a positive family history of psoriasis. The mean EAT-26 score was 11.1. A total of 12.2% (10/82) of participants had an EAT-26 score of 20 points or higher and were considered at high risk for an ED. The mean ASHN score was 72.9; the mean DLQI score was 5.5; and on the DASS-21 scale, mean scores for depression, anxiety, and stress were 6.3, 8.7, and 10.0, respectively (Table).

Comparative Evaluation of the BMI Groups—The only statistically significant differences among the 3 BMI groups were related to marital status, EAT-26 score, and anxiety and stress scores (P=.02, <.01, <.01, and <.01, respectively)(eTable 1). The number of single/divorced participants in the overweight group was significantly (P=.02) greater than in the normal weight group. The mean EAT-26 score for the normal weight group was significantly (P<.01) lower than for the overweight and obese groups; there was no significant difference in mean EAT-26 scores between the overweight and obese groups. The mean anxiety score was significantly (P<.01) lower in the normal weight group compared with the overweight and obese groups. There was no significant difference between the overweight and obese groups according to the mean depression score. The mean stress and anxiety scores were significantly (P<.01) lower in the normal weight group than in the overweight and obese groups. There was no significant difference between the overweight and obese groups according to the mean anxiety score.

Comparative Evaluation of the EAT-26 Scores—There were statistically significant differences among the EAT-26 scores related to sex; BMI; and depression, anxiety, and stress scores (P=.04, .02, <.01, <.01, and <.01, respectively). The number of females in the group with a score of 20 points or higher was significantly (P=.04) less than that in the group scoring less than 20 points. The mean BMI in the group with a score of 20 points or higher was significantly (P=.02) greater than in group scoring less than 20 points. The mean depression, anxiety, and stress scores of the group scoring 20 points or higher were significantly (P<.01 for all) greater than in the group scoring less than 20 points (eTable 2).

Correlation Analysis of the Study Variables—The EAT-26 scores were positively correlated with BMI, anxiety, depression, and stress (P<.01 for all)(eTable 3).

Comment

Eating disorders are psychiatric conditions that require a multidisciplinary approach. Nonpsychiatric medical departments may be involved due to the severe consequences (eg, various skin changes¹⁴) of these disorders. Psoriasis is not known to be directly affected by the presence of an ED; however, it is possible that EDs could indirectly affect patients with psoriasis by influencing obesity. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the relationship between ED risk factors and obesity in this population.

The relationship between psoriasis and obesity has been a popular research topic in dermatology since the 1990s.¹⁵ Epidemiologic and observational studies have reported that patients with psoriasis are more likely to be overweight or have obesity, which is an independent risk factor for psoriasis.^3,16 However, the causal relationship between psoriasis and obesity remains unclear. In a comprehensive review, Barros et al¹⁷ emphasized the causal relationship between obesity and psoriasis under several headings. Firstly, a higher BMI increases the risk for psoriasis by promoting cytokine release and immune system dysregulation. Secondly, a Western diet (eg, processed foods and fast food) triggers obesity and psoriasis by increasing adipose tissue. Thirdly, the alteration of the skin and gut microbiota triggers chronic inflammation as a result of bacterial translocation in patients with obesity. Fourthly, a high-fat diet and palmitic acid disrupt the intestinal integrity of the gut and increase the risk for psoriasis and obesity by triggering chronic inflammation of bacterial fragments that pass into the blood. Finally, the decrease in the amount of adiponectin and the increase in the amount of leptin in patients with obesity may cause psoriasis by increasing proinflammatory cytokines, which are similar to those involved in the pathogenesis of psoriasis.¹⁷ Additionally, psoriatic inflammation can cause insulin resistance and metabolic dysfunction, leading to obesity.¹⁸ The relationship between psoriasis and obesity cannot be solely explained by metabolic pathways. Smoking, alcohol consumption, and a sedentary lifestyle all are associated with psoriasis and also can contribute to obesity.⁵ Our study revealed no significant difference in smoking or alcohol consumption between the normal weight and overweight/obesity groups. Based on our data, we determined that smoking and alcohol consumption did not affect obesity in our patients with psoriasis.

Observational and epidemiologic studies have shown that patients with psoriasis experience increased rates of depression, anxiety, and stress.¹⁹ In studies of pathogenesis, a connection between depression and psoriatic inflammation has been established.²⁰ It is known that inflammatory cytokines similar to those in psoriasis are involved in the development of obesity.¹⁸ In addition, depression and anxiety can lead to binge eating, unhealthy food choices, and a more sedentary lifestyle.⁵ All of these variables may contribute to the associations between depression and anxiety with psoriasis and obesity. Zafiriou et al²¹ conducted a study to investigate the relationship between psoriasis, obesity, and depression through inflammatory pathways with a focus on the importance of IL-17. Data showing that IL-17–producing Th17-cell subgroups play a considerable role in the development of obesity and depression prompted the authors to suggest that psoriasis, obesity, and ­anxiety/depression may be interconnected manifestations of immune dysregulation, potentially linked to IL-17 and its associated cells.²¹ Mrowietz et al²² also suggested that metabolic inflammation may contribute to obesity and depression in patients with psoriasis and highlighted the importance of several cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor α, IL-6, IL-8, IL-17, and IL-23. Our study revealed no significant differences in depression scores between BMI groups. Another meta-analysis reported conflicting findings on the incidence of depression in obese patients with psoriasis.²³ Some of the studies had a small number of participants. Compared to depression, anxiety has received less attention in studies of patients with obesity with psoriasis. However, these studies have shown a positive correlation between anxiety scores and BMI in patients with psoriasis.^24,25 In our study, similar to the findings of previous studies, overweight patients and those with obesitywho have psoriasis had significantly (P<.01) greater anxiety and stress scores than did normal weight patients with psoriasis.

Obesity should be assessed in patients with psoriasis via a biopsychosocial approach that takes into account genetic, behavioral, and environmental factors.²⁶ Eating disorders are considered to be one of the factors contributing to obesity. Numerous studies in the literature have demonstrated a greater incidence of EDs in patients with obesity vs those without obesity.^5,6,27 Obesity and EDs have a bidirectional relationship: individuals with obesity are at risk for EDs due to body dissatisfaction, dieting habits, and depressive states. Conversely, poor eating behaviors in individuals with a normal weight can lead to obesity.²⁸

There are few studies in the literature exploring the relationship between psoriasis and EDs. Crosta et al²⁹ demonstrated that patients with psoriasis had impaired results on ED screening tests and that these scores deteriorated further as BMI increased. Moreover, Altunay et al³⁰ demonstrated that patients with psoriasis and metabolic syndrome had higher scores on the ED screening test. In this study, patients with higher scores also exhibited high levels of anxiety.³⁰ In our study, similar to the findings of previous studies, patients with psoriasis who were overweight or had obesity had significantly (P<.01) greater EAT-26 scores than those in the normal weight group. Patients with high EAT-26 scores also exhibited elevated levels of depression, anxiety, and stress. Additionally, EAT-26 scores were positively correlated with BMI, anxiety, depression, and stress scores. Our study as well as other studies in the literature indicate that additional research is needed to determine the associations between EDs and obesity in psoriasis.

Conclusion

Managing obesity is crucial for patients with psoriasis. This study showed that EAT-26 scores were higher in patients with psoriasis who were overweight or had obesity than in those who were normal weight. Participants with high EAT-26 scores (≥20 points) were more likely to be female and have higher anxiety and stress scores. In addition, EAT-26 scores were positively correlated with BMI as well as depression, anxiety, and stress scores. Eating disorders may contribute to the development of obesity in patients with psoriasis. Although our study was limited by a small sample size, the results suggest that there is a need for large-scale multicenter studies to investigate the relationship between psoriasis and EDs.

References

1. Kalkan G. Comorbidities in psoriasis: the recognition of psoriasis as a systemic disease and current management. Turkderm-Turk Arch Dermatol Venereol. 2017;51:71-77.

2. Armstrong AW, Harskamp CT, Armstrong EJ. The association between psoriasis and obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Nutr Diabetes. 2012;2:E54.

3. Jensen P, Skov L. Psoriasis and obesity. Dermatology. 2016;232:633-639.

4. Mirghani H, Altemani AT, Altemani ST, et al. The cross talk between psoriasis, obesity, and dyslipidemia: a meta-analysis. Cureus. 2023;15:e49253.

5. Roehring M, Mashep MR, White MA, et al. The metabolic syndrome and behavioral correlates in obese patients with binge disorders. Obesity. 2009;17:481-486.

6. da Luz FQ, Hay P, Touyz S, et al. Obesity with comorbid eating disorders: associated health risks and treatment approaches. Nutrients. 2018;10:829.

7. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. American Psychiatric Association; 2013.

8. Ergüney Okumus¸ FE, Sertel Berk HÖ. The psychometric properties of the Eating Attitudes Test short form (EAT-26) in a college sample. Stud Psychol. 2020;40:57-78.

9. Stoleru G, Leopold A, Auerbach A, et al. Female gender, dissatisfaction with weight, and number of IBD related surgeries as independent risk factors for eating disorders among patients with inflammatory bowel diseases. BMC Gastroenterol. 2022;22:438.

10. Öztürkcan S, Ermertcan AT, Eser E, et al. Cross validation of the Turkish version of dermatology life quality index. Int J Dermatol. 2006;45:1300-1307.

11. Demir GT, Ciciog˘lu HI˙. Attitude scale for healthy nutrition (ASHN): validity and reliability study. Gaziantep Univ J Sport Sci. 2019;4:256-274.

12. Yılmaz O, Boz H, Arslan A. The validity and reliability of depression stress and anxiety scale (DASS 21) Turkish short form. Res Financial Econ Soc Stud. 2017;2:78-91.

13. Nuttall FQ. Body mass index: obesity, BMI, and health: a critical review. Nutr Today. 2015;50:117-128.

14. Strumia R, Manzata E, Gualandi M. Is there a role for dermatologists in eating disorders? Expert Rev Dermatol. 2017; 2:109-112.

15. Henseler T, Christophers E. Disease concomitance in psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1995;32:982-986.

16. Naldi L, Addis A, Chimenti S, et al. Impact of body mass index and obesity on clinical response to systemic treatment for psoriasis. evidence from the Psocare project. Dermatology. 2008;217:365-373.

17. Barros G, Duran P, Vera I, et al. Exploring the links between obesity and psoriasis: a comprehensive review. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23:7499.

18. Hao Y, Zhu YJ, Zou S, et al. Metabolic syndrome and psoriasis: mechanisms and future directions. Front Immunol. 2021;12:711060.

19. Jing D, Xiao H, Shen M, et al. Association of psoriasis with anxiety and depression: a case–control study in Chinese patients. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8:771645.

20. Sahi FM, Masood A, Danawar NA, et al. Association between psoriasis and depression: a traditional review. Cureus. 2020;12:E9708.

21. Zafiriou E, Daponte AI, Siokas V, et al. Depression and obesity in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: is IL-17–mediated immune dysregulation the connecting link? Front Immunol. 2021;12:699848.

22. Mrowietz U, Sümbül M, Gerdes S. Depression, a major comorbidity of psoriatic disease, is caused by metabolic inflammation. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2023;37:1731-1738.

23. Pavlova NT, Kioskli K, Smith C, et al. Psychosocial aspects of obesity in adults with psoriasis: a systematic review. Skin Health Dis. 2021;1:E33.

24. Innamorati M, Quinto RM, Imperatori C, et al. Health-related quality of life and its association with alexithymia and difficulties in emotion regulation in patients with psoriasis. Compr Psychiatry. 2016;70:200-208.

25. Tabolli S, Naldi L, Pagliarello C, et al. Evaluation of the impact of writing exercises interventions on quality of life in patients with psoriasis undergoing systemic treatments. Br J Dermatol. 2012;167:1254‐1264.

26. Albuquerque D, Nóbrega C, Manco L, et al. The contribution of genetics and environment to obesity. Br Med Bull. 2017;123:159‐173.

27. Balantekin KN, Grammer AC, Fitzsimmons-Craft EE, et al. Overweight and obesity are associated with increased eating disorder correlates and general psychopathology in university women with eating disorders. Eat Behav. 2021;41:101482.

28. Jebeile H, Lister NB, Baur LA, et al. Eating disorder risk in adolescents with obesity. Obes Rev. 2021;22:E13173.

29. Crosta ML, Caldarola G, Fraietta S, et al. Psychopathology and eating disorders in patients with psoriasis. G Ital Dermatol Venereol. 2014;149:355-361.

30. Altunay I, Demirci GT, Ates B, et al. Do eating disorders accompany metabolic syndrome in psoriasis patients? results of a preliminary study. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2011;4:139-143.

To the Editor:

Although biologics provide major therapeutic benefits for dermatologic conditions, they also come with a substantial cost, making them among the most expensive medications available. Medicare and Medicaid spending on biologics for dermatologic conditions increased by 320% from 2012 to 2018, reaching a staggering $10.6 billion in 2018 alone.¹ Biosimilars show promise in reducing health care spending for dermatologic conditions; however, their utilization has been limited due to multiple factors, including delayed market entry from patent thickets, exclusionary formulary contracts, and prescriber skepticism regarding their safety and efficacy.² For instance, a national survey of 1201 US physicians in specialties that are high prescribers of biologics reported that 55% doubted the safety and appropriateness of biosimilars.³

US Food and Drug Administration approval of biosimilars for adalimumab and etanercept offers the potential to reduce health care spending for dermatologic conditions. However, this cost reduction is dependent on utilization rates among dermatologists. In this national cross-sectional review of Medicare data, we predicted the impact of these biosimilars on dermatologic Medicare costs and demonstrated how differing utilization rates among dermatologists can influence potential savings.

To model 2023 utilization and cost reduction from biosimilars, we analyzed Medicare Part D data from 2020 on existing biosimilars, including granulocyte colony–stimulating factors, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, and tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors.⁴ Methods in line with a 2021 report from the US Department of Health and Human Services⁵ as well as those of Yazdany et al⁶ were used. For each class, we calculated the 2020 distribution of biosimilar and originator drug claims as well as biosimilar cost reduction per 30-day claim. We utilized 2018-2021 annual growth rates for branded adalimumab and etanercept to estimate 30-day claims for 2023 and the cost of these branded agents in the absence of biosimilars. The hypothetical 2023 cost reduction from adalimumab and etanercept biosimilars was estimated by assuming 2020 biosimilar utilization rates and mean cost reduction per claim. This study utilized publicly available or aggregate summary data (not attributable to specific patients) and did not qualify as human subject research; therefore, institutional review board approval was not required.

In 2020, biosimilar utilization proportions ranged from 6.4% (tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors) to 82.7% (granulocyte colony–stimulating factors), with a mean across all classes of 35.7%. On average, the cost per 30-day claim of biosimilars was 66.8% of originator agents (Table 1). In 2021, we identified 57,868 30-day claims for branded adalimumab and etanercept submitted by dermatologists. From 2018 to 2021, 30-day branded adalimumab claims increased by 1.27% annually (cost + 10.62% annually), while claims for branded etanercept decreased by 13.0% annually (cost + 5.68% annually). Assuming these trends, the cost of branded adalimumab and etanercept was estimated to be $539 million in 2023. Applying the aforementioned 35.7% utilization, the introduction of biosimilars in dermatology would yield a cost reduction of approximately $118 million (21.9%). A high utilization rate (82.7%) of biosimilars among dermatologists would increase cost savings to $199 million (36.9%)(Table 2).

We found that the extent of savings from biosimilars was dependent on the utilization rates among dermatologists, with the highest utilization rate almost doubling the total savings of average utilization rates. Given the impact of high utilization and the wide variation observed, understanding the factors that have influenced uptake of biosimilars is important to increasing utilization as these medications become integrated into dermatology. For instance, limited uptake of infliximab initially may have been influenced by concerns about efficacy and increased adverse events.^8,9 In contrast, the high utilization of filgrastim biosimilars (82.7%) may be attributed to its longevity in the market and familiarity to prescribers, as filgrastim was the first biosimilar to be approved in the United States.¹⁰

Promoting reasonable utilization of biosimilars may require prescriber education on their safety and approval processes, which could foster increased utilization and reduce skepticism.⁴ Under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, the US Food and Drug Administration approves biosimilars only when they exhibit “high similarity” and show no “clinically meaningful differences” compared to the reference biologic, with no added safety risks or reduced efficacy.¹¹ Moreover, a 2023 systematic review of 17 studies found no major difference in efficacy and safety between biosimilars and originators of etanercept, infliximab, and other biologics.¹² Understanding these findings may reassure dermatologists and patients about the reliability and safety of biosimilars.

A limitation of our study is that it solely assesses Medicare data and estimates derived from existing (separate) biologic classes. It also does not account for potential expenditure shifts to newer biologic agents (eg, IL-12/17/23 inhibitors) or changes in manufacturer behavior or promotions. Nevertheless, it indicates notable financial savings from new biosimilar agents in dermatology; along with their compelling efficacy and safety profiles, this could represent a substantial benefit to patients and the health care system.

To the Editor:

Although biologics provide major therapeutic benefits for dermatologic conditions, they also come with a substantial cost, making them among the most expensive medications available. Medicare and Medicaid spending on biologics for dermatologic conditions increased by 320% from 2012 to 2018, reaching a staggering $10.6 billion in 2018 alone.¹ Biosimilars show promise in reducing health care spending for dermatologic conditions; however, their utilization has been limited due to multiple factors, including delayed market entry from patent thickets, exclusionary formulary contracts, and prescriber skepticism regarding their safety and efficacy.² For instance, a national survey of 1201 US physicians in specialties that are high prescribers of biologics reported that 55% doubted the safety and appropriateness of biosimilars.³

US Food and Drug Administration approval of biosimilars for adalimumab and etanercept offers the potential to reduce health care spending for dermatologic conditions. However, this cost reduction is dependent on utilization rates among dermatologists. In this national cross-sectional review of Medicare data, we predicted the impact of these biosimilars on dermatologic Medicare costs and demonstrated how differing utilization rates among dermatologists can influence potential savings.

To model 2023 utilization and cost reduction from biosimilars, we analyzed Medicare Part D data from 2020 on existing biosimilars, including granulocyte colony–stimulating factors, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, and tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors.⁴ Methods in line with a 2021 report from the US Department of Health and Human Services⁵ as well as those of Yazdany et al⁶ were used. For each class, we calculated the 2020 distribution of biosimilar and originator drug claims as well as biosimilar cost reduction per 30-day claim. We utilized 2018-2021 annual growth rates for branded adalimumab and etanercept to estimate 30-day claims for 2023 and the cost of these branded agents in the absence of biosimilars. The hypothetical 2023 cost reduction from adalimumab and etanercept biosimilars was estimated by assuming 2020 biosimilar utilization rates and mean cost reduction per claim. This study utilized publicly available or aggregate summary data (not attributable to specific patients) and did not qualify as human subject research; therefore, institutional review board approval was not required.

In 2020, biosimilar utilization proportions ranged from 6.4% (tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors) to 82.7% (granulocyte colony–stimulating factors), with a mean across all classes of 35.7%. On average, the cost per 30-day claim of biosimilars was 66.8% of originator agents (Table 1). In 2021, we identified 57,868 30-day claims for branded adalimumab and etanercept submitted by dermatologists. From 2018 to 2021, 30-day branded adalimumab claims increased by 1.27% annually (cost + 10.62% annually), while claims for branded etanercept decreased by 13.0% annually (cost + 5.68% annually). Assuming these trends, the cost of branded adalimumab and etanercept was estimated to be $539 million in 2023. Applying the aforementioned 35.7% utilization, the introduction of biosimilars in dermatology would yield a cost reduction of approximately $118 million (21.9%). A high utilization rate (82.7%) of biosimilars among dermatologists would increase cost savings to $199 million (36.9%)(Table 2).

We found that the extent of savings from biosimilars was dependent on the utilization rates among dermatologists, with the highest utilization rate almost doubling the total savings of average utilization rates. Given the impact of high utilization and the wide variation observed, understanding the factors that have influenced uptake of biosimilars is important to increasing utilization as these medications become integrated into dermatology. For instance, limited uptake of infliximab initially may have been influenced by concerns about efficacy and increased adverse events.^8,9 In contrast, the high utilization of filgrastim biosimilars (82.7%) may be attributed to its longevity in the market and familiarity to prescribers, as filgrastim was the first biosimilar to be approved in the United States.¹⁰

Promoting reasonable utilization of biosimilars may require prescriber education on their safety and approval processes, which could foster increased utilization and reduce skepticism.⁴ Under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, the US Food and Drug Administration approves biosimilars only when they exhibit “high similarity” and show no “clinically meaningful differences” compared to the reference biologic, with no added safety risks or reduced efficacy.¹¹ Moreover, a 2023 systematic review of 17 studies found no major difference in efficacy and safety between biosimilars and originators of etanercept, infliximab, and other biologics.¹² Understanding these findings may reassure dermatologists and patients about the reliability and safety of biosimilars.

A limitation of our study is that it solely assesses Medicare data and estimates derived from existing (separate) biologic classes. It also does not account for potential expenditure shifts to newer biologic agents (eg, IL-12/17/23 inhibitors) or changes in manufacturer behavior or promotions. Nevertheless, it indicates notable financial savings from new biosimilar agents in dermatology; along with their compelling efficacy and safety profiles, this could represent a substantial benefit to patients and the health care system.

To the Editor:

Although biologics provide major therapeutic benefits for dermatologic conditions, they also come with a substantial cost, making them among the most expensive medications available. Medicare and Medicaid spending on biologics for dermatologic conditions increased by 320% from 2012 to 2018, reaching a staggering $10.6 billion in 2018 alone.¹ Biosimilars show promise in reducing health care spending for dermatologic conditions; however, their utilization has been limited due to multiple factors, including delayed market entry from patent thickets, exclusionary formulary contracts, and prescriber skepticism regarding their safety and efficacy.² For instance, a national survey of 1201 US physicians in specialties that are high prescribers of biologics reported that 55% doubted the safety and appropriateness of biosimilars.³

US Food and Drug Administration approval of biosimilars for adalimumab and etanercept offers the potential to reduce health care spending for dermatologic conditions. However, this cost reduction is dependent on utilization rates among dermatologists. In this national cross-sectional review of Medicare data, we predicted the impact of these biosimilars on dermatologic Medicare costs and demonstrated how differing utilization rates among dermatologists can influence potential savings.

To model 2023 utilization and cost reduction from biosimilars, we analyzed Medicare Part D data from 2020 on existing biosimilars, including granulocyte colony–stimulating factors, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, and tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors.⁴ Methods in line with a 2021 report from the US Department of Health and Human Services⁵ as well as those of Yazdany et al⁶ were used. For each class, we calculated the 2020 distribution of biosimilar and originator drug claims as well as biosimilar cost reduction per 30-day claim. We utilized 2018-2021 annual growth rates for branded adalimumab and etanercept to estimate 30-day claims for 2023 and the cost of these branded agents in the absence of biosimilars. The hypothetical 2023 cost reduction from adalimumab and etanercept biosimilars was estimated by assuming 2020 biosimilar utilization rates and mean cost reduction per claim. This study utilized publicly available or aggregate summary data (not attributable to specific patients) and did not qualify as human subject research; therefore, institutional review board approval was not required.

In 2020, biosimilar utilization proportions ranged from 6.4% (tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors) to 82.7% (granulocyte colony–stimulating factors), with a mean across all classes of 35.7%. On average, the cost per 30-day claim of biosimilars was 66.8% of originator agents (Table 1). In 2021, we identified 57,868 30-day claims for branded adalimumab and etanercept submitted by dermatologists. From 2018 to 2021, 30-day branded adalimumab claims increased by 1.27% annually (cost + 10.62% annually), while claims for branded etanercept decreased by 13.0% annually (cost + 5.68% annually). Assuming these trends, the cost of branded adalimumab and etanercept was estimated to be $539 million in 2023. Applying the aforementioned 35.7% utilization, the introduction of biosimilars in dermatology would yield a cost reduction of approximately $118 million (21.9%). A high utilization rate (82.7%) of biosimilars among dermatologists would increase cost savings to $199 million (36.9%)(Table 2).

We found that the extent of savings from biosimilars was dependent on the utilization rates among dermatologists, with the highest utilization rate almost doubling the total savings of average utilization rates. Given the impact of high utilization and the wide variation observed, understanding the factors that have influenced uptake of biosimilars is important to increasing utilization as these medications become integrated into dermatology. For instance, limited uptake of infliximab initially may have been influenced by concerns about efficacy and increased adverse events.^8,9 In contrast, the high utilization of filgrastim biosimilars (82.7%) may be attributed to its longevity in the market and familiarity to prescribers, as filgrastim was the first biosimilar to be approved in the United States.¹⁰

Promoting reasonable utilization of biosimilars may require prescriber education on their safety and approval processes, which could foster increased utilization and reduce skepticism.⁴ Under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, the US Food and Drug Administration approves biosimilars only when they exhibit “high similarity” and show no “clinically meaningful differences” compared to the reference biologic, with no added safety risks or reduced efficacy.¹¹ Moreover, a 2023 systematic review of 17 studies found no major difference in efficacy and safety between biosimilars and originators of etanercept, infliximab, and other biologics.¹² Understanding these findings may reassure dermatologists and patients about the reliability and safety of biosimilars.

A limitation of our study is that it solely assesses Medicare data and estimates derived from existing (separate) biologic classes. It also does not account for potential expenditure shifts to newer biologic agents (eg, IL-12/17/23 inhibitors) or changes in manufacturer behavior or promotions. Nevertheless, it indicates notable financial savings from new biosimilar agents in dermatology; along with their compelling efficacy and safety profiles, this could represent a substantial benefit to patients and the health care system.

Biologics have revolutionized dermatologic treatment, offering substantial relief from chronic and ­debilitating skin conditions such as psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, atopic dermatitis (AD), chronic urticaria, and immunobullous diseases (eg, pemphigus vulgaris, bullous pemphigoid). By drastically decreasing symptom burden, biologics have the potential to transform patients’ lives by improving their overall quality of life (QOL). However, the use of biologics during ­pregnancy raises critical considerations, especially ­regarding safety.

Biologics for Cutaneous Conditions

Biologics—tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α inhibitors; IL-17, IL-23, IL-12, and IL-36 inhibitors; and agents such as omalizumab and dupilumab—have shown remarkable efficacy in controlling severe or recalcitrant dermatologic conditions and typically are more effective than traditional systemic therapies.¹ For instance, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and real-world data have shown that patients with psoriasis can achieve considerable skin clearance with biologics, greatly enhancing QOL.² Adalimumab and secukinumab, which have been approved for use in moderate to severe cases of hidradenitis suppurativa, reduce the frequency of painful nodules and abscesses, thereby decreasing pain and improving QOL. Dupilumab, an IL-4/13 receptor antagonist, has revolutionized the treatment of AD by drastically reducing itch and skin lesions and improving QOL.³ For chronic urticaria, the anti-IgE antibody omalizumab has effectively reduced the incidence of hives and itching, providing pronounced symptom relief when traditional antihistamines fail.⁴ Use of rituximab, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, has led to remission in severe cases of pemphigus vulgaris and bullous pemphigoid.⁵

Impact of Untreated Cutaneous Conditions in Pregnancy

When treating patients who are pregnant, dermatologists must consider the health of both the expectant mother and the developing fetus. This dual focus complicates decision-making, particularly with the use of biologics. Untreated cutaneous conditions can profoundly impact a pregnant patient’s health and QOL as well as lead to pregnancy complications affecting the fetus, such as preterm birth or low birth weight. In some studies, moderate to severe psoriasis has been associated with increased risk for complications during pregnancy, including preeclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction.⁶ Although specific data on hidradenitis suppurativa are lacking, the highly inflammatory nature of the condition suggests similar adverse effects on pregnancy.⁷ Atopic dermatitis can be exacerbated during pregnancy due to a shift in the immune system to become more allergic dominant.⁸ Generalized pustular psoriasis manifests with widespread pustules, fever, and systemic inflammation, posing serious risks to both the mother and the fetus if left untreated⁹; in such a life-threatening scenario, the use of potent treatments such as spesolimab, an IL-36 receptor antagonist, may be warranted. Therefore, managing these conditions effectively is crucial not only for the mother’s health but also for fetal well-being.

Which Biologics Can Dermatologists Safely Prescribe?

Despite the benefits, many dermatologists are hesitant to prescribe biologics to pregnant patients due to the lack of understanding and definitive safety data.^10,11 Although there are no RCTs that involve pregnant patients, current evidence suggests that several biologics are not teratogenic and do not cause fetal malformations. Extensive postexposure data support the safety of TNF-α inhibitors during pregnancy.¹² Research has shown that children exposed to these agents in utero have normal development, infection rates, and vaccination outcomes comparable to nonexposed children. For example, a systematic review and meta-analysis found no significant increase in the risk for major congenital malformations, spontaneous abortions, or preterm births among patients exposed to anti–TNF-α agents during pregnancy.² The Organization of Teratology Information Specialists Autoimmune Diseases in Pregnancy Project has provided valuable real-world data indicating that the use of TNF-α inhibitors in pregnancy, particularly during the first trimester, does not substantially elevate the risk for adverse outcomes.¹³ These findings have been corroborated by several other registry studies and RCTs, providing a robust safety profile for these agents during pregnancy.¹⁴

Similarly, postexposure data on IL-17 and IL-12/23 inhibitors indicate a favorable safety profile, though the sample sizes are smaller than those for anti–TNF-α agents.^12,14 Studies of drugs such as secukinumab (IL-17 inhibitor), guselkumab (IL-23 inhibitor), or ustekinumab (IL-12/23 inhibitor) have shown no association with teratogenic effects or increased risk for miscarriage.¹⁴ However, agents such as spesolimab (IL-36 inhibitor) are relatively new, and ongoing studies are expected to provide more comprehensive safety data.¹⁵ Similarly, omalizumab and dupilumab have not been associated with increased risk for fetal malformations or adverse pregnancy outcomes. Omalizumab, indicated for chronic urticaria, has a good safety profile in pregnancy, with no significant increase in adverse outcomes reported in studies and registries.¹⁶ Dupilumab, used for AD, has demonstrated safety in pregnancy, with ongoing studies continuing to monitor outcomes.¹⁷

Conversely, rituximab (an anti-CD20 antibody for autoimmune bullous diseases) has shown evidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes, including fetal harm.¹⁸ Its use generally is discouraged unless deemed absolutely necessary, and no safer alternatives are available. Rituximab can cross the placenta, especially in the second and third trimesters, and has been associated with B-cell depletion in the fetus, leading to potential immunosuppression and increased risk for infections.⁵

Although the data on the safety of biologics in pregnancy are largely reassuring, it is essential to recognize that potential risks have not been ruled out entirely. There are extensive safety data for anti–TNF-α inhibitors, which provides a level of confidence; although newer agents such as IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors have shown promising early results, further research is required to solidify their safety profiles during pregnancy.

Dermatologists must balance the risks and benefits of using biologics in pregnant patients. This decision-­making process involves careful consideration of the severity of the mother’s condition, the potential risks to the fetus, and the availability of alternative treatments. For many severe dermatologic conditions, the benefits of biologics in controlling disease activity and improving QOL may outweigh the potential risks, especially when other treatments have failed or are not suitable.

Final Thoughts

The increasing use of biologics in dermatology has undoubtedly improved the management of severe skin conditions, substantially enhancing patients’ QOL. As more data become available and clinical guidelines evolve, health care providers will be better equipped to make informed decisions about the use of biologics, particularly in pregnant patients. Collaborative efforts between dermatologists, obstetricians, and researchers will help refine treatment guidelines and ensure that pregnant patients with severe dermatologic conditions receive the best possible care.

For now, although the current evidence supports the safety of many biologics during pregnancy,^10,11 individualized care and informed decision-making remain paramount. Careful management and adherence to current guidelines make it possible to navigate the complexities of treating severe dermatologic conditions in pregnant patients, ensuring the best outcomes for both mother and child.

Biologics have revolutionized dermatologic treatment, offering substantial relief from chronic and ­debilitating skin conditions such as psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, atopic dermatitis (AD), chronic urticaria, and immunobullous diseases (eg, pemphigus vulgaris, bullous pemphigoid). By drastically decreasing symptom burden, biologics have the potential to transform patients’ lives by improving their overall quality of life (QOL). However, the use of biologics during ­pregnancy raises critical considerations, especially ­regarding safety.

Biologics for Cutaneous Conditions

Biologics—tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α inhibitors; IL-17, IL-23, IL-12, and IL-36 inhibitors; and agents such as omalizumab and dupilumab—have shown remarkable efficacy in controlling severe or recalcitrant dermatologic conditions and typically are more effective than traditional systemic therapies.¹ For instance, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and real-world data have shown that patients with psoriasis can achieve considerable skin clearance with biologics, greatly enhancing QOL.² Adalimumab and secukinumab, which have been approved for use in moderate to severe cases of hidradenitis suppurativa, reduce the frequency of painful nodules and abscesses, thereby decreasing pain and improving QOL. Dupilumab, an IL-4/13 receptor antagonist, has revolutionized the treatment of AD by drastically reducing itch and skin lesions and improving QOL.³ For chronic urticaria, the anti-IgE antibody omalizumab has effectively reduced the incidence of hives and itching, providing pronounced symptom relief when traditional antihistamines fail.⁴ Use of rituximab, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, has led to remission in severe cases of pemphigus vulgaris and bullous pemphigoid.⁵

Impact of Untreated Cutaneous Conditions in Pregnancy

When treating patients who are pregnant, dermatologists must consider the health of both the expectant mother and the developing fetus. This dual focus complicates decision-making, particularly with the use of biologics. Untreated cutaneous conditions can profoundly impact a pregnant patient’s health and QOL as well as lead to pregnancy complications affecting the fetus, such as preterm birth or low birth weight. In some studies, moderate to severe psoriasis has been associated with increased risk for complications during pregnancy, including preeclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction.⁶ Although specific data on hidradenitis suppurativa are lacking, the highly inflammatory nature of the condition suggests similar adverse effects on pregnancy.⁷ Atopic dermatitis can be exacerbated during pregnancy due to a shift in the immune system to become more allergic dominant.⁸ Generalized pustular psoriasis manifests with widespread pustules, fever, and systemic inflammation, posing serious risks to both the mother and the fetus if left untreated⁹; in such a life-threatening scenario, the use of potent treatments such as spesolimab, an IL-36 receptor antagonist, may be warranted. Therefore, managing these conditions effectively is crucial not only for the mother’s health but also for fetal well-being.

Which Biologics Can Dermatologists Safely Prescribe?

Despite the benefits, many dermatologists are hesitant to prescribe biologics to pregnant patients due to the lack of understanding and definitive safety data.^10,11 Although there are no RCTs that involve pregnant patients, current evidence suggests that several biologics are not teratogenic and do not cause fetal malformations. Extensive postexposure data support the safety of TNF-α inhibitors during pregnancy.¹² Research has shown that children exposed to these agents in utero have normal development, infection rates, and vaccination outcomes comparable to nonexposed children. For example, a systematic review and meta-analysis found no significant increase in the risk for major congenital malformations, spontaneous abortions, or preterm births among patients exposed to anti–TNF-α agents during pregnancy.² The Organization of Teratology Information Specialists Autoimmune Diseases in Pregnancy Project has provided valuable real-world data indicating that the use of TNF-α inhibitors in pregnancy, particularly during the first trimester, does not substantially elevate the risk for adverse outcomes.¹³ These findings have been corroborated by several other registry studies and RCTs, providing a robust safety profile for these agents during pregnancy.¹⁴

Similarly, postexposure data on IL-17 and IL-12/23 inhibitors indicate a favorable safety profile, though the sample sizes are smaller than those for anti–TNF-α agents.^12,14 Studies of drugs such as secukinumab (IL-17 inhibitor), guselkumab (IL-23 inhibitor), or ustekinumab (IL-12/23 inhibitor) have shown no association with teratogenic effects or increased risk for miscarriage.¹⁴ However, agents such as spesolimab (IL-36 inhibitor) are relatively new, and ongoing studies are expected to provide more comprehensive safety data.¹⁵ Similarly, omalizumab and dupilumab have not been associated with increased risk for fetal malformations or adverse pregnancy outcomes. Omalizumab, indicated for chronic urticaria, has a good safety profile in pregnancy, with no significant increase in adverse outcomes reported in studies and registries.¹⁶ Dupilumab, used for AD, has demonstrated safety in pregnancy, with ongoing studies continuing to monitor outcomes.¹⁷

Conversely, rituximab (an anti-CD20 antibody for autoimmune bullous diseases) has shown evidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes, including fetal harm.¹⁸ Its use generally is discouraged unless deemed absolutely necessary, and no safer alternatives are available. Rituximab can cross the placenta, especially in the second and third trimesters, and has been associated with B-cell depletion in the fetus, leading to potential immunosuppression and increased risk for infections.⁵

Although the data on the safety of biologics in pregnancy are largely reassuring, it is essential to recognize that potential risks have not been ruled out entirely. There are extensive safety data for anti–TNF-α inhibitors, which provides a level of confidence; although newer agents such as IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors have shown promising early results, further research is required to solidify their safety profiles during pregnancy.

Dermatologists must balance the risks and benefits of using biologics in pregnant patients. This decision-­making process involves careful consideration of the severity of the mother’s condition, the potential risks to the fetus, and the availability of alternative treatments. For many severe dermatologic conditions, the benefits of biologics in controlling disease activity and improving QOL may outweigh the potential risks, especially when other treatments have failed or are not suitable.

Final Thoughts

The increasing use of biologics in dermatology has undoubtedly improved the management of severe skin conditions, substantially enhancing patients’ QOL. As more data become available and clinical guidelines evolve, health care providers will be better equipped to make informed decisions about the use of biologics, particularly in pregnant patients. Collaborative efforts between dermatologists, obstetricians, and researchers will help refine treatment guidelines and ensure that pregnant patients with severe dermatologic conditions receive the best possible care.

For now, although the current evidence supports the safety of many biologics during pregnancy,^10,11 individualized care and informed decision-making remain paramount. Careful management and adherence to current guidelines make it possible to navigate the complexities of treating severe dermatologic conditions in pregnant patients, ensuring the best outcomes for both mother and child.

Biologics have revolutionized dermatologic treatment, offering substantial relief from chronic and ­debilitating skin conditions such as psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, atopic dermatitis (AD), chronic urticaria, and immunobullous diseases (eg, pemphigus vulgaris, bullous pemphigoid). By drastically decreasing symptom burden, biologics have the potential to transform patients’ lives by improving their overall quality of life (QOL). However, the use of biologics during ­pregnancy raises critical considerations, especially ­regarding safety.

Biologics for Cutaneous Conditions

Biologics—tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α inhibitors; IL-17, IL-23, IL-12, and IL-36 inhibitors; and agents such as omalizumab and dupilumab—have shown remarkable efficacy in controlling severe or recalcitrant dermatologic conditions and typically are more effective than traditional systemic therapies.¹ For instance, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and real-world data have shown that patients with psoriasis can achieve considerable skin clearance with biologics, greatly enhancing QOL.² Adalimumab and secukinumab, which have been approved for use in moderate to severe cases of hidradenitis suppurativa, reduce the frequency of painful nodules and abscesses, thereby decreasing pain and improving QOL. Dupilumab, an IL-4/13 receptor antagonist, has revolutionized the treatment of AD by drastically reducing itch and skin lesions and improving QOL.³ For chronic urticaria, the anti-IgE antibody omalizumab has effectively reduced the incidence of hives and itching, providing pronounced symptom relief when traditional antihistamines fail.⁴ Use of rituximab, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, has led to remission in severe cases of pemphigus vulgaris and bullous pemphigoid.⁵

Impact of Untreated Cutaneous Conditions in Pregnancy

When treating patients who are pregnant, dermatologists must consider the health of both the expectant mother and the developing fetus. This dual focus complicates decision-making, particularly with the use of biologics. Untreated cutaneous conditions can profoundly impact a pregnant patient’s health and QOL as well as lead to pregnancy complications affecting the fetus, such as preterm birth or low birth weight. In some studies, moderate to severe psoriasis has been associated with increased risk for complications during pregnancy, including preeclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction.⁶ Although specific data on hidradenitis suppurativa are lacking, the highly inflammatory nature of the condition suggests similar adverse effects on pregnancy.⁷ Atopic dermatitis can be exacerbated during pregnancy due to a shift in the immune system to become more allergic dominant.⁸ Generalized pustular psoriasis manifests with widespread pustules, fever, and systemic inflammation, posing serious risks to both the mother and the fetus if left untreated⁹; in such a life-threatening scenario, the use of potent treatments such as spesolimab, an IL-36 receptor antagonist, may be warranted. Therefore, managing these conditions effectively is crucial not only for the mother’s health but also for fetal well-being.

Which Biologics Can Dermatologists Safely Prescribe?

Despite the benefits, many dermatologists are hesitant to prescribe biologics to pregnant patients due to the lack of understanding and definitive safety data.^10,11 Although there are no RCTs that involve pregnant patients, current evidence suggests that several biologics are not teratogenic and do not cause fetal malformations. Extensive postexposure data support the safety of TNF-α inhibitors during pregnancy.¹² Research has shown that children exposed to these agents in utero have normal development, infection rates, and vaccination outcomes comparable to nonexposed children. For example, a systematic review and meta-analysis found no significant increase in the risk for major congenital malformations, spontaneous abortions, or preterm births among patients exposed to anti–TNF-α agents during pregnancy.² The Organization of Teratology Information Specialists Autoimmune Diseases in Pregnancy Project has provided valuable real-world data indicating that the use of TNF-α inhibitors in pregnancy, particularly during the first trimester, does not substantially elevate the risk for adverse outcomes.¹³ These findings have been corroborated by several other registry studies and RCTs, providing a robust safety profile for these agents during pregnancy.¹⁴

Similarly, postexposure data on IL-17 and IL-12/23 inhibitors indicate a favorable safety profile, though the sample sizes are smaller than those for anti–TNF-α agents.^12,14 Studies of drugs such as secukinumab (IL-17 inhibitor), guselkumab (IL-23 inhibitor), or ustekinumab (IL-12/23 inhibitor) have shown no association with teratogenic effects or increased risk for miscarriage.¹⁴ However, agents such as spesolimab (IL-36 inhibitor) are relatively new, and ongoing studies are expected to provide more comprehensive safety data.¹⁵ Similarly, omalizumab and dupilumab have not been associated with increased risk for fetal malformations or adverse pregnancy outcomes. Omalizumab, indicated for chronic urticaria, has a good safety profile in pregnancy, with no significant increase in adverse outcomes reported in studies and registries.¹⁶ Dupilumab, used for AD, has demonstrated safety in pregnancy, with ongoing studies continuing to monitor outcomes.¹⁷

Conversely, rituximab (an anti-CD20 antibody for autoimmune bullous diseases) has shown evidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes, including fetal harm.¹⁸ Its use generally is discouraged unless deemed absolutely necessary, and no safer alternatives are available. Rituximab can cross the placenta, especially in the second and third trimesters, and has been associated with B-cell depletion in the fetus, leading to potential immunosuppression and increased risk for infections.⁵

Although the data on the safety of biologics in pregnancy are largely reassuring, it is essential to recognize that potential risks have not been ruled out entirely. There are extensive safety data for anti–TNF-α inhibitors, which provides a level of confidence; although newer agents such as IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors have shown promising early results, further research is required to solidify their safety profiles during pregnancy.

Dermatologists must balance the risks and benefits of using biologics in pregnant patients. This decision-­making process involves careful consideration of the severity of the mother’s condition, the potential risks to the fetus, and the availability of alternative treatments. For many severe dermatologic conditions, the benefits of biologics in controlling disease activity and improving QOL may outweigh the potential risks, especially when other treatments have failed or are not suitable.

Final Thoughts

The increasing use of biologics in dermatology has undoubtedly improved the management of severe skin conditions, substantially enhancing patients’ QOL. As more data become available and clinical guidelines evolve, health care providers will be better equipped to make informed decisions about the use of biologics, particularly in pregnant patients. Collaborative efforts between dermatologists, obstetricians, and researchers will help refine treatment guidelines and ensure that pregnant patients with severe dermatologic conditions receive the best possible care.

For now, although the current evidence supports the safety of many biologics during pregnancy,^10,11 individualized care and informed decision-making remain paramount. Careful management and adherence to current guidelines make it possible to navigate the complexities of treating severe dermatologic conditions in pregnant patients, ensuring the best outcomes for both mother and child.

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease affecting approximately 8 million adults in the United States and 2% of the global population.^1,2 Psoriasis causes pain, itching, and disfigurement and is associated with a physical, psychological, and economic burden that substantially affects health-related quality of life.^3-5

Setting treatment goals and treating to target are evidence-based approaches that have been successfully applied to several chronic diseases to improve patient outcomes, including diabetes, hypertension, and rheumatoid arthritis.^6-9 Treat-to-target strategies generally set low disease activity (or remission) as an overall goal and seek to achieve this using available therapeutic options as necessary. Introduced following the availability of biologics and targeted systemic therapies, treat-to-target strategies generally provide guidance on expectations of treatment but not specific treatments, as personalized treatment decisions depend on an assessment of individual patients and consider clinical and demographic features as well as preferences for available therapeutic options. If targets are not achieved in the assigned time span, adjustments can be made to the treatment approach in close consultation with the patient. If the target is reached, follow-up visits can be scheduled to ensure improvement is maintained or to establish if more aggressive goals could be selected.

Treat-to-target strategies for the management of psoriasis developed by the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) Medical Board include reducing the extent of psoriasis to 1% or lower total body surface area (BSA) after 3 months of treatment.¹⁰ Treatment targets endorsed by the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) in guidelines on the use of systemic therapies in psoriasis include achieving a 75% or greater reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score within 3 to 4 months of treatment.¹¹

In clinical practice, many patients do not achieve these treatment targets, and topical treatments alone generally are insufficient in achieving treatment goals for psoriasis.^12,13 Moreover, conventional topical treatments (eg, topical corticosteroids) used by most patients with psoriasis regardless of disease severity are associated with adverse events that can limit their use. Most topical corticosteroids have US Food and Drug Administration label restrictions relating to sites of application, duration and extent of use, and frequency of administration.^14,15

Tapinarof cream 1% (VTAMA [Dermavant Sciences, Inc]) is a first-in-class topical nonsteroidal aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist that was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults¹⁶ and is being studied for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in children 2 years and older as well as for atopic dermatitis in adults and children 2 years and older. In PSOARING 1 (ClinicalTrials .gov identifier NCT03956355) and PSOARING 2 (NCT03983980)—identical 12-week pivotal phase 3 trials—monotherapy with tapinarof cream 1% once daily (QD) demonstrated statistically significant efficacy vs vehicle cream and was well tolerated in adults with mild to severe plaque psoriasis (Supplementary Figure S1).¹⁷ Lebwohl et al¹⁷ reported that significantly higher PASI75 responses were observed at week 12 with tapinarof cream vs vehicle in PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 (36% and 48% vs 10% and 7%, respectively; both P<.0001). A significantly higher PASI90 response of 19% and 21% at week 12 also was observed with tapinarof cream vs 2% and 3% with vehicle in PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2, respectively (P=.0005 and P<.0001).¹⁷

In PSOARING 3 (NCT04053387)—the long-term extension trial (Supplementary Figure S1)—efficacy continued to improve or was maintained beyond the two 12-week trials, with improvements in total BSA affected and PASI scores for up to 52 weeks.¹⁸ Tapinarof cream 1% QD demonstrated positive, rapid, and durable outcomes in PSOARING 3, including high rates of complete disease clearance (Physician Global Assessment [PGA] score=0 [clear])(40.9% [312/763]), durability of response on treatment with no evidence of tachyphylaxis, and a remittive effect of approximately 4 months when off therapy (defined as maintenance of a PGA score of 0 [clear] or 1 [almost clear] after first achieving a PGA score of 0).¹⁸

Herein, we report absolute treatment targets for patients with plaque psoriasis who received tapinarof cream 1% QD in the PSOARING trials that are at least as stringent as the corresponding NPF and EADV targets of achieving a total BSA affected of 1% or lower or a PASI75 response within 3 to 4 months, respectively.

METHODS

Study Design

The pooled efficacy analyses included all patients with a baseline PGA score of 2 or higher (mild or worse) before treatment with tapinarof cream 1% QD in the PSOARING trials. This included patients who received tapinarof cream 1% in PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 who may or may not have continued into PSOARING 3, as well as those who received the vehicle in PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 who enrolled in PSOARING 3 and had a PGA score of 2 or higher before receiving tapinarof cream 1%.

Trial Participants

Full methods, including inclusion and exclusion criteria, for the PSOARING trials have been previously reported.^17,18 Patients were aged 18 to 75 years and had chronic plaque psoriasis that was stable for at least 6 months before randomization; 3% to 20% total BSA affected (excluding the scalp, palms, fingernails, toenails, and soles); and a PGA score of 2 (mild), 3 (moderate), or 4 (severe) at baseline.

The clinical trials were conducted in compliance with the guidelines for Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was obtained from local ethics committees or institutional review boards at each center. All patients provided written informed consent.

Trial Treatment

In PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2, patients were randomized (2:1) to receive tapinarof cream 1% or vehicle QD for 12 weeks. In PSOARING 3 (the long-term extension trial), patients received up to 40 weeks of open-label tapinarof, followed by 4 weeks of follow-up off treatment. Patients received intermittent or continuous treatment with tapinarof cream 1% in PSOARING 3 based on PGA score: those entering the trial with a PGA score of 1 or higher received tapinarof cream 1% until complete disease clearance was achieved (defined as a PGA score of 0 [clear]). Those entering PSOARING 3 with or achieving a PGA score of 0 (clear) discontinued treatment and were observed for the duration of maintenance of a PGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) while off therapy (the protocol-defined “duration of remittive effect”). If disease worsening (defined as a PGA score 2 or higher) occurred, tapinarof cream 1% was restarted and continued until a PGA score of 0 (clear) was achieved. This pattern of treatment, discontinuation on achieving a PGA score of 0 (clear), and retreatment on disease worsening continued until the end of the trial. As a result, patients in PSOARING 3 could receive tapinarof cream 1% continuously or intermittently for 40 weeks.

Outcome Measures and Statistical Analyses

The assessment of total BSA affected by plaque psoriasis is an estimate of the total extent of disease as a percentage of total skin area. In the PSOARING trials, the skin surface of one hand (palm and digits) was assumed to be approximately equivalent to 1% BSA. The total BSA affected by psoriasis was evaluated from 0% to 100%, with greater total BSA affected being an indication of more extensive disease. The BSA efficacy outcomes used in these analyses were based post hoc on the proportion of patients who achieved a 1% or lower or 0.5% or lower total BSA affected. The smallest BSA affected increment that investigators were trained to measure and could record was 0.1%.

Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores assess both the severity and extent of psoriasis. A PASI score lower than 5 often is considered indicative of mild psoriasis, a score of 5 to 10 indicates moderate disease, and a score higher than 10 indicates severe disease.¹⁹ The maximum PASI score is 72. The PASI efficacy outcomes used in these analyses were based post hoc on the proportion of patients who achieved an absolute total PASI score of 3 or lower, 2 or lower, and 1 or lower.

Efficacy analyses were based on pooled data for all patients in the PSOARING trials who had a PGA score of 2 to 4 (mild to severe) before treatment with tapinarof cream 1% in the intention-to-treat population using observed cases. Time-to-target analyses were based on Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates using observed cases.

Safety analyses included the incidence and frequency of adverse events and were based on all patients who received tapinarof cream 1% in the PSOARING trials.

RESULTS

Baseline Patient Demographics and Disease Characteristics

The pooled efficacy analyses included 915 eligible patients (Table). At baseline, the mean (SD) age was 50.2 (13.25) years, 58.7% were male, the mean (SD) weight was 92.2 (23.67) kg, and the mean (SD) body mass index was 31.6 (7.53) kg/m². The percentage of patients with a PGA score of 2 (mild), 3 (moderate), or 4 (severe) was 13.9%, 78.1%, and 8.0%, respectively. The mean (SD) PASI score was 8.7 (4.23) and mean (SD) total BSA affected was 7.8% (4.98).

Efficacy

Achievement of BSA-Affected Targets—The NPF-recommended target of 1% or lower total BSA affected within 3 months was achieved by 40% of patients (KM estimate [95% CI, 37%-43%])(Figure 1). Across the total trial period of up to 52 weeks, a total BSA affected of 1% or lower was achieved by 61% of patients (561/915), with the median time to target of approximately 4 months (KM estimate: 120 days [95% CI, 113-141])(Supplementary Figure S2a). Approximately 50% of patients (455/915) achieved a total BSA affected of 0.5% or lower, with a median time to target of 199 days (KM estimate [95% CI, 172-228)(Figure 1; Supplementary Figure S2b).

Achievement of Absolute PASI Targets—Across the total trial period (up to 52 weeks), an absolute total PASI score of 3 or lower was achieved by 75% of patients (686/915), with a median time to achieve this of 2 months (KM estimate: 58 days [95% CI, 57-63]); approximately 67% of patients (612/915) achieved a total PASI score of 2 or lower, with a median time to achieve of 3 months (KM estimate: 87 days [95% CI, 85-110])(Figure 2; Supplementary Figures S3a and S3b). A PASI score of 1 or lower was achieved by approximately 50% of patients (460/915), with a median time to achieve of approximately 6 months (KM estimate: 185 days [95% CI, 169-218])(Figure 2, Supplementary Figure S3c).

Illustrative Case—Case photography showing the clinical response in a 63-year-old man with moderate plaque psoriasis in PSOARING 2 is shown in Figure 3. After 12 weeks of treatment with tapinarof cream 1% QD, the patient achieved all primary and secondary efficacy end points. In addition to achieving the regulatory end point of a PGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) and a decrease from baseline of at least 2 points, achievement of 0% total BSA affected and a total PASI score of 0 at week 12 exceeded the NPF and EADV consensus treatment targets.^10,11 Targets were achieved as early as week 4, with a total BSA affected of 0.5% or lower and a total PASI score of 1 or lower, illustrated by marked skin clearing and only faint residual erythema that completely resolved at week 12, with the absence of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.

Safety

Safety data for the PSOARING trials have been previously reported.^17,18 The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were folliculitis, contact dermatitis, upper respiratory tract infection, and nasopharyngitis. Treatment-emergent adverse events generally were mild or moderate in severity and did not lead to trial discontinuation.^17,18

COMMENT

Treat-to-target management approaches aim to improve patient outcomes by striving to achieve optimal goals. The treat-to-target approach supports shared decision-making between clinicians and patients based on common expectations of what constitutes treatment success.

The findings of this analysis based on pooled data from a large cohort of patients demonstrate that a high proportion of patients can achieve or exceed recommended treatment targets with tapinarof cream 1% QD and maintain improvements long-term. The NPF-recommended treatment target of 1% or lower BSA affected within approximately 3 months (90 days) of treatment was achieved by 40% of tapinarof-treated patients. In addition, 1% or lower BSA affected at any time during the trials was achieved by 61% of patients (median, approximately 4 months). The analyses also indicated that PASI total scores of 3 or lower and 2 or lower were achieved by 75% and 67% of tapinarof-treated patients, respectively, within 2 to 3 months.

These findings support the previously reported efficacy of tapinarof cream, including high rates of complete disease clearance (40.9% [312/763]), durable response following treatment interruption, an off-therapy remittive effect of approximately 4 months, and good disease control on therapy with no evidence of tachyphylaxis.^17,18

CONCLUSION

Taken together with previously reported tapinarof efficacy and safety results, our findings demonstrate that a high proportion of patients treated with tapinarof cream as monotherapy can achieve aggressive treatment targets set by both US and European guidelines developed for systemic and biologic therapies. Tapinarof cream 1% QD is an effective topical treatment option for patients with plaque psoriasis that has been approved without restrictions relating to severity or extent of disease treated, duration of use, or application sites, including application to sensitive and intertriginous skin.

Acknowledgments—Editorial and medical writing support under the guidance of the authors was provided by Melanie Govender, MSc (Med), ApotheCom (United Kingdom), and was funded by Dermavant Sciences, Inc, in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP) guidelines.

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease affecting approximately 8 million adults in the United States and 2% of the global population.^1,2 Psoriasis causes pain, itching, and disfigurement and is associated with a physical, psychological, and economic burden that substantially affects health-related quality of life.^3-5

Setting treatment goals and treating to target are evidence-based approaches that have been successfully applied to several chronic diseases to improve patient outcomes, including diabetes, hypertension, and rheumatoid arthritis.^6-9 Treat-to-target strategies generally set low disease activity (or remission) as an overall goal and seek to achieve this using available therapeutic options as necessary. Introduced following the availability of biologics and targeted systemic therapies, treat-to-target strategies generally provide guidance on expectations of treatment but not specific treatments, as personalized treatment decisions depend on an assessment of individual patients and consider clinical and demographic features as well as preferences for available therapeutic options. If targets are not achieved in the assigned time span, adjustments can be made to the treatment approach in close consultation with the patient. If the target is reached, follow-up visits can be scheduled to ensure improvement is maintained or to establish if more aggressive goals could be selected.

Treat-to-target strategies for the management of psoriasis developed by the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) Medical Board include reducing the extent of psoriasis to 1% or lower total body surface area (BSA) after 3 months of treatment.¹⁰ Treatment targets endorsed by the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) in guidelines on the use of systemic therapies in psoriasis include achieving a 75% or greater reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score within 3 to 4 months of treatment.¹¹

In clinical practice, many patients do not achieve these treatment targets, and topical treatments alone generally are insufficient in achieving treatment goals for psoriasis.^12,13 Moreover, conventional topical treatments (eg, topical corticosteroids) used by most patients with psoriasis regardless of disease severity are associated with adverse events that can limit their use. Most topical corticosteroids have US Food and Drug Administration label restrictions relating to sites of application, duration and extent of use, and frequency of administration.^14,15

Tapinarof cream 1% (VTAMA [Dermavant Sciences, Inc]) is a first-in-class topical nonsteroidal aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist that was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults¹⁶ and is being studied for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in children 2 years and older as well as for atopic dermatitis in adults and children 2 years and older. In PSOARING 1 (ClinicalTrials .gov identifier NCT03956355) and PSOARING 2 (NCT03983980)—identical 12-week pivotal phase 3 trials—monotherapy with tapinarof cream 1% once daily (QD) demonstrated statistically significant efficacy vs vehicle cream and was well tolerated in adults with mild to severe plaque psoriasis (Supplementary Figure S1).¹⁷ Lebwohl et al¹⁷ reported that significantly higher PASI75 responses were observed at week 12 with tapinarof cream vs vehicle in PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 (36% and 48% vs 10% and 7%, respectively; both P<.0001). A significantly higher PASI90 response of 19% and 21% at week 12 also was observed with tapinarof cream vs 2% and 3% with vehicle in PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2, respectively (P=.0005 and P<.0001).¹⁷

In PSOARING 3 (NCT04053387)—the long-term extension trial (Supplementary Figure S1)—efficacy continued to improve or was maintained beyond the two 12-week trials, with improvements in total BSA affected and PASI scores for up to 52 weeks.¹⁸ Tapinarof cream 1% QD demonstrated positive, rapid, and durable outcomes in PSOARING 3, including high rates of complete disease clearance (Physician Global Assessment [PGA] score=0 [clear])(40.9% [312/763]), durability of response on treatment with no evidence of tachyphylaxis, and a remittive effect of approximately 4 months when off therapy (defined as maintenance of a PGA score of 0 [clear] or 1 [almost clear] after first achieving a PGA score of 0).¹⁸

Herein, we report absolute treatment targets for patients with plaque psoriasis who received tapinarof cream 1% QD in the PSOARING trials that are at least as stringent as the corresponding NPF and EADV targets of achieving a total BSA affected of 1% or lower or a PASI75 response within 3 to 4 months, respectively.

METHODS

Study Design

The pooled efficacy analyses included all patients with a baseline PGA score of 2 or higher (mild or worse) before treatment with tapinarof cream 1% QD in the PSOARING trials. This included patients who received tapinarof cream 1% in PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 who may or may not have continued into PSOARING 3, as well as those who received the vehicle in PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 who enrolled in PSOARING 3 and had a PGA score of 2 or higher before receiving tapinarof cream 1%.

Trial Participants

Full methods, including inclusion and exclusion criteria, for the PSOARING trials have been previously reported.^17,18 Patients were aged 18 to 75 years and had chronic plaque psoriasis that was stable for at least 6 months before randomization; 3% to 20% total BSA affected (excluding the scalp, palms, fingernails, toenails, and soles); and a PGA score of 2 (mild), 3 (moderate), or 4 (severe) at baseline.

The clinical trials were conducted in compliance with the guidelines for Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was obtained from local ethics committees or institutional review boards at each center. All patients provided written informed consent.

Trial Treatment

In PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2, patients were randomized (2:1) to receive tapinarof cream 1% or vehicle QD for 12 weeks. In PSOARING 3 (the long-term extension trial), patients received up to 40 weeks of open-label tapinarof, followed by 4 weeks of follow-up off treatment. Patients received intermittent or continuous treatment with tapinarof cream 1% in PSOARING 3 based on PGA score: those entering the trial with a PGA score of 1 or higher received tapinarof cream 1% until complete disease clearance was achieved (defined as a PGA score of 0 [clear]). Those entering PSOARING 3 with or achieving a PGA score of 0 (clear) discontinued treatment and were observed for the duration of maintenance of a PGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) while off therapy (the protocol-defined “duration of remittive effect”). If disease worsening (defined as a PGA score 2 or higher) occurred, tapinarof cream 1% was restarted and continued until a PGA score of 0 (clear) was achieved. This pattern of treatment, discontinuation on achieving a PGA score of 0 (clear), and retreatment on disease worsening continued until the end of the trial. As a result, patients in PSOARING 3 could receive tapinarof cream 1% continuously or intermittently for 40 weeks.

Outcome Measures and Statistical Analyses

The assessment of total BSA affected by plaque psoriasis is an estimate of the total extent of disease as a percentage of total skin area. In the PSOARING trials, the skin surface of one hand (palm and digits) was assumed to be approximately equivalent to 1% BSA. The total BSA affected by psoriasis was evaluated from 0% to 100%, with greater total BSA affected being an indication of more extensive disease. The BSA efficacy outcomes used in these analyses were based post hoc on the proportion of patients who achieved a 1% or lower or 0.5% or lower total BSA affected. The smallest BSA affected increment that investigators were trained to measure and could record was 0.1%.

Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores assess both the severity and extent of psoriasis. A PASI score lower than 5 often is considered indicative of mild psoriasis, a score of 5 to 10 indicates moderate disease, and a score higher than 10 indicates severe disease.¹⁹ The maximum PASI score is 72. The PASI efficacy outcomes used in these analyses were based post hoc on the proportion of patients who achieved an absolute total PASI score of 3 or lower, 2 or lower, and 1 or lower.

Efficacy analyses were based on pooled data for all patients in the PSOARING trials who had a PGA score of 2 to 4 (mild to severe) before treatment with tapinarof cream 1% in the intention-to-treat population using observed cases. Time-to-target analyses were based on Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates using observed cases.

Safety analyses included the incidence and frequency of adverse events and were based on all patients who received tapinarof cream 1% in the PSOARING trials.

RESULTS

Baseline Patient Demographics and Disease Characteristics

The pooled efficacy analyses included 915 eligible patients (Table). At baseline, the mean (SD) age was 50.2 (13.25) years, 58.7% were male, the mean (SD) weight was 92.2 (23.67) kg, and the mean (SD) body mass index was 31.6 (7.53) kg/m². The percentage of patients with a PGA score of 2 (mild), 3 (moderate), or 4 (severe) was 13.9%, 78.1%, and 8.0%, respectively. The mean (SD) PASI score was 8.7 (4.23) and mean (SD) total BSA affected was 7.8% (4.98).

Efficacy

Achievement of BSA-Affected Targets—The NPF-recommended target of 1% or lower total BSA affected within 3 months was achieved by 40% of patients (KM estimate [95% CI, 37%-43%])(Figure 1). Across the total trial period of up to 52 weeks, a total BSA affected of 1% or lower was achieved by 61% of patients (561/915), with the median time to target of approximately 4 months (KM estimate: 120 days [95% CI, 113-141])(Supplementary Figure S2a). Approximately 50% of patients (455/915) achieved a total BSA affected of 0.5% or lower, with a median time to target of 199 days (KM estimate [95% CI, 172-228)(Figure 1; Supplementary Figure S2b).

Achievement of Absolute PASI Targets—Across the total trial period (up to 52 weeks), an absolute total PASI score of 3 or lower was achieved by 75% of patients (686/915), with a median time to achieve this of 2 months (KM estimate: 58 days [95% CI, 57-63]); approximately 67% of patients (612/915) achieved a total PASI score of 2 or lower, with a median time to achieve of 3 months (KM estimate: 87 days [95% CI, 85-110])(Figure 2; Supplementary Figures S3a and S3b). A PASI score of 1 or lower was achieved by approximately 50% of patients (460/915), with a median time to achieve of approximately 6 months (KM estimate: 185 days [95% CI, 169-218])(Figure 2, Supplementary Figure S3c).

Illustrative Case—Case photography showing the clinical response in a 63-year-old man with moderate plaque psoriasis in PSOARING 2 is shown in Figure 3. After 12 weeks of treatment with tapinarof cream 1% QD, the patient achieved all primary and secondary efficacy end points. In addition to achieving the regulatory end point of a PGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) and a decrease from baseline of at least 2 points, achievement of 0% total BSA affected and a total PASI score of 0 at week 12 exceeded the NPF and EADV consensus treatment targets.^10,11 Targets were achieved as early as week 4, with a total BSA affected of 0.5% or lower and a total PASI score of 1 or lower, illustrated by marked skin clearing and only faint residual erythema that completely resolved at week 12, with the absence of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.

Safety

Safety data for the PSOARING trials have been previously reported.^17,18 The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were folliculitis, contact dermatitis, upper respiratory tract infection, and nasopharyngitis. Treatment-emergent adverse events generally were mild or moderate in severity and did not lead to trial discontinuation.^17,18

COMMENT

Treat-to-target management approaches aim to improve patient outcomes by striving to achieve optimal goals. The treat-to-target approach supports shared decision-making between clinicians and patients based on common expectations of what constitutes treatment success.

The findings of this analysis based on pooled data from a large cohort of patients demonstrate that a high proportion of patients can achieve or exceed recommended treatment targets with tapinarof cream 1% QD and maintain improvements long-term. The NPF-recommended treatment target of 1% or lower BSA affected within approximately 3 months (90 days) of treatment was achieved by 40% of tapinarof-treated patients. In addition, 1% or lower BSA affected at any time during the trials was achieved by 61% of patients (median, approximately 4 months). The analyses also indicated that PASI total scores of 3 or lower and 2 or lower were achieved by 75% and 67% of tapinarof-treated patients, respectively, within 2 to 3 months.

These findings support the previously reported efficacy of tapinarof cream, including high rates of complete disease clearance (40.9% [312/763]), durable response following treatment interruption, an off-therapy remittive effect of approximately 4 months, and good disease control on therapy with no evidence of tachyphylaxis.^17,18

CONCLUSION

Taken together with previously reported tapinarof efficacy and safety results, our findings demonstrate that a high proportion of patients treated with tapinarof cream as monotherapy can achieve aggressive treatment targets set by both US and European guidelines developed for systemic and biologic therapies. Tapinarof cream 1% QD is an effective topical treatment option for patients with plaque psoriasis that has been approved without restrictions relating to severity or extent of disease treated, duration of use, or application sites, including application to sensitive and intertriginous skin.

Acknowledgments—Editorial and medical writing support under the guidance of the authors was provided by Melanie Govender, MSc (Med), ApotheCom (United Kingdom), and was funded by Dermavant Sciences, Inc, in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP) guidelines.

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease affecting approximately 8 million adults in the United States and 2% of the global population.^1,2 Psoriasis causes pain, itching, and disfigurement and is associated with a physical, psychological, and economic burden that substantially affects health-related quality of life.^3-5

Setting treatment goals and treating to target are evidence-based approaches that have been successfully applied to several chronic diseases to improve patient outcomes, including diabetes, hypertension, and rheumatoid arthritis.^6-9 Treat-to-target strategies generally set low disease activity (or remission) as an overall goal and seek to achieve this using available therapeutic options as necessary. Introduced following the availability of biologics and targeted systemic therapies, treat-to-target strategies generally provide guidance on expectations of treatment but not specific treatments, as personalized treatment decisions depend on an assessment of individual patients and consider clinical and demographic features as well as preferences for available therapeutic options. If targets are not achieved in the assigned time span, adjustments can be made to the treatment approach in close consultation with the patient. If the target is reached, follow-up visits can be scheduled to ensure improvement is maintained or to establish if more aggressive goals could be selected.

Treat-to-target strategies for the management of psoriasis developed by the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) Medical Board include reducing the extent of psoriasis to 1% or lower total body surface area (BSA) after 3 months of treatment.¹⁰ Treatment targets endorsed by the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) in guidelines on the use of systemic therapies in psoriasis include achieving a 75% or greater reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score within 3 to 4 months of treatment.¹¹

In clinical practice, many patients do not achieve these treatment targets, and topical treatments alone generally are insufficient in achieving treatment goals for psoriasis.^12,13 Moreover, conventional topical treatments (eg, topical corticosteroids) used by most patients with psoriasis regardless of disease severity are associated with adverse events that can limit their use. Most topical corticosteroids have US Food and Drug Administration label restrictions relating to sites of application, duration and extent of use, and frequency of administration.^14,15

Tapinarof cream 1% (VTAMA [Dermavant Sciences, Inc]) is a first-in-class topical nonsteroidal aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist that was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults¹⁶ and is being studied for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in children 2 years and older as well as for atopic dermatitis in adults and children 2 years and older. In PSOARING 1 (ClinicalTrials .gov identifier NCT03956355) and PSOARING 2 (NCT03983980)—identical 12-week pivotal phase 3 trials—monotherapy with tapinarof cream 1% once daily (QD) demonstrated statistically significant efficacy vs vehicle cream and was well tolerated in adults with mild to severe plaque psoriasis (Supplementary Figure S1).¹⁷ Lebwohl et al¹⁷ reported that significantly higher PASI75 responses were observed at week 12 with tapinarof cream vs vehicle in PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 (36% and 48% vs 10% and 7%, respectively; both P<.0001). A significantly higher PASI90 response of 19% and 21% at week 12 also was observed with tapinarof cream vs 2% and 3% with vehicle in PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2, respectively (P=.0005 and P<.0001).¹⁷

In PSOARING 3 (NCT04053387)—the long-term extension trial (Supplementary Figure S1)—efficacy continued to improve or was maintained beyond the two 12-week trials, with improvements in total BSA affected and PASI scores for up to 52 weeks.¹⁸ Tapinarof cream 1% QD demonstrated positive, rapid, and durable outcomes in PSOARING 3, including high rates of complete disease clearance (Physician Global Assessment [PGA] score=0 [clear])(40.9% [312/763]), durability of response on treatment with no evidence of tachyphylaxis, and a remittive effect of approximately 4 months when off therapy (defined as maintenance of a PGA score of 0 [clear] or 1 [almost clear] after first achieving a PGA score of 0).¹⁸

Herein, we report absolute treatment targets for patients with plaque psoriasis who received tapinarof cream 1% QD in the PSOARING trials that are at least as stringent as the corresponding NPF and EADV targets of achieving a total BSA affected of 1% or lower or a PASI75 response within 3 to 4 months, respectively.

METHODS

Study Design

The pooled efficacy analyses included all patients with a baseline PGA score of 2 or higher (mild or worse) before treatment with tapinarof cream 1% QD in the PSOARING trials. This included patients who received tapinarof cream 1% in PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 who may or may not have continued into PSOARING 3, as well as those who received the vehicle in PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 who enrolled in PSOARING 3 and had a PGA score of 2 or higher before receiving tapinarof cream 1%.

Trial Participants

Full methods, including inclusion and exclusion criteria, for the PSOARING trials have been previously reported.^17,18 Patients were aged 18 to 75 years and had chronic plaque psoriasis that was stable for at least 6 months before randomization; 3% to 20% total BSA affected (excluding the scalp, palms, fingernails, toenails, and soles); and a PGA score of 2 (mild), 3 (moderate), or 4 (severe) at baseline.

The clinical trials were conducted in compliance with the guidelines for Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was obtained from local ethics committees or institutional review boards at each center. All patients provided written informed consent.

Trial Treatment

In PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2, patients were randomized (2:1) to receive tapinarof cream 1% or vehicle QD for 12 weeks. In PSOARING 3 (the long-term extension trial), patients received up to 40 weeks of open-label tapinarof, followed by 4 weeks of follow-up off treatment. Patients received intermittent or continuous treatment with tapinarof cream 1% in PSOARING 3 based on PGA score: those entering the trial with a PGA score of 1 or higher received tapinarof cream 1% until complete disease clearance was achieved (defined as a PGA score of 0 [clear]). Those entering PSOARING 3 with or achieving a PGA score of 0 (clear) discontinued treatment and were observed for the duration of maintenance of a PGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) while off therapy (the protocol-defined “duration of remittive effect”). If disease worsening (defined as a PGA score 2 or higher) occurred, tapinarof cream 1% was restarted and continued until a PGA score of 0 (clear) was achieved. This pattern of treatment, discontinuation on achieving a PGA score of 0 (clear), and retreatment on disease worsening continued until the end of the trial. As a result, patients in PSOARING 3 could receive tapinarof cream 1% continuously or intermittently for 40 weeks.

Outcome Measures and Statistical Analyses

The assessment of total BSA affected by plaque psoriasis is an estimate of the total extent of disease as a percentage of total skin area. In the PSOARING trials, the skin surface of one hand (palm and digits) was assumed to be approximately equivalent to 1% BSA. The total BSA affected by psoriasis was evaluated from 0% to 100%, with greater total BSA affected being an indication of more extensive disease. The BSA efficacy outcomes used in these analyses were based post hoc on the proportion of patients who achieved a 1% or lower or 0.5% or lower total BSA affected. The smallest BSA affected increment that investigators were trained to measure and could record was 0.1%.

Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores assess both the severity and extent of psoriasis. A PASI score lower than 5 often is considered indicative of mild psoriasis, a score of 5 to 10 indicates moderate disease, and a score higher than 10 indicates severe disease.¹⁹ The maximum PASI score is 72. The PASI efficacy outcomes used in these analyses were based post hoc on the proportion of patients who achieved an absolute total PASI score of 3 or lower, 2 or lower, and 1 or lower.

Efficacy analyses were based on pooled data for all patients in the PSOARING trials who had a PGA score of 2 to 4 (mild to severe) before treatment with tapinarof cream 1% in the intention-to-treat population using observed cases. Time-to-target analyses were based on Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates using observed cases.

Safety analyses included the incidence and frequency of adverse events and were based on all patients who received tapinarof cream 1% in the PSOARING trials.

RESULTS

Baseline Patient Demographics and Disease Characteristics

The pooled efficacy analyses included 915 eligible patients (Table). At baseline, the mean (SD) age was 50.2 (13.25) years, 58.7% were male, the mean (SD) weight was 92.2 (23.67) kg, and the mean (SD) body mass index was 31.6 (7.53) kg/m². The percentage of patients with a PGA score of 2 (mild), 3 (moderate), or 4 (severe) was 13.9%, 78.1%, and 8.0%, respectively. The mean (SD) PASI score was 8.7 (4.23) and mean (SD) total BSA affected was 7.8% (4.98).

Efficacy

Achievement of BSA-Affected Targets—The NPF-recommended target of 1% or lower total BSA affected within 3 months was achieved by 40% of patients (KM estimate [95% CI, 37%-43%])(Figure 1). Across the total trial period of up to 52 weeks, a total BSA affected of 1% or lower was achieved by 61% of patients (561/915), with the median time to target of approximately 4 months (KM estimate: 120 days [95% CI, 113-141])(Supplementary Figure S2a). Approximately 50% of patients (455/915) achieved a total BSA affected of 0.5% or lower, with a median time to target of 199 days (KM estimate [95% CI, 172-228)(Figure 1; Supplementary Figure S2b).

Achievement of Absolute PASI Targets—Across the total trial period (up to 52 weeks), an absolute total PASI score of 3 or lower was achieved by 75% of patients (686/915), with a median time to achieve this of 2 months (KM estimate: 58 days [95% CI, 57-63]); approximately 67% of patients (612/915) achieved a total PASI score of 2 or lower, with a median time to achieve of 3 months (KM estimate: 87 days [95% CI, 85-110])(Figure 2; Supplementary Figures S3a and S3b). A PASI score of 1 or lower was achieved by approximately 50% of patients (460/915), with a median time to achieve of approximately 6 months (KM estimate: 185 days [95% CI, 169-218])(Figure 2, Supplementary Figure S3c).

Illustrative Case—Case photography showing the clinical response in a 63-year-old man with moderate plaque psoriasis in PSOARING 2 is shown in Figure 3. After 12 weeks of treatment with tapinarof cream 1% QD, the patient achieved all primary and secondary efficacy end points. In addition to achieving the regulatory end point of a PGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) and a decrease from baseline of at least 2 points, achievement of 0% total BSA affected and a total PASI score of 0 at week 12 exceeded the NPF and EADV consensus treatment targets.^10,11 Targets were achieved as early as week 4, with a total BSA affected of 0.5% or lower and a total PASI score of 1 or lower, illustrated by marked skin clearing and only faint residual erythema that completely resolved at week 12, with the absence of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.

Safety

Safety data for the PSOARING trials have been previously reported.^17,18 The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were folliculitis, contact dermatitis, upper respiratory tract infection, and nasopharyngitis. Treatment-emergent adverse events generally were mild or moderate in severity and did not lead to trial discontinuation.^17,18

COMMENT

Treat-to-target management approaches aim to improve patient outcomes by striving to achieve optimal goals. The treat-to-target approach supports shared decision-making between clinicians and patients based on common expectations of what constitutes treatment success.

The findings of this analysis based on pooled data from a large cohort of patients demonstrate that a high proportion of patients can achieve or exceed recommended treatment targets with tapinarof cream 1% QD and maintain improvements long-term. The NPF-recommended treatment target of 1% or lower BSA affected within approximately 3 months (90 days) of treatment was achieved by 40% of tapinarof-treated patients. In addition, 1% or lower BSA affected at any time during the trials was achieved by 61% of patients (median, approximately 4 months). The analyses also indicated that PASI total scores of 3 or lower and 2 or lower were achieved by 75% and 67% of tapinarof-treated patients, respectively, within 2 to 3 months.

These findings support the previously reported efficacy of tapinarof cream, including high rates of complete disease clearance (40.9% [312/763]), durable response following treatment interruption, an off-therapy remittive effect of approximately 4 months, and good disease control on therapy with no evidence of tachyphylaxis.^17,18

CONCLUSION

Taken together with previously reported tapinarof efficacy and safety results, our findings demonstrate that a high proportion of patients treated with tapinarof cream as monotherapy can achieve aggressive treatment targets set by both US and European guidelines developed for systemic and biologic therapies. Tapinarof cream 1% QD is an effective topical treatment option for patients with plaque psoriasis that has been approved without restrictions relating to severity or extent of disease treated, duration of use, or application sites, including application to sensitive and intertriginous skin.

Acknowledgments—Editorial and medical writing support under the guidance of the authors was provided by Melanie Govender, MSc (Med), ApotheCom (United Kingdom), and was funded by Dermavant Sciences, Inc, in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP) guidelines.

TOPLINE:

Home-based phototherapy for plaque and guttate psoriasis is as effective as office-based phototherapy, according to results of the randomized Light Treatment Effectiveness study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The pragmatic, investigator-initiated, open-label, noninferiority, randomized trial compared the effectiveness of 12 weeks of treatment with narrow-band ultraviolet B phototherapy administered at home (n = 393) vs at the doctor’s office (n = 390).
• Overall, 783 patients with plaque or guttate psoriasis (mean age, 48 years; 48% women) were enrolled at 42 academic and private clinical dermatology practices in the United States from March 1, 2019, to December 4, 2023, and were followed up through June 2024. At baseline, the mean Physician Global Assessment (PGA) and the mean Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores were 2.7 and 12.2, respectively.
• The two co-primary endpoints were a PGA score ≤ 1 indicating clear or almost clear skin and a DLQI score ≤ 5.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 12 weeks, a PGA score ≤ 1 was achieved in 32.8% of patients using home-based phototherapy and in 25.6% of those who received office-based phototherapy (P < .001).
• At 12 weeks, a DLQI score ≤ 5 was achieved in 52.4% and 33.6% of home- and office-treated patients, respectively (P < .001).
• Similar benefits were seen across all Fitzpatrick skin types.
• A higher percentage of patients were adherent to home-based (51.4%) vs office-based (15.9%) phototherapy (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“These data support the use of home phototherapy as a first-line treatment option for psoriasis,” and “efforts are needed to make home and office phototherapy more available to patients,” said the study’s lead author.

SOURCE:

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented the findings at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis meeting during the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, with simultaneous publication in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This was an open-label trial and because of its pragmatic design, outcome data were missing. The cost of the home-based phototherapy equipment used in the study was $6040.88, which was mostly covered by Medicare, but direct costs to patients may have varied depending on their insurance plan.

DISCLOSURES:

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute funded the study. Daavlin provided and shipped machines for home-based phototherapy to patients at no cost. Dr. Gelfand disclosed serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Artax, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, and other companies. The full list of author disclosures can be found in the published study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Home-based phototherapy for plaque and guttate psoriasis is as effective as office-based phototherapy, according to results of the randomized Light Treatment Effectiveness study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The pragmatic, investigator-initiated, open-label, noninferiority, randomized trial compared the effectiveness of 12 weeks of treatment with narrow-band ultraviolet B phototherapy administered at home (n = 393) vs at the doctor’s office (n = 390).
• Overall, 783 patients with plaque or guttate psoriasis (mean age, 48 years; 48% women) were enrolled at 42 academic and private clinical dermatology practices in the United States from March 1, 2019, to December 4, 2023, and were followed up through June 2024. At baseline, the mean Physician Global Assessment (PGA) and the mean Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores were 2.7 and 12.2, respectively.
• The two co-primary endpoints were a PGA score ≤ 1 indicating clear or almost clear skin and a DLQI score ≤ 5.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 12 weeks, a PGA score ≤ 1 was achieved in 32.8% of patients using home-based phototherapy and in 25.6% of those who received office-based phototherapy (P < .001).
• At 12 weeks, a DLQI score ≤ 5 was achieved in 52.4% and 33.6% of home- and office-treated patients, respectively (P < .001).
• Similar benefits were seen across all Fitzpatrick skin types.
• A higher percentage of patients were adherent to home-based (51.4%) vs office-based (15.9%) phototherapy (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“These data support the use of home phototherapy as a first-line treatment option for psoriasis,” and “efforts are needed to make home and office phototherapy more available to patients,” said the study’s lead author.

SOURCE:

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented the findings at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis meeting during the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, with simultaneous publication in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This was an open-label trial and because of its pragmatic design, outcome data were missing. The cost of the home-based phototherapy equipment used in the study was $6040.88, which was mostly covered by Medicare, but direct costs to patients may have varied depending on their insurance plan.

DISCLOSURES:

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute funded the study. Daavlin provided and shipped machines for home-based phototherapy to patients at no cost. Dr. Gelfand disclosed serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Artax, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, and other companies. The full list of author disclosures can be found in the published study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Home-based phototherapy for plaque and guttate psoriasis is as effective as office-based phototherapy, according to results of the randomized Light Treatment Effectiveness study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The pragmatic, investigator-initiated, open-label, noninferiority, randomized trial compared the effectiveness of 12 weeks of treatment with narrow-band ultraviolet B phototherapy administered at home (n = 393) vs at the doctor’s office (n = 390).
• Overall, 783 patients with plaque or guttate psoriasis (mean age, 48 years; 48% women) were enrolled at 42 academic and private clinical dermatology practices in the United States from March 1, 2019, to December 4, 2023, and were followed up through June 2024. At baseline, the mean Physician Global Assessment (PGA) and the mean Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores were 2.7 and 12.2, respectively.
• The two co-primary endpoints were a PGA score ≤ 1 indicating clear or almost clear skin and a DLQI score ≤ 5.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 12 weeks, a PGA score ≤ 1 was achieved in 32.8% of patients using home-based phototherapy and in 25.6% of those who received office-based phototherapy (P < .001).
• At 12 weeks, a DLQI score ≤ 5 was achieved in 52.4% and 33.6% of home- and office-treated patients, respectively (P < .001).
• Similar benefits were seen across all Fitzpatrick skin types.
• A higher percentage of patients were adherent to home-based (51.4%) vs office-based (15.9%) phototherapy (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“These data support the use of home phototherapy as a first-line treatment option for psoriasis,” and “efforts are needed to make home and office phototherapy more available to patients,” said the study’s lead author.

SOURCE:

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented the findings at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis meeting during the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, with simultaneous publication in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This was an open-label trial and because of its pragmatic design, outcome data were missing. The cost of the home-based phototherapy equipment used in the study was $6040.88, which was mostly covered by Medicare, but direct costs to patients may have varied depending on their insurance plan.

DISCLOSURES:

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute funded the study. Daavlin provided and shipped machines for home-based phototherapy to patients at no cost. Dr. Gelfand disclosed serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Artax, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, and other companies. The full list of author disclosures can be found in the published study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bimekizumab-bkzx (Bimzelx; UCB) for adult patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), active nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) with objective signs of inflammation, and active ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

The drug, an interleukin (IL)–17A and IL-17F inhibitor, was first approved in October 2023 for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

“In psoriatic arthritis and across the spectrum of axSpA, clinical study results and real-world experience outside the US have highlighted that Bimzelx can help patients achieve high thresholds of clinical response that are rapid in onset and sustained up to 2 years,” said Emmanuel Caeymaex, executive vice president, head of patient impact, and chief commercial officer of UCB in a press release. 

The recommended dosage of bimekizumab for adult patients with active PsA, nr-axSpA, or AS is 160 mg by subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks. For patients with PsA and coexistent moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, the dosage is the same as for patients with plaque psoriasis. The dosing for plaque psoriasis is to administer 320 mg (two 160-mg injections) by subcutaneous injection at weeks 0, 4, 8, 12, and 16, then every 8 weeks thereafter. For patients weighing ≥ 120 kg, consider a dose of 320 mg every 4 weeks after week 16.
 

PsA Clinical Trials

The approval for PsA was based on data from two phase 3 clinical trials, including 852 participants naive to biologics (BE OPTIMAL) and 400 participants with inadequate response to treatment with one or two tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (BE COMPLETE). Both studies met their primary endpoint, 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at 16 weeks, as well as ranked secondary endpoints. Secondary endpoints included minimal disease activity (MDA) and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 100 (complete skin clearance) at week 16.

At 16 weeks:

• About 44% of both the biologic-naive (189 of 431) and TNF inhibitor–resistant (116 of 267) groups receiving bimekizumab achieved ACR50 response, compared with 10% (28 of 281) and 7% (9 of 133) receiving placebo, respectively.
• About 45% of all patients treated with bimekizumab achieved MDA.
• Nearly 60% of TNF inhibitor–resistant patients had complete skin clearance.

These responses generally were sustained for 1 year. The most common adverse reactions are upper respiratory tract infections, oral candidiasis, headache, diarrhea, and urinary tract infection.
 

NR-axSpA and AS Clinical Trials

The approval for active nr-axSpA and active AS was based on data from two clinical studies, BE MOBILE 1 (nr-axSpA) and BE MOBILE 2 (AS). Both studies met their primary endpoint, 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS40) at 16 weeks.

Key findings included:

• In nr-axSpA patients, 47.7% (61 of 128) receiving bimekizumab achieved ASAS40 at week 16, compared with 21.4% (27 of 126) receiving placebo.
• In AS patients, 44.8% (99 of 221) in the bimekizumab group achieved ASAS40 response at week 16 vs 22.5% (25 of 111) receiving placebo.
• At 1 year in both groups, 60% treated with bimekizumab achieved an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score < 2.1.

In nr-axSpA, the most common adverse reactions are upper respiratory tract infections, oral candidiasis, headache, diarrhea, cough, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, myalgia, tonsillitis, increase in transaminase, and urinary tract infection. In AS, the most common adverse reactions are upper respiratory tract infections, oral candidiasis, headache, diarrhea, injection-site pain, rash, and vulvovaginal mycotic infection.

Bimekizumab was approved by the European Commission for the same rheumatologic indications in June 2023.

Bimekizumab is currently available to eligible patients in the United States, according to the press release.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bimekizumab-bkzx (Bimzelx; UCB) for adult patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), active nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) with objective signs of inflammation, and active ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

The drug, an interleukin (IL)–17A and IL-17F inhibitor, was first approved in October 2023 for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

“In psoriatic arthritis and across the spectrum of axSpA, clinical study results and real-world experience outside the US have highlighted that Bimzelx can help patients achieve high thresholds of clinical response that are rapid in onset and sustained up to 2 years,” said Emmanuel Caeymaex, executive vice president, head of patient impact, and chief commercial officer of UCB in a press release. 

The recommended dosage of bimekizumab for adult patients with active PsA, nr-axSpA, or AS is 160 mg by subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks. For patients with PsA and coexistent moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, the dosage is the same as for patients with plaque psoriasis. The dosing for plaque psoriasis is to administer 320 mg (two 160-mg injections) by subcutaneous injection at weeks 0, 4, 8, 12, and 16, then every 8 weeks thereafter. For patients weighing ≥ 120 kg, consider a dose of 320 mg every 4 weeks after week 16.
 

PsA Clinical Trials

The approval for PsA was based on data from two phase 3 clinical trials, including 852 participants naive to biologics (BE OPTIMAL) and 400 participants with inadequate response to treatment with one or two tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (BE COMPLETE). Both studies met their primary endpoint, 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at 16 weeks, as well as ranked secondary endpoints. Secondary endpoints included minimal disease activity (MDA) and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 100 (complete skin clearance) at week 16.

At 16 weeks:

• About 44% of both the biologic-naive (189 of 431) and TNF inhibitor–resistant (116 of 267) groups receiving bimekizumab achieved ACR50 response, compared with 10% (28 of 281) and 7% (9 of 133) receiving placebo, respectively.
• About 45% of all patients treated with bimekizumab achieved MDA.
• Nearly 60% of TNF inhibitor–resistant patients had complete skin clearance.

These responses generally were sustained for 1 year. The most common adverse reactions are upper respiratory tract infections, oral candidiasis, headache, diarrhea, and urinary tract infection.
 

NR-axSpA and AS Clinical Trials

The approval for active nr-axSpA and active AS was based on data from two clinical studies, BE MOBILE 1 (nr-axSpA) and BE MOBILE 2 (AS). Both studies met their primary endpoint, 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS40) at 16 weeks.

Key findings included:

• In nr-axSpA patients, 47.7% (61 of 128) receiving bimekizumab achieved ASAS40 at week 16, compared with 21.4% (27 of 126) receiving placebo.
• In AS patients, 44.8% (99 of 221) in the bimekizumab group achieved ASAS40 response at week 16 vs 22.5% (25 of 111) receiving placebo.
• At 1 year in both groups, 60% treated with bimekizumab achieved an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score < 2.1.

In nr-axSpA, the most common adverse reactions are upper respiratory tract infections, oral candidiasis, headache, diarrhea, cough, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, myalgia, tonsillitis, increase in transaminase, and urinary tract infection. In AS, the most common adverse reactions are upper respiratory tract infections, oral candidiasis, headache, diarrhea, injection-site pain, rash, and vulvovaginal mycotic infection.

Bimekizumab was approved by the European Commission for the same rheumatologic indications in June 2023.

Bimekizumab is currently available to eligible patients in the United States, according to the press release.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bimekizumab-bkzx (Bimzelx; UCB) for adult patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), active nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) with objective signs of inflammation, and active ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

The drug, an interleukin (IL)–17A and IL-17F inhibitor, was first approved in October 2023 for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

“In psoriatic arthritis and across the spectrum of axSpA, clinical study results and real-world experience outside the US have highlighted that Bimzelx can help patients achieve high thresholds of clinical response that are rapid in onset and sustained up to 2 years,” said Emmanuel Caeymaex, executive vice president, head of patient impact, and chief commercial officer of UCB in a press release. 

The recommended dosage of bimekizumab for adult patients with active PsA, nr-axSpA, or AS is 160 mg by subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks. For patients with PsA and coexistent moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, the dosage is the same as for patients with plaque psoriasis. The dosing for plaque psoriasis is to administer 320 mg (two 160-mg injections) by subcutaneous injection at weeks 0, 4, 8, 12, and 16, then every 8 weeks thereafter. For patients weighing ≥ 120 kg, consider a dose of 320 mg every 4 weeks after week 16.
 

PsA Clinical Trials

The approval for PsA was based on data from two phase 3 clinical trials, including 852 participants naive to biologics (BE OPTIMAL) and 400 participants with inadequate response to treatment with one or two tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (BE COMPLETE). Both studies met their primary endpoint, 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at 16 weeks, as well as ranked secondary endpoints. Secondary endpoints included minimal disease activity (MDA) and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 100 (complete skin clearance) at week 16.

At 16 weeks:

• About 44% of both the biologic-naive (189 of 431) and TNF inhibitor–resistant (116 of 267) groups receiving bimekizumab achieved ACR50 response, compared with 10% (28 of 281) and 7% (9 of 133) receiving placebo, respectively.
• About 45% of all patients treated with bimekizumab achieved MDA.
• Nearly 60% of TNF inhibitor–resistant patients had complete skin clearance.

These responses generally were sustained for 1 year. The most common adverse reactions are upper respiratory tract infections, oral candidiasis, headache, diarrhea, and urinary tract infection.
 

NR-axSpA and AS Clinical Trials

The approval for active nr-axSpA and active AS was based on data from two clinical studies, BE MOBILE 1 (nr-axSpA) and BE MOBILE 2 (AS). Both studies met their primary endpoint, 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS40) at 16 weeks.

Key findings included:

• In nr-axSpA patients, 47.7% (61 of 128) receiving bimekizumab achieved ASAS40 at week 16, compared with 21.4% (27 of 126) receiving placebo.
• In AS patients, 44.8% (99 of 221) in the bimekizumab group achieved ASAS40 response at week 16 vs 22.5% (25 of 111) receiving placebo.
• At 1 year in both groups, 60% treated with bimekizumab achieved an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score < 2.1.

In nr-axSpA, the most common adverse reactions are upper respiratory tract infections, oral candidiasis, headache, diarrhea, cough, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, myalgia, tonsillitis, increase in transaminase, and urinary tract infection. In AS, the most common adverse reactions are upper respiratory tract infections, oral candidiasis, headache, diarrhea, injection-site pain, rash, and vulvovaginal mycotic infection.

Bimekizumab was approved by the European Commission for the same rheumatologic indications in June 2023.

Bimekizumab is currently available to eligible patients in the United States, according to the press release.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. — The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of tapinarof 1% cream and roflumilast 0.3% cream as treatment options for patients with plaque psoriasis came more than 1 year after the American Academy of Dermatology/National Psoriasis Foundation Guidelines of care for the management and treatment of psoriasis with topical therapy and alternative medicine modalities for psoriasis severity measures were published in 2021, leaving some clinicians to wonder how these two newcomer drugs fit into their clinical practice.

At the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association, Jashin J. Wu, MD, one of the authors of the guidelines and a voluntary associate professor of dermatology at the University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, proposed that tapinarof 1% cream and roflumilast 0.3% cream be considered first-line treatments for mild psoriasis. “The reason is because they’re very fast-acting, effective,” and result in a large improvement over steroids, Dr. Wu said. “You don’t have to worry about steroid atrophy, and it eliminates the need to use many different agents for different parts of the body necessarily, such as a weaker steroid for the face and sensitive areas. It also eliminates the need for patients to switch out steroids, such as 2 weeks on and 2 weeks off.”

courtesy Doug Brunk

Tapinarof 1% cream (Vtama) was approved in May 2022, for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults, and is under FDA review for treating atopic dermatitis (AD). “It’s once a day application, which is nice,” Dr. Wu said. “It is a first-in-class topical aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist that can be used for the intertriginous areas. That’s where I find it helpful.”

Roflumilast 0.3% cream (Zoryve), a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, was approved in July 2022 for the treatment of plaque psoriasis, including intertriginous areas, in patients aged 12 years and older. It was subsequently approved for treating plaque psoriasis in patients 6 years and older. (Roflumilast 0.15% cream is approved for mild to moderate AD in people aged 6 years or older, and roflumilast 0.3% topical foam is approved for seborrheic dermatitis in adults and children 9 years of age and older.)

The drug is contraindicated for use in patients with certain liver problems. “Patients are not going to be eating tubes of this drug, so I wouldn’t worry about that too much, but be aware if the pharmacist raises a concern about this,” Dr. Wu said.

Dr. Wu disclosed that he is or has been a consultant, investigator, or speaker for AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Aristea Therapeutics, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Codex Labs, Dermavant, DermTech, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Eli Lilly, EPI Health, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Mindera, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi Genzyme, Solius, Sun Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Zerigo Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. — The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of tapinarof 1% cream and roflumilast 0.3% cream as treatment options for patients with plaque psoriasis came more than 1 year after the American Academy of Dermatology/National Psoriasis Foundation Guidelines of care for the management and treatment of psoriasis with topical therapy and alternative medicine modalities for psoriasis severity measures were published in 2021, leaving some clinicians to wonder how these two newcomer drugs fit into their clinical practice.

At the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association, Jashin J. Wu, MD, one of the authors of the guidelines and a voluntary associate professor of dermatology at the University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, proposed that tapinarof 1% cream and roflumilast 0.3% cream be considered first-line treatments for mild psoriasis. “The reason is because they’re very fast-acting, effective,” and result in a large improvement over steroids, Dr. Wu said. “You don’t have to worry about steroid atrophy, and it eliminates the need to use many different agents for different parts of the body necessarily, such as a weaker steroid for the face and sensitive areas. It also eliminates the need for patients to switch out steroids, such as 2 weeks on and 2 weeks off.”

courtesy Doug Brunk

Tapinarof 1% cream (Vtama) was approved in May 2022, for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults, and is under FDA review for treating atopic dermatitis (AD). “It’s once a day application, which is nice,” Dr. Wu said. “It is a first-in-class topical aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist that can be used for the intertriginous areas. That’s where I find it helpful.”

Roflumilast 0.3% cream (Zoryve), a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, was approved in July 2022 for the treatment of plaque psoriasis, including intertriginous areas, in patients aged 12 years and older. It was subsequently approved for treating plaque psoriasis in patients 6 years and older. (Roflumilast 0.15% cream is approved for mild to moderate AD in people aged 6 years or older, and roflumilast 0.3% topical foam is approved for seborrheic dermatitis in adults and children 9 years of age and older.)

The drug is contraindicated for use in patients with certain liver problems. “Patients are not going to be eating tubes of this drug, so I wouldn’t worry about that too much, but be aware if the pharmacist raises a concern about this,” Dr. Wu said.

Dr. Wu disclosed that he is or has been a consultant, investigator, or speaker for AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Aristea Therapeutics, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Codex Labs, Dermavant, DermTech, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Eli Lilly, EPI Health, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Mindera, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi Genzyme, Solius, Sun Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Zerigo Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. — The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of tapinarof 1% cream and roflumilast 0.3% cream as treatment options for patients with plaque psoriasis came more than 1 year after the American Academy of Dermatology/National Psoriasis Foundation Guidelines of care for the management and treatment of psoriasis with topical therapy and alternative medicine modalities for psoriasis severity measures were published in 2021, leaving some clinicians to wonder how these two newcomer drugs fit into their clinical practice.

At the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association, Jashin J. Wu, MD, one of the authors of the guidelines and a voluntary associate professor of dermatology at the University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, proposed that tapinarof 1% cream and roflumilast 0.3% cream be considered first-line treatments for mild psoriasis. “The reason is because they’re very fast-acting, effective,” and result in a large improvement over steroids, Dr. Wu said. “You don’t have to worry about steroid atrophy, and it eliminates the need to use many different agents for different parts of the body necessarily, such as a weaker steroid for the face and sensitive areas. It also eliminates the need for patients to switch out steroids, such as 2 weeks on and 2 weeks off.”

courtesy Doug Brunk

Tapinarof 1% cream (Vtama) was approved in May 2022, for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults, and is under FDA review for treating atopic dermatitis (AD). “It’s once a day application, which is nice,” Dr. Wu said. “It is a first-in-class topical aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist that can be used for the intertriginous areas. That’s where I find it helpful.”

Roflumilast 0.3% cream (Zoryve), a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, was approved in July 2022 for the treatment of plaque psoriasis, including intertriginous areas, in patients aged 12 years and older. It was subsequently approved for treating plaque psoriasis in patients 6 years and older. (Roflumilast 0.15% cream is approved for mild to moderate AD in people aged 6 years or older, and roflumilast 0.3% topical foam is approved for seborrheic dermatitis in adults and children 9 years of age and older.)

The drug is contraindicated for use in patients with certain liver problems. “Patients are not going to be eating tubes of this drug, so I wouldn’t worry about that too much, but be aware if the pharmacist raises a concern about this,” Dr. Wu said.

Dr. Wu disclosed that he is or has been a consultant, investigator, or speaker for AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Aristea Therapeutics, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Codex Labs, Dermavant, DermTech, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Eli Lilly, EPI Health, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Mindera, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi Genzyme, Solius, Sun Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Zerigo Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A US government report showed how a Medicare policy change made the drug ustekinumab (Stelara) for autoimmune diseases much more expensive, a finding that experts say illustrates the need for reforms created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA).

The topline findings of an August report from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about ustekinumab may seem somewhat surprising and a bit counterintuitive.

Ustekinumab costs spiked as Medicare pushed patients to get their supply through the Part D pharmacy program. The aim of Part D is to make medicines more affordable and accessible for patients. It runs on a model of insurers to negotiate deals for pharmaceuticals.

Earlier, many patients who needed ustekinumab had the drug covered by Medicare Part B. For many years, Medicare Part B has been largely a passive purchaser of medicines. Part B covers drugs administered by physicians. Its longtime model has been to add a premium of 6% to the reported average sales price to reimburse physicians who buy and administer the drug for patients.

But it was Part D, the Medicare program based on insurers’ negotiating clout, that saw a spike in ustekinumab costs after patients were shifted out of Part B coverage, where the cost of the medicine fell.

The average reported Part B cost for an ustekinumab injection slipped from $14,450 in 2016 to $12,912 by 2023, according to the report from HHS’ Office of Inspector General (OIG).

The Part D cost jumped in the same period. It rose by 84% from $17,717 in 2016 to $32,559 by 2023.

The IRA is intended to curb these kinds of increases in the future for drugs covered by Medicare, said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. The law demands companies pay rebates to Medicare if they increase drug prices faster than consumer inflation.

“That should at least help with some of this price growth that over time has seemed quite egregious,” Dr. Dusetzina told this news organization.

The IRA contains several provisions intended to curb rising drug costs for people enrolled in Medicare, including allowing the federal government to directly negotiate on some medicines.

Ustekinumab is one of the first 10 medicines that are subject to negotiations. Medicare will select as many as 15 additional drugs covered under Part D for negotiation in 2025, another 15 Part B and D drugs in 2026, and up to 20 drugs every year after that.

Earlier in August, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced the results of its first drug negotiations, with prices set to take effect in 2026. The Part D price for a 30-day supply of ustekinumab will be $4695 in 2026, a 66% reduction from the list price last year of $13,836.

Even at the negotiated price, ustekinumab’s cost will be high enough to trigger a new cap on out-of-pocket Part D spending, Dr. Dusetzina said.

Starting in 2025, Part D will have a cap of $2000 on individuals’ out-of-pocket costs, with annual adjustments in future years.

“It may not be better for someone who was filling this on Part B, who had a supplement [that covered their share of the ustekinumab cost], but it will be better for a lot of people that it’s covered under Part D,” Dr. Dusetzina said. “The good news is that at least from a beneficiary affordability standpoint, they’re going to have some price protection.”

OIG noted that the US Food and Drug Administration has approved three competing biosimilar versions of ustekinumab. These could also potentially work to lower costs.
 

‘A Complicated and Not Particularly Transparent Process’

OIG said it expects to release a report later this year with more detail about the decision that shifted ustekinumab coverage from Part B to Part D.

First cleared for US sales in 2009, ustekinumab is approved for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis. It can be given subcutaneously or intravenously.

Part B does not generally cover self-administered drugs. The infused version of ustekinumab has been covered under Medicare Part B since it reached the market.

“However, Part B coverage of the subcutaneous versions has been less straightforward,” OIG said in the report.

In 2020, Medicare administrative contractors — the units or affiliates of insurers that for decades have processed Part B claims for the traditional Medicare programs — determined that subcutaneous ustekinumab did not meet the criteria for coverage under Part B. Implementation of this change was delayed due to the COVID public health emergency but has since taken effect.

The shift in ustekinumab coverage to Part D eroded financial protections of many people on Medicare when Part B covered the drug.

Almost 9 in 10 people enrolled in Medicare Part B have supplemental insurance such as Medigap, employer coverage, or Medicaid to fully or partially cover their cost-sharing requirements, the OIG report said. That means Part B coverage shielded many patients from high ustekinumab costs. 

In contrast, patients who self-administered the drug at home under Part D coverage paid an average of almost $6000 out of pocket if they did not receive any type of financial assistance, OIG said.

“From a financial standpoint, as long as you have Part B coinsurance, it would be much cheaper to get the drug in your doctor’s office than getting it through a pharmacy, unless you qualify for the low-income subsidy,” OIG Regional Inspector General David Tawes, who supervised the team that produced the report, told this news organization.

OIG has previously reported that post–point-of-sale rebates paid by manufacturers sometimes lower the costs incurred by Part D plans by a significant margin. But this was not the case with ustekinumab. Instead, OIG said the gap between initial and actual costs of ustekinumab was reduced by less than one third even with rebates. Rebate information is considered confidential.

“The whole negotiation structure is a complicated and not particularly transparent process,” Mr. Tawes said.
 

Backchannel Discounts, Top-Line Prices

The IRA is bringing some more transparency to the process through negotiations, said Mariana P. Socal, MD, associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. Patients who buy medicines that have been through the CMS negotiation process will be able to see if they are being charged correctly.

Dr. Socal noted that there’s something of a disconnect in discussions of Part D between how insurers and consumers view prices. 

For Part D plans, the list prices represent the beginning of negotiations. They get rebates from drugmakers’ list prices for medicines, which insurers say work to lower premium costs. 

“For plans, those prices are unrealistic. They are simply a sticker price. But for patients, for the Medicare beneficiaries, these prices are very real” because they are used to set copays, Dr. Socal said.

Dr. Dusetzina reported receiving funding from Arnold Ventures and the Commonwealth Fund for research related to drug pricing. Dr. Socal reported receiving funding from Arnold Ventures. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A US government report showed how a Medicare policy change made the drug ustekinumab (Stelara) for autoimmune diseases much more expensive, a finding that experts say illustrates the need for reforms created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA).

The topline findings of an August report from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about ustekinumab may seem somewhat surprising and a bit counterintuitive.

Ustekinumab costs spiked as Medicare pushed patients to get their supply through the Part D pharmacy program. The aim of Part D is to make medicines more affordable and accessible for patients. It runs on a model of insurers to negotiate deals for pharmaceuticals.

Earlier, many patients who needed ustekinumab had the drug covered by Medicare Part B. For many years, Medicare Part B has been largely a passive purchaser of medicines. Part B covers drugs administered by physicians. Its longtime model has been to add a premium of 6% to the reported average sales price to reimburse physicians who buy and administer the drug for patients.

But it was Part D, the Medicare program based on insurers’ negotiating clout, that saw a spike in ustekinumab costs after patients were shifted out of Part B coverage, where the cost of the medicine fell.

The average reported Part B cost for an ustekinumab injection slipped from $14,450 in 2016 to $12,912 by 2023, according to the report from HHS’ Office of Inspector General (OIG).

The Part D cost jumped in the same period. It rose by 84% from $17,717 in 2016 to $32,559 by 2023.

The IRA is intended to curb these kinds of increases in the future for drugs covered by Medicare, said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. The law demands companies pay rebates to Medicare if they increase drug prices faster than consumer inflation.

“That should at least help with some of this price growth that over time has seemed quite egregious,” Dr. Dusetzina told this news organization.

The IRA contains several provisions intended to curb rising drug costs for people enrolled in Medicare, including allowing the federal government to directly negotiate on some medicines.

Ustekinumab is one of the first 10 medicines that are subject to negotiations. Medicare will select as many as 15 additional drugs covered under Part D for negotiation in 2025, another 15 Part B and D drugs in 2026, and up to 20 drugs every year after that.

Earlier in August, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced the results of its first drug negotiations, with prices set to take effect in 2026. The Part D price for a 30-day supply of ustekinumab will be $4695 in 2026, a 66% reduction from the list price last year of $13,836.

Even at the negotiated price, ustekinumab’s cost will be high enough to trigger a new cap on out-of-pocket Part D spending, Dr. Dusetzina said.

Starting in 2025, Part D will have a cap of $2000 on individuals’ out-of-pocket costs, with annual adjustments in future years.

“It may not be better for someone who was filling this on Part B, who had a supplement [that covered their share of the ustekinumab cost], but it will be better for a lot of people that it’s covered under Part D,” Dr. Dusetzina said. “The good news is that at least from a beneficiary affordability standpoint, they’re going to have some price protection.”

OIG noted that the US Food and Drug Administration has approved three competing biosimilar versions of ustekinumab. These could also potentially work to lower costs.
 

‘A Complicated and Not Particularly Transparent Process’

OIG said it expects to release a report later this year with more detail about the decision that shifted ustekinumab coverage from Part B to Part D.

First cleared for US sales in 2009, ustekinumab is approved for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis. It can be given subcutaneously or intravenously.

Part B does not generally cover self-administered drugs. The infused version of ustekinumab has been covered under Medicare Part B since it reached the market.

“However, Part B coverage of the subcutaneous versions has been less straightforward,” OIG said in the report.

In 2020, Medicare administrative contractors — the units or affiliates of insurers that for decades have processed Part B claims for the traditional Medicare programs — determined that subcutaneous ustekinumab did not meet the criteria for coverage under Part B. Implementation of this change was delayed due to the COVID public health emergency but has since taken effect.

The shift in ustekinumab coverage to Part D eroded financial protections of many people on Medicare when Part B covered the drug.

Almost 9 in 10 people enrolled in Medicare Part B have supplemental insurance such as Medigap, employer coverage, or Medicaid to fully or partially cover their cost-sharing requirements, the OIG report said. That means Part B coverage shielded many patients from high ustekinumab costs. 

In contrast, patients who self-administered the drug at home under Part D coverage paid an average of almost $6000 out of pocket if they did not receive any type of financial assistance, OIG said.

“From a financial standpoint, as long as you have Part B coinsurance, it would be much cheaper to get the drug in your doctor’s office than getting it through a pharmacy, unless you qualify for the low-income subsidy,” OIG Regional Inspector General David Tawes, who supervised the team that produced the report, told this news organization.

OIG has previously reported that post–point-of-sale rebates paid by manufacturers sometimes lower the costs incurred by Part D plans by a significant margin. But this was not the case with ustekinumab. Instead, OIG said the gap between initial and actual costs of ustekinumab was reduced by less than one third even with rebates. Rebate information is considered confidential.

“The whole negotiation structure is a complicated and not particularly transparent process,” Mr. Tawes said.
 

Backchannel Discounts, Top-Line Prices

The IRA is bringing some more transparency to the process through negotiations, said Mariana P. Socal, MD, associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. Patients who buy medicines that have been through the CMS negotiation process will be able to see if they are being charged correctly.

Dr. Socal noted that there’s something of a disconnect in discussions of Part D between how insurers and consumers view prices. 

For Part D plans, the list prices represent the beginning of negotiations. They get rebates from drugmakers’ list prices for medicines, which insurers say work to lower premium costs. 

“For plans, those prices are unrealistic. They are simply a sticker price. But for patients, for the Medicare beneficiaries, these prices are very real” because they are used to set copays, Dr. Socal said.

Dr. Dusetzina reported receiving funding from Arnold Ventures and the Commonwealth Fund for research related to drug pricing. Dr. Socal reported receiving funding from Arnold Ventures. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A US government report showed how a Medicare policy change made the drug ustekinumab (Stelara) for autoimmune diseases much more expensive, a finding that experts say illustrates the need for reforms created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA).

The topline findings of an August report from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about ustekinumab may seem somewhat surprising and a bit counterintuitive.

Ustekinumab costs spiked as Medicare pushed patients to get their supply through the Part D pharmacy program. The aim of Part D is to make medicines more affordable and accessible for patients. It runs on a model of insurers to negotiate deals for pharmaceuticals.

Earlier, many patients who needed ustekinumab had the drug covered by Medicare Part B. For many years, Medicare Part B has been largely a passive purchaser of medicines. Part B covers drugs administered by physicians. Its longtime model has been to add a premium of 6% to the reported average sales price to reimburse physicians who buy and administer the drug for patients.

But it was Part D, the Medicare program based on insurers’ negotiating clout, that saw a spike in ustekinumab costs after patients were shifted out of Part B coverage, where the cost of the medicine fell.

The average reported Part B cost for an ustekinumab injection slipped from $14,450 in 2016 to $12,912 by 2023, according to the report from HHS’ Office of Inspector General (OIG).

The Part D cost jumped in the same period. It rose by 84% from $17,717 in 2016 to $32,559 by 2023.

The IRA is intended to curb these kinds of increases in the future for drugs covered by Medicare, said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. The law demands companies pay rebates to Medicare if they increase drug prices faster than consumer inflation.

“That should at least help with some of this price growth that over time has seemed quite egregious,” Dr. Dusetzina told this news organization.

The IRA contains several provisions intended to curb rising drug costs for people enrolled in Medicare, including allowing the federal government to directly negotiate on some medicines.

Ustekinumab is one of the first 10 medicines that are subject to negotiations. Medicare will select as many as 15 additional drugs covered under Part D for negotiation in 2025, another 15 Part B and D drugs in 2026, and up to 20 drugs every year after that.

Earlier in August, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced the results of its first drug negotiations, with prices set to take effect in 2026. The Part D price for a 30-day supply of ustekinumab will be $4695 in 2026, a 66% reduction from the list price last year of $13,836.

Even at the negotiated price, ustekinumab’s cost will be high enough to trigger a new cap on out-of-pocket Part D spending, Dr. Dusetzina said.

Starting in 2025, Part D will have a cap of $2000 on individuals’ out-of-pocket costs, with annual adjustments in future years.

“It may not be better for someone who was filling this on Part B, who had a supplement [that covered their share of the ustekinumab cost], but it will be better for a lot of people that it’s covered under Part D,” Dr. Dusetzina said. “The good news is that at least from a beneficiary affordability standpoint, they’re going to have some price protection.”

OIG noted that the US Food and Drug Administration has approved three competing biosimilar versions of ustekinumab. These could also potentially work to lower costs.
 

‘A Complicated and Not Particularly Transparent Process’

OIG said it expects to release a report later this year with more detail about the decision that shifted ustekinumab coverage from Part B to Part D.

First cleared for US sales in 2009, ustekinumab is approved for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis. It can be given subcutaneously or intravenously.

Part B does not generally cover self-administered drugs. The infused version of ustekinumab has been covered under Medicare Part B since it reached the market.

“However, Part B coverage of the subcutaneous versions has been less straightforward,” OIG said in the report.

In 2020, Medicare administrative contractors — the units or affiliates of insurers that for decades have processed Part B claims for the traditional Medicare programs — determined that subcutaneous ustekinumab did not meet the criteria for coverage under Part B. Implementation of this change was delayed due to the COVID public health emergency but has since taken effect.

The shift in ustekinumab coverage to Part D eroded financial protections of many people on Medicare when Part B covered the drug.

Almost 9 in 10 people enrolled in Medicare Part B have supplemental insurance such as Medigap, employer coverage, or Medicaid to fully or partially cover their cost-sharing requirements, the OIG report said. That means Part B coverage shielded many patients from high ustekinumab costs. 

In contrast, patients who self-administered the drug at home under Part D coverage paid an average of almost $6000 out of pocket if they did not receive any type of financial assistance, OIG said.

“From a financial standpoint, as long as you have Part B coinsurance, it would be much cheaper to get the drug in your doctor’s office than getting it through a pharmacy, unless you qualify for the low-income subsidy,” OIG Regional Inspector General David Tawes, who supervised the team that produced the report, told this news organization.

OIG has previously reported that post–point-of-sale rebates paid by manufacturers sometimes lower the costs incurred by Part D plans by a significant margin. But this was not the case with ustekinumab. Instead, OIG said the gap between initial and actual costs of ustekinumab was reduced by less than one third even with rebates. Rebate information is considered confidential.

“The whole negotiation structure is a complicated and not particularly transparent process,” Mr. Tawes said.
 

Backchannel Discounts, Top-Line Prices

The IRA is bringing some more transparency to the process through negotiations, said Mariana P. Socal, MD, associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. Patients who buy medicines that have been through the CMS negotiation process will be able to see if they are being charged correctly.

Dr. Socal noted that there’s something of a disconnect in discussions of Part D between how insurers and consumers view prices. 

For Part D plans, the list prices represent the beginning of negotiations. They get rebates from drugmakers’ list prices for medicines, which insurers say work to lower premium costs. 

“For plans, those prices are unrealistic. They are simply a sticker price. But for patients, for the Medicare beneficiaries, these prices are very real” because they are used to set copays, Dr. Socal said.

Dr. Dusetzina reported receiving funding from Arnold Ventures and the Commonwealth Fund for research related to drug pricing. Dr. Socal reported receiving funding from Arnold Ventures. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Zasocitinib, a tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, at oral doses of ≥ 5 mg led to greater skin clearance than placebo over a period of 12 weeks, in a phase 2b study.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers performed a phase 2b, randomized, double-blind trial to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of different doses of zasocitinib in adults with moderate to severe psoriasis (mean age, 47 years; 32% women) at 47 centers in the United States and eight centers in Canada. Most (83%) were White, 7% were Black, and 8% were Asian.
• A total of 287 patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the four oral doses of zasocitinib (2 mg, 5 mg, 15 mg, or 30 mg, once daily) or a matched placebo for 12 weeks, followed by a 4-week safety monitoring period.
• The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a ≥ 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI 75) from baseline at week 12.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 12, PASI 75 was achieved by 18%, 44%, 68%, and 67% of patients receiving zasocitinib at doses of 2 mg, 5 mg, 15 mg, and 30 mg, respectively, vs 6% of patients receiving placebo.
• PASI 90 was achieved in 8%, 21%, 45%, and 46% of patients receiving zasocitinib at 2 mg, 5 mg, 15 mg, and 30 mg, respectively, and in no patients in the placebo group.
• At week 12, 10%, 27%, 49%, and 52% of patients receiving zasocitinib at 2 mg, 5 mg, 15 mg, and 30 mg, respectively, had no or mild disease (a score of 0 or 1) according to the Physician Global Assessment tool vs 4% in the placebo group.
• Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 53%-62% of patients in the zasocitinib groups compared with 44% in the placebo group. The most common were COVID-19, acne/acneiform dermatitis, and diarrhea. There were no reports of major adverse cardiovascular events, thromboembolic events, or opportunistic infections.

IN PRACTICE:

“Zasocitinib, an advanced, potent, and highly selective oral TYK2 inhibitor bioengineered to optimize target coverage and functional selectivity, achieved biologic-level efficacy with complete skin clearance observed after only a 12-week treatment period in up to one third of patients, with a low incidence of known tolerability issues and absence of serious toxic effects that are characteristic of [Janus kinase] 1-3 inhibition,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, University of California, Los Angeles, and was published online on August 21, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.
 

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a relatively small sample size and a short duration. In addition, the inclusion of predominantly White patients may limit the generalizability of findings to a diverse population.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Nimbus Discovery, which includes Nimbus Therapeutics and Nimbus Lakshmi. Dr. Armstrong’s disclosures included receiving grants and/or personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies, including Nimbus Therapeutics and Nimbus. Three authors were employees of and reported holding equity, stocks, or shares in Nimbus. Several authors had disclosures related to pharmaceutical companies, including Nimbus.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Zasocitinib, a tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, at oral doses of ≥ 5 mg led to greater skin clearance than placebo over a period of 12 weeks, in a phase 2b study.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers performed a phase 2b, randomized, double-blind trial to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of different doses of zasocitinib in adults with moderate to severe psoriasis (mean age, 47 years; 32% women) at 47 centers in the United States and eight centers in Canada. Most (83%) were White, 7% were Black, and 8% were Asian.
• A total of 287 patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the four oral doses of zasocitinib (2 mg, 5 mg, 15 mg, or 30 mg, once daily) or a matched placebo for 12 weeks, followed by a 4-week safety monitoring period.
• The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a ≥ 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI 75) from baseline at week 12.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 12, PASI 75 was achieved by 18%, 44%, 68%, and 67% of patients receiving zasocitinib at doses of 2 mg, 5 mg, 15 mg, and 30 mg, respectively, vs 6% of patients receiving placebo.
• PASI 90 was achieved in 8%, 21%, 45%, and 46% of patients receiving zasocitinib at 2 mg, 5 mg, 15 mg, and 30 mg, respectively, and in no patients in the placebo group.
• At week 12, 10%, 27%, 49%, and 52% of patients receiving zasocitinib at 2 mg, 5 mg, 15 mg, and 30 mg, respectively, had no or mild disease (a score of 0 or 1) according to the Physician Global Assessment tool vs 4% in the placebo group.
• Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 53%-62% of patients in the zasocitinib groups compared with 44% in the placebo group. The most common were COVID-19, acne/acneiform dermatitis, and diarrhea. There were no reports of major adverse cardiovascular events, thromboembolic events, or opportunistic infections.

IN PRACTICE:

“Zasocitinib, an advanced, potent, and highly selective oral TYK2 inhibitor bioengineered to optimize target coverage and functional selectivity, achieved biologic-level efficacy with complete skin clearance observed after only a 12-week treatment period in up to one third of patients, with a low incidence of known tolerability issues and absence of serious toxic effects that are characteristic of [Janus kinase] 1-3 inhibition,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, University of California, Los Angeles, and was published online on August 21, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.
 

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a relatively small sample size and a short duration. In addition, the inclusion of predominantly White patients may limit the generalizability of findings to a diverse population.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Nimbus Discovery, which includes Nimbus Therapeutics and Nimbus Lakshmi. Dr. Armstrong’s disclosures included receiving grants and/or personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies, including Nimbus Therapeutics and Nimbus. Three authors were employees of and reported holding equity, stocks, or shares in Nimbus. Several authors had disclosures related to pharmaceutical companies, including Nimbus.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Zasocitinib, a tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, at oral doses of ≥ 5 mg led to greater skin clearance than placebo over a period of 12 weeks, in a phase 2b study.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers performed a phase 2b, randomized, double-blind trial to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of different doses of zasocitinib in adults with moderate to severe psoriasis (mean age, 47 years; 32% women) at 47 centers in the United States and eight centers in Canada. Most (83%) were White, 7% were Black, and 8% were Asian.
• A total of 287 patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the four oral doses of zasocitinib (2 mg, 5 mg, 15 mg, or 30 mg, once daily) or a matched placebo for 12 weeks, followed by a 4-week safety monitoring period.
• The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a ≥ 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI 75) from baseline at week 12.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 12, PASI 75 was achieved by 18%, 44%, 68%, and 67% of patients receiving zasocitinib at doses of 2 mg, 5 mg, 15 mg, and 30 mg, respectively, vs 6% of patients receiving placebo.
• PASI 90 was achieved in 8%, 21%, 45%, and 46% of patients receiving zasocitinib at 2 mg, 5 mg, 15 mg, and 30 mg, respectively, and in no patients in the placebo group.
• At week 12, 10%, 27%, 49%, and 52% of patients receiving zasocitinib at 2 mg, 5 mg, 15 mg, and 30 mg, respectively, had no or mild disease (a score of 0 or 1) according to the Physician Global Assessment tool vs 4% in the placebo group.
• Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 53%-62% of patients in the zasocitinib groups compared with 44% in the placebo group. The most common were COVID-19, acne/acneiform dermatitis, and diarrhea. There were no reports of major adverse cardiovascular events, thromboembolic events, or opportunistic infections.

IN PRACTICE:

“Zasocitinib, an advanced, potent, and highly selective oral TYK2 inhibitor bioengineered to optimize target coverage and functional selectivity, achieved biologic-level efficacy with complete skin clearance observed after only a 12-week treatment period in up to one third of patients, with a low incidence of known tolerability issues and absence of serious toxic effects that are characteristic of [Janus kinase] 1-3 inhibition,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, University of California, Los Angeles, and was published online on August 21, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.
 

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a relatively small sample size and a short duration. In addition, the inclusion of predominantly White patients may limit the generalizability of findings to a diverse population.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Nimbus Discovery, which includes Nimbus Therapeutics and Nimbus Lakshmi. Dr. Armstrong’s disclosures included receiving grants and/or personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies, including Nimbus Therapeutics and Nimbus. Three authors were employees of and reported holding equity, stocks, or shares in Nimbus. Several authors had disclosures related to pharmaceutical companies, including Nimbus.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Compared with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) and type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• GLP-1 RAs reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke in patients with diabetes. However, previous trials have excluded those with IMIDs, leaving a gap in understanding the cardioprotective effects of GLP-1 RAs in this population.
• Researchers conducted a population-based cohort study to assess if patients with an IMID derive greater benefits from GLP-1 RAs than DPP-4 inhibitors.
• They used administrative health data from British Columbia, Canada, to include 10,855 patients with IMIDs (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic disease, ankylosing spondylitis, inflammatory bowel disease, or systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease) and T2D who initiated either GLP-1 RA (n = 3570) or DPP-4 inhibitor (n = 7285).
• The mean follow-up was 1.46 and 1.88 years in the GLP-1 RA and DPP-4 inhibitor cohorts, respectively.
• The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was MACE, including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for all-cause mortality was 52% lower in patients who initiated GLP-1 RAs than in those who initiated DPP-4 inhibitors (weighted hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.31-0.75).
• Additionally, patients initiating DPP-4 inhibitors.
• In the subgroup of patients with GLP-1 RAs had a significantly lower risk for MACE (weighted HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), particularly myocardial infarction (weighted HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.96), than those initiating rheumatoid arthritis and T2D, those who initiated GLP-1 RAs had a 55% lower risk for all-cause mortality and 61% lower risk for MACE than those who initiated DPP-4 inhibitors.

IN PRACTICE:

“This corresponds to nine fewer deaths and 11 fewer MACE per 1000 person-years, respectively, supporting the hypothesis that these agents have a cardioprotective effect in this high-risk population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Derin Karacabeyli, MD, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and was published online on August 8, 2024, in PLOS ONE.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s dependence on administrative health data might have resulted in incomplete capture of comorbidities, particularly obesity. The mean follow-up period was relatively short, which might have limited the long-term applicability of these findings. The accuracy of the case definitions for IMIDs and T2D, according to International Classification of Diseases codes, could not be fully ascertained.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Two authors declared receiving research support, consulting fees, or participating in advisory boards outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Compared with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) and type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• GLP-1 RAs reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke in patients with diabetes. However, previous trials have excluded those with IMIDs, leaving a gap in understanding the cardioprotective effects of GLP-1 RAs in this population.
• Researchers conducted a population-based cohort study to assess if patients with an IMID derive greater benefits from GLP-1 RAs than DPP-4 inhibitors.
• They used administrative health data from British Columbia, Canada, to include 10,855 patients with IMIDs (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic disease, ankylosing spondylitis, inflammatory bowel disease, or systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease) and T2D who initiated either GLP-1 RA (n = 3570) or DPP-4 inhibitor (n = 7285).
• The mean follow-up was 1.46 and 1.88 years in the GLP-1 RA and DPP-4 inhibitor cohorts, respectively.
• The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was MACE, including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for all-cause mortality was 52% lower in patients who initiated GLP-1 RAs than in those who initiated DPP-4 inhibitors (weighted hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.31-0.75).
• Additionally, patients initiating DPP-4 inhibitors.
• In the subgroup of patients with GLP-1 RAs had a significantly lower risk for MACE (weighted HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), particularly myocardial infarction (weighted HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.96), than those initiating rheumatoid arthritis and T2D, those who initiated GLP-1 RAs had a 55% lower risk for all-cause mortality and 61% lower risk for MACE than those who initiated DPP-4 inhibitors.

IN PRACTICE:

“This corresponds to nine fewer deaths and 11 fewer MACE per 1000 person-years, respectively, supporting the hypothesis that these agents have a cardioprotective effect in this high-risk population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Derin Karacabeyli, MD, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and was published online on August 8, 2024, in PLOS ONE.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s dependence on administrative health data might have resulted in incomplete capture of comorbidities, particularly obesity. The mean follow-up period was relatively short, which might have limited the long-term applicability of these findings. The accuracy of the case definitions for IMIDs and T2D, according to International Classification of Diseases codes, could not be fully ascertained.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Two authors declared receiving research support, consulting fees, or participating in advisory boards outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Compared with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) and type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• GLP-1 RAs reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke in patients with diabetes. However, previous trials have excluded those with IMIDs, leaving a gap in understanding the cardioprotective effects of GLP-1 RAs in this population.
• Researchers conducted a population-based cohort study to assess if patients with an IMID derive greater benefits from GLP-1 RAs than DPP-4 inhibitors.
• They used administrative health data from British Columbia, Canada, to include 10,855 patients with IMIDs (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic disease, ankylosing spondylitis, inflammatory bowel disease, or systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease) and T2D who initiated either GLP-1 RA (n = 3570) or DPP-4 inhibitor (n = 7285).
• The mean follow-up was 1.46 and 1.88 years in the GLP-1 RA and DPP-4 inhibitor cohorts, respectively.
• The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was MACE, including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for all-cause mortality was 52% lower in patients who initiated GLP-1 RAs than in those who initiated DPP-4 inhibitors (weighted hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.31-0.75).
• Additionally, patients initiating DPP-4 inhibitors.
• In the subgroup of patients with GLP-1 RAs had a significantly lower risk for MACE (weighted HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), particularly myocardial infarction (weighted HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.96), than those initiating rheumatoid arthritis and T2D, those who initiated GLP-1 RAs had a 55% lower risk for all-cause mortality and 61% lower risk for MACE than those who initiated DPP-4 inhibitors.

IN PRACTICE:

“This corresponds to nine fewer deaths and 11 fewer MACE per 1000 person-years, respectively, supporting the hypothesis that these agents have a cardioprotective effect in this high-risk population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Derin Karacabeyli, MD, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and was published online on August 8, 2024, in PLOS ONE.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s dependence on administrative health data might have resulted in incomplete capture of comorbidities, particularly obesity. The mean follow-up period was relatively short, which might have limited the long-term applicability of these findings. The accuracy of the case definitions for IMIDs and T2D, according to International Classification of Diseases codes, could not be fully ascertained.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Two authors declared receiving research support, consulting fees, or participating in advisory boards outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.