Psoriasis

Low-dose naltrexone (LDN) has shown efficacy in off-label treatment of a variety of inflammatory diseases ranging from Crohn disease to multiple sclerosis.¹ There are limited data about the use of LDN in dermatology, but reports regarding how it works as an anti-inflammatory agent have been published.^1,2

Naltrexone is an opioid receptor antagonist that originally was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat addiction to alcohol, opiates, and heroin.² The dose of naltrexone to treat addiction ranges from 50 to 100 mg/d, and at these levels the effects of opioids are blocked for 24 hours; however, the dosing for LDN is much lower, ranging from 1.5 to 4.5 mg/d.³ At this low dose, naltrexone partially binds to various opioid receptors, leading to a temporary blockade.⁴ One of the downstream effects of this opioid receptor blockade is a paradoxical increase in endogenous endorphins.³

In addition to opioid blockage, lower doses of naltrexone have anti-inflammatory effects by inhibiting nonopioid receptors. Naltrexone blocks toll-like receptor 4, which is found on keratinocytes and also on macrophages such as microglia.⁵ These macrophages also contain inflammatory compounds such as tumor necrosis factor α and IL-6. Low-dose naltrexone can suppress levels of these inflammatory markers. It is important to note that these anti-inflammatory effects have not been observed at the standard higher doses of naltrexone.¹

When to Use

Low-dose naltrexone is a treatment option for inflammatory dermatologic conditions. A recent review of the literature outlined the use of LDN in a variety of inflammatory skin conditions. Improvement was noted in patients with Hailey-Hailey disease, lichen planopilaris, and various types of pruritus (ie, aquagenic, cholestatic, uremic, atopic dermatitis related).³ A case report of LDN successfully treating a patient with psoriasis also has been published.⁶ We often use LDN at the University of Wisconsin (Madison, Wisconsin) to treat patients with psoriasis. Ekelem et al³ also discussed patients with skin conditions that either had no response or worsened with naltrexone treatment, including various types of pruritus (ie, uremic, mycosis fungoides related, other causes of pruritus). Importantly, in the majority of cases without an improved response, the dose used was 50 mg/d.³ Higher doses of naltrexone are not known to have anti-inflammatory effects.

Low-dose naltrexone can be considered as a treatment option in patients with contraindications to other systemic anti-inflammatory treatments; for example, patients with a history of malignancy may prefer to avoid treatment with biologic agents. Low-dose naltrexone also can be considered as a treatment option in patients who are uncomfortable with the side-effect profiles of other systemic anti-inflammatory treatments, such as the risk for leukemias and lymphomas associated with biologic agents, the risk for liver toxicity with methotrexate, or the risk for hyperlipidemia with acitretin.

How to Monitor

The following monitoring information is adapted from the practice of Apple Bodemer, MD, a board-certified dermatologist at the University of Wisconsin (Madison, Wisconsin) who also is fellowship trained in integrative medicine.

There is a paucity of published data about LDN dosing for inflammatory skin diseases. However, prescribers should be aware that LDN can alter thyroid hormone levels, especially in patients with autoimmune thyroid disease. If a thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) level within reference range has not been noted in the last year, consider screening with a TSH test and also assessing for a personal or family history of thyroid disease. If the TSH level is within reference range, there generally is no need to monitor while treating with LDN. Consider checking TSH levels every 4 months in patients with thyroid disease while they are on LDN therapy and be sure to educate them about symptoms of hyperthyroidism.

Side Effects

Low-dose naltrexone has a minimal side-effect profile with self-limited side effects that often resolve within approximately 1 week. One of the most commonly reported side effects is sleep disturbance with vivid dreams, which has been reported in 37% of participants.¹ If your patients experience this side effect, you can reassure them that it improves with time. You also can switch to morning dosing to try and alleviate sleep disturbances at night. Another possible side effect is gastrointestinal tract upset. Importantly, there is no known abuse potential for LDN.¹ To stop LDN, patients should be stable for 6 to 12 months, and there is no need to wean them off it.

Cost and Availability

Because use of LDN in dermatology is considered off label and it is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat any medical conditions, it must be prescribed through a compounding pharmacy, usually without insurance coverage. The monthly cost is approximately $30 depending on the pharmacy (unpublished data), which may be cost prohibitive for patients, so it is important to counsel them about price before starting treatment.

Final Thoughts

Low-dose naltrexone is an alternative treatment option that can be considered in patients with inflammatory skin diseases. It has a favorable side-effect profile, especially compared to other systemic anti-inflammatory agents; however, additional studies are needed to learn more about its safety and efficacy. If patients ask you about LDN, the information provided here can guide you with how it works and how to prescribe it.

Low-dose naltrexone (LDN) has shown efficacy in off-label treatment of a variety of inflammatory diseases ranging from Crohn disease to multiple sclerosis.¹ There are limited data about the use of LDN in dermatology, but reports regarding how it works as an anti-inflammatory agent have been published.^1,2

Naltrexone is an opioid receptor antagonist that originally was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat addiction to alcohol, opiates, and heroin.² The dose of naltrexone to treat addiction ranges from 50 to 100 mg/d, and at these levels the effects of opioids are blocked for 24 hours; however, the dosing for LDN is much lower, ranging from 1.5 to 4.5 mg/d.³ At this low dose, naltrexone partially binds to various opioid receptors, leading to a temporary blockade.⁴ One of the downstream effects of this opioid receptor blockade is a paradoxical increase in endogenous endorphins.³

In addition to opioid blockage, lower doses of naltrexone have anti-inflammatory effects by inhibiting nonopioid receptors. Naltrexone blocks toll-like receptor 4, which is found on keratinocytes and also on macrophages such as microglia.⁵ These macrophages also contain inflammatory compounds such as tumor necrosis factor α and IL-6. Low-dose naltrexone can suppress levels of these inflammatory markers. It is important to note that these anti-inflammatory effects have not been observed at the standard higher doses of naltrexone.¹

When to Use

Low-dose naltrexone is a treatment option for inflammatory dermatologic conditions. A recent review of the literature outlined the use of LDN in a variety of inflammatory skin conditions. Improvement was noted in patients with Hailey-Hailey disease, lichen planopilaris, and various types of pruritus (ie, aquagenic, cholestatic, uremic, atopic dermatitis related).³ A case report of LDN successfully treating a patient with psoriasis also has been published.⁶ We often use LDN at the University of Wisconsin (Madison, Wisconsin) to treat patients with psoriasis. Ekelem et al³ also discussed patients with skin conditions that either had no response or worsened with naltrexone treatment, including various types of pruritus (ie, uremic, mycosis fungoides related, other causes of pruritus). Importantly, in the majority of cases without an improved response, the dose used was 50 mg/d.³ Higher doses of naltrexone are not known to have anti-inflammatory effects.

Low-dose naltrexone can be considered as a treatment option in patients with contraindications to other systemic anti-inflammatory treatments; for example, patients with a history of malignancy may prefer to avoid treatment with biologic agents. Low-dose naltrexone also can be considered as a treatment option in patients who are uncomfortable with the side-effect profiles of other systemic anti-inflammatory treatments, such as the risk for leukemias and lymphomas associated with biologic agents, the risk for liver toxicity with methotrexate, or the risk for hyperlipidemia with acitretin.

How to Monitor

The following monitoring information is adapted from the practice of Apple Bodemer, MD, a board-certified dermatologist at the University of Wisconsin (Madison, Wisconsin) who also is fellowship trained in integrative medicine.

There is a paucity of published data about LDN dosing for inflammatory skin diseases. However, prescribers should be aware that LDN can alter thyroid hormone levels, especially in patients with autoimmune thyroid disease. If a thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) level within reference range has not been noted in the last year, consider screening with a TSH test and also assessing for a personal or family history of thyroid disease. If the TSH level is within reference range, there generally is no need to monitor while treating with LDN. Consider checking TSH levels every 4 months in patients with thyroid disease while they are on LDN therapy and be sure to educate them about symptoms of hyperthyroidism.

Side Effects

Low-dose naltrexone has a minimal side-effect profile with self-limited side effects that often resolve within approximately 1 week. One of the most commonly reported side effects is sleep disturbance with vivid dreams, which has been reported in 37% of participants.¹ If your patients experience this side effect, you can reassure them that it improves with time. You also can switch to morning dosing to try and alleviate sleep disturbances at night. Another possible side effect is gastrointestinal tract upset. Importantly, there is no known abuse potential for LDN.¹ To stop LDN, patients should be stable for 6 to 12 months, and there is no need to wean them off it.

Cost and Availability

Because use of LDN in dermatology is considered off label and it is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat any medical conditions, it must be prescribed through a compounding pharmacy, usually without insurance coverage. The monthly cost is approximately $30 depending on the pharmacy (unpublished data), which may be cost prohibitive for patients, so it is important to counsel them about price before starting treatment.

Final Thoughts

Low-dose naltrexone is an alternative treatment option that can be considered in patients with inflammatory skin diseases. It has a favorable side-effect profile, especially compared to other systemic anti-inflammatory agents; however, additional studies are needed to learn more about its safety and efficacy. If patients ask you about LDN, the information provided here can guide you with how it works and how to prescribe it.

Low-dose naltrexone (LDN) has shown efficacy in off-label treatment of a variety of inflammatory diseases ranging from Crohn disease to multiple sclerosis.¹ There are limited data about the use of LDN in dermatology, but reports regarding how it works as an anti-inflammatory agent have been published.^1,2

Naltrexone is an opioid receptor antagonist that originally was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat addiction to alcohol, opiates, and heroin.² The dose of naltrexone to treat addiction ranges from 50 to 100 mg/d, and at these levels the effects of opioids are blocked for 24 hours; however, the dosing for LDN is much lower, ranging from 1.5 to 4.5 mg/d.³ At this low dose, naltrexone partially binds to various opioid receptors, leading to a temporary blockade.⁴ One of the downstream effects of this opioid receptor blockade is a paradoxical increase in endogenous endorphins.³

In addition to opioid blockage, lower doses of naltrexone have anti-inflammatory effects by inhibiting nonopioid receptors. Naltrexone blocks toll-like receptor 4, which is found on keratinocytes and also on macrophages such as microglia.⁵ These macrophages also contain inflammatory compounds such as tumor necrosis factor α and IL-6. Low-dose naltrexone can suppress levels of these inflammatory markers. It is important to note that these anti-inflammatory effects have not been observed at the standard higher doses of naltrexone.¹

When to Use

Low-dose naltrexone is a treatment option for inflammatory dermatologic conditions. A recent review of the literature outlined the use of LDN in a variety of inflammatory skin conditions. Improvement was noted in patients with Hailey-Hailey disease, lichen planopilaris, and various types of pruritus (ie, aquagenic, cholestatic, uremic, atopic dermatitis related).³ A case report of LDN successfully treating a patient with psoriasis also has been published.⁶ We often use LDN at the University of Wisconsin (Madison, Wisconsin) to treat patients with psoriasis. Ekelem et al³ also discussed patients with skin conditions that either had no response or worsened with naltrexone treatment, including various types of pruritus (ie, uremic, mycosis fungoides related, other causes of pruritus). Importantly, in the majority of cases without an improved response, the dose used was 50 mg/d.³ Higher doses of naltrexone are not known to have anti-inflammatory effects.

Low-dose naltrexone can be considered as a treatment option in patients with contraindications to other systemic anti-inflammatory treatments; for example, patients with a history of malignancy may prefer to avoid treatment with biologic agents. Low-dose naltrexone also can be considered as a treatment option in patients who are uncomfortable with the side-effect profiles of other systemic anti-inflammatory treatments, such as the risk for leukemias and lymphomas associated with biologic agents, the risk for liver toxicity with methotrexate, or the risk for hyperlipidemia with acitretin.

How to Monitor

The following monitoring information is adapted from the practice of Apple Bodemer, MD, a board-certified dermatologist at the University of Wisconsin (Madison, Wisconsin) who also is fellowship trained in integrative medicine.

There is a paucity of published data about LDN dosing for inflammatory skin diseases. However, prescribers should be aware that LDN can alter thyroid hormone levels, especially in patients with autoimmune thyroid disease. If a thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) level within reference range has not been noted in the last year, consider screening with a TSH test and also assessing for a personal or family history of thyroid disease. If the TSH level is within reference range, there generally is no need to monitor while treating with LDN. Consider checking TSH levels every 4 months in patients with thyroid disease while they are on LDN therapy and be sure to educate them about symptoms of hyperthyroidism.

Side Effects

Low-dose naltrexone has a minimal side-effect profile with self-limited side effects that often resolve within approximately 1 week. One of the most commonly reported side effects is sleep disturbance with vivid dreams, which has been reported in 37% of participants.¹ If your patients experience this side effect, you can reassure them that it improves with time. You also can switch to morning dosing to try and alleviate sleep disturbances at night. Another possible side effect is gastrointestinal tract upset. Importantly, there is no known abuse potential for LDN.¹ To stop LDN, patients should be stable for 6 to 12 months, and there is no need to wean them off it.

Cost and Availability

Because use of LDN in dermatology is considered off label and it is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat any medical conditions, it must be prescribed through a compounding pharmacy, usually without insurance coverage. The monthly cost is approximately $30 depending on the pharmacy (unpublished data), which may be cost prohibitive for patients, so it is important to counsel them about price before starting treatment.

Final Thoughts

Low-dose naltrexone is an alternative treatment option that can be considered in patients with inflammatory skin diseases. It has a favorable side-effect profile, especially compared to other systemic anti-inflammatory agents; however, additional studies are needed to learn more about its safety and efficacy. If patients ask you about LDN, the information provided here can guide you with how it works and how to prescribe it.

MADRID – Renowned dermatologic clinical trialist Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, is known to pick his words carefully, and the word he uses to describe the quality of life improvement documented in psoriasis patients treated with the novel investigational humanized monoclonal antibody bimekizumab is “phenomenal.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Dr. Papp was lead investigator in the previously reported phase 2b multicenter BE ABLE 1 trial, in which 250 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis were randomized double-blind to various doses of bimekizumab or placebo every 4 weeks for 12 weeks (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Aug;79[2]:277-86.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.03.037). He was also lead investigator in the 48-week phase 2b BE ABLE 2 extension study. He presented the 60-week quality-of-life BE ABLE 2 results for the first time at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Small numbers, but the results are nonetheless very compelling,” said Dr. Papp, president and founder of Probity Medical Research in Waterloo, Ont.

Bimekizumab is unique in that it selectively neutralizes both interleukin-17A and -17F, two closely related proinflammatory cytokines which, when upregulated, synergize with other proinflammatory cytokines to drive psoriasis and other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. In contrast, secukinumab (Cosentyx) and ixekizumab (Taltz) specifically inhibit only IL-17A, and brodalumab (Siliq) targets the IL-17 receptor A. The bimekizumab clinical trials program – a work in progress – aims to demonstrate that dual neutralization of IL-17A and -17F provides a more complete therapeutic approach in psoriasis, with greater efficacy and fewer safety concerns than with current biologics, the dermatologist explained.

In BE ABLE 1, the primary endpoint of at least a 90% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI90) response was achieved at week 12 in 46%-79% of patients randomized to bimekizumab in dose-dependent fashion. Those PASI90 responses were maintained with additional treatment out to week 60 in BE ABLE 2 in 80%-100% of patients.

Dr. Papp’s focus at EADV 2019 was on the quality-of-life improvement achieved in bimekizumab-treated patients, a benefit not captured by PASI scores. For this purpose, he and coinvestigators turned to the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), measured in structured fashion every 4 weeks out to week 60.

“We often forget that even though we’re looking at the patient from the outside, what’s really important is how well they respond to our treatments internally. The DLQI is not a perfect tool, but it’s the best tool we have available. It gives us a fairly good survey of the various domains that affect patients’ day-to-day living,” he said.

In BE ABLE 1, the proportion of week-12 PASI90 responders achieving a DLQI of 0 or 1 – indicative of essentially no disease impact on quality of life – increased rapidly up until week 8. At week 12, 70%-100% of the PASI90 responders in the various treatment arms had a DLQI of 0 or 1. This quality-of-life improvement, like the PASI90 response, proved durable: When the week-12 PASI90 responders were assessed at week 60 in BE ABLE 2, 76%-93% of them had a DLQI of 0 or 1.

The improvements in quality of life correlated with clinical response. BE ABLE enrollees had an average PASI score of 19 at baseline. Overall, 79% of those with an absolute PASI score of 0 at week 12 had a DLQI of 0 or 1 at that time, as did 95% of those with a PASI of 0 at week 60. A PASI of 1 was associated with a 77% likelihood of a DLQI of 0 or 1 at week 12 and an 82% rate at week 60. In contrast, patients with an absolute PASI of 2-4 at week 12 had a 46% rate of DLQI 0/1, and those with a PASI 2-4 at week 60 had a 50% chance of having a DLQI of 0/1.

Phase 3 clinical trials of bimekizumab totaling several thousand psoriasis patients are ongoing.

The BE ABLE trials were sponsored by UCB Pharma. Dr. Papp reported serving as a consultant to and/or recipient of research grants from UCB and dozens of other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Papp KA. EADV 2019 Abstract FC02.02.

MADRID – Renowned dermatologic clinical trialist Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, is known to pick his words carefully, and the word he uses to describe the quality of life improvement documented in psoriasis patients treated with the novel investigational humanized monoclonal antibody bimekizumab is “phenomenal.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Dr. Papp was lead investigator in the previously reported phase 2b multicenter BE ABLE 1 trial, in which 250 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis were randomized double-blind to various doses of bimekizumab or placebo every 4 weeks for 12 weeks (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Aug;79[2]:277-86.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.03.037). He was also lead investigator in the 48-week phase 2b BE ABLE 2 extension study. He presented the 60-week quality-of-life BE ABLE 2 results for the first time at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Small numbers, but the results are nonetheless very compelling,” said Dr. Papp, president and founder of Probity Medical Research in Waterloo, Ont.

Bimekizumab is unique in that it selectively neutralizes both interleukin-17A and -17F, two closely related proinflammatory cytokines which, when upregulated, synergize with other proinflammatory cytokines to drive psoriasis and other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. In contrast, secukinumab (Cosentyx) and ixekizumab (Taltz) specifically inhibit only IL-17A, and brodalumab (Siliq) targets the IL-17 receptor A. The bimekizumab clinical trials program – a work in progress – aims to demonstrate that dual neutralization of IL-17A and -17F provides a more complete therapeutic approach in psoriasis, with greater efficacy and fewer safety concerns than with current biologics, the dermatologist explained.

In BE ABLE 1, the primary endpoint of at least a 90% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI90) response was achieved at week 12 in 46%-79% of patients randomized to bimekizumab in dose-dependent fashion. Those PASI90 responses were maintained with additional treatment out to week 60 in BE ABLE 2 in 80%-100% of patients.

Dr. Papp’s focus at EADV 2019 was on the quality-of-life improvement achieved in bimekizumab-treated patients, a benefit not captured by PASI scores. For this purpose, he and coinvestigators turned to the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), measured in structured fashion every 4 weeks out to week 60.

“We often forget that even though we’re looking at the patient from the outside, what’s really important is how well they respond to our treatments internally. The DLQI is not a perfect tool, but it’s the best tool we have available. It gives us a fairly good survey of the various domains that affect patients’ day-to-day living,” he said.

In BE ABLE 1, the proportion of week-12 PASI90 responders achieving a DLQI of 0 or 1 – indicative of essentially no disease impact on quality of life – increased rapidly up until week 8. At week 12, 70%-100% of the PASI90 responders in the various treatment arms had a DLQI of 0 or 1. This quality-of-life improvement, like the PASI90 response, proved durable: When the week-12 PASI90 responders were assessed at week 60 in BE ABLE 2, 76%-93% of them had a DLQI of 0 or 1.

The improvements in quality of life correlated with clinical response. BE ABLE enrollees had an average PASI score of 19 at baseline. Overall, 79% of those with an absolute PASI score of 0 at week 12 had a DLQI of 0 or 1 at that time, as did 95% of those with a PASI of 0 at week 60. A PASI of 1 was associated with a 77% likelihood of a DLQI of 0 or 1 at week 12 and an 82% rate at week 60. In contrast, patients with an absolute PASI of 2-4 at week 12 had a 46% rate of DLQI 0/1, and those with a PASI 2-4 at week 60 had a 50% chance of having a DLQI of 0/1.

Phase 3 clinical trials of bimekizumab totaling several thousand psoriasis patients are ongoing.

The BE ABLE trials were sponsored by UCB Pharma. Dr. Papp reported serving as a consultant to and/or recipient of research grants from UCB and dozens of other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Papp KA. EADV 2019 Abstract FC02.02.

MADRID – Renowned dermatologic clinical trialist Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, is known to pick his words carefully, and the word he uses to describe the quality of life improvement documented in psoriasis patients treated with the novel investigational humanized monoclonal antibody bimekizumab is “phenomenal.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Dr. Papp was lead investigator in the previously reported phase 2b multicenter BE ABLE 1 trial, in which 250 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis were randomized double-blind to various doses of bimekizumab or placebo every 4 weeks for 12 weeks (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Aug;79[2]:277-86.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.03.037). He was also lead investigator in the 48-week phase 2b BE ABLE 2 extension study. He presented the 60-week quality-of-life BE ABLE 2 results for the first time at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Small numbers, but the results are nonetheless very compelling,” said Dr. Papp, president and founder of Probity Medical Research in Waterloo, Ont.

Bimekizumab is unique in that it selectively neutralizes both interleukin-17A and -17F, two closely related proinflammatory cytokines which, when upregulated, synergize with other proinflammatory cytokines to drive psoriasis and other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. In contrast, secukinumab (Cosentyx) and ixekizumab (Taltz) specifically inhibit only IL-17A, and brodalumab (Siliq) targets the IL-17 receptor A. The bimekizumab clinical trials program – a work in progress – aims to demonstrate that dual neutralization of IL-17A and -17F provides a more complete therapeutic approach in psoriasis, with greater efficacy and fewer safety concerns than with current biologics, the dermatologist explained.

In BE ABLE 1, the primary endpoint of at least a 90% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI90) response was achieved at week 12 in 46%-79% of patients randomized to bimekizumab in dose-dependent fashion. Those PASI90 responses were maintained with additional treatment out to week 60 in BE ABLE 2 in 80%-100% of patients.

Dr. Papp’s focus at EADV 2019 was on the quality-of-life improvement achieved in bimekizumab-treated patients, a benefit not captured by PASI scores. For this purpose, he and coinvestigators turned to the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), measured in structured fashion every 4 weeks out to week 60.

“We often forget that even though we’re looking at the patient from the outside, what’s really important is how well they respond to our treatments internally. The DLQI is not a perfect tool, but it’s the best tool we have available. It gives us a fairly good survey of the various domains that affect patients’ day-to-day living,” he said.

In BE ABLE 1, the proportion of week-12 PASI90 responders achieving a DLQI of 0 or 1 – indicative of essentially no disease impact on quality of life – increased rapidly up until week 8. At week 12, 70%-100% of the PASI90 responders in the various treatment arms had a DLQI of 0 or 1. This quality-of-life improvement, like the PASI90 response, proved durable: When the week-12 PASI90 responders were assessed at week 60 in BE ABLE 2, 76%-93% of them had a DLQI of 0 or 1.

The improvements in quality of life correlated with clinical response. BE ABLE enrollees had an average PASI score of 19 at baseline. Overall, 79% of those with an absolute PASI score of 0 at week 12 had a DLQI of 0 or 1 at that time, as did 95% of those with a PASI of 0 at week 60. A PASI of 1 was associated with a 77% likelihood of a DLQI of 0 or 1 at week 12 and an 82% rate at week 60. In contrast, patients with an absolute PASI of 2-4 at week 12 had a 46% rate of DLQI 0/1, and those with a PASI 2-4 at week 60 had a 50% chance of having a DLQI of 0/1.

Phase 3 clinical trials of bimekizumab totaling several thousand psoriasis patients are ongoing.

The BE ABLE trials were sponsored by UCB Pharma. Dr. Papp reported serving as a consultant to and/or recipient of research grants from UCB and dozens of other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Papp KA. EADV 2019 Abstract FC02.02.

The ketogenic diet has been therapeutically employed by physicians since the times of Hippocrates, primarily for its effect on the nervous system.¹ The neurologic literature is inundated with the uses of this medicinal diet for applications in the treatment of epilepsy, neurodegenerative disease, malignancy, and enzyme deficiencies, among others.² In recent years, physicians and scientists have moved to study the application of a ketogenic diet in the realms of cardiovascular disease,³ autoimmune disease,⁴ management of diabetes mellitus (DM) and obesity,^3,5 and enhancement of sports and combat performance,⁶ all with promising results. Increased interest in alternative therapies among the lay population and the efficacy purported by many adherents has spurred intrigue by health care professionals. Over the last decade, there has seen a boom in so-called holistic approaches to health; included are the Paleo Diet, Primal Blueprint Diet, Bulletproof Diet, and the ketogenic/low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. The benefits of ketones in these diets—through intermittent fasting or cyclical ketosis—–for cognitive enhancement, overall well-being, amelioration of chronic disease states, and increased health span have been promulgated to the lay population. But to date, there is a large gap in the literature on the applications of ketones as well as the ketogenic diet in dermatology and skin health and disease.

The aim of this article is not to summarize the uses of ketones and the ketogenic diet in dermatologic applications (because, unfortunately, those studies have not been undertaken) but to provide evidence from all available literature to support the need for targeted research and to encourage dermatologists to investigate ketones and their role in treating skin disease, primarily in an adjunctive manner. In doing so, a clearly medicinal diet may gain a foothold in the disease-treatment repertoire and among health-promoting agents of the dermatologist. Given the amount of capital being spent on health care, there is an ever-increasing need for low-cost, safe, and tolerable treatments that can be used for multiple disease processes and to promote health. We believe the ketogenic diet is such an adjunctive therapeutic option, as it has clearly been proven to be tolerable, safe, and efficacious for many people over the last millennia.

We conducted a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using varying combinations of the terms ketones, ketogenic, skin, inflammation, metabolic, oxidation, dermatology, and dermatologic and found 12 articles. Herein, we summarize the relevant articles and the works cited by those articles.

Adverse Effects of the Ketogenic Diet

As with all medical therapies, the ketogenic diet is not without risk of adverse effects, which should be communicated at the outset of this article and with patients in the clinic. The only known absolute contraindications to a ketogenic diet are porphyria and pyruvate carboxylase deficiency secondary to underlying metabolic derangements.⁷ Certain metabolic cytopathies and carnitine deficiency are relative contraindications, and patients with these conditions should be cautiously placed on this diet and closely monitored. Dehydration, acidosis, lethargy, hypoglycemia, dyslipidemia, electrolyte imbalances, prurigo pigmentosa, and gastrointestinal distress may be an acute issue, but these effects are transient and can be managed. Chronic adverse effects are nephrolithiasis (there are recommended screening procedures for those at risk and prophylactic therapies, which is beyond the scope of this article) and weight loss.⁷

NLRP3 Inflammasome Suppression

Youm et al⁸ reported their findings in Nature Medicine that β-hydroxybutyrate, a ketone body that naturally circulates in the human body, specifically suppresses activity of the NLRP3 inflammasome. The NLRP3 inflammasome serves as the activating platform for IL-1β.⁸ Aberrant and elevated IL-1β levels cause or are associated with a number of dermatologic diseases—namely, the autoinflammatory syndromes (familial cold autoinflammatory syndrome, Muckle-Wells syndrome, neonatal-onset multisystemic disease/chronic infantile neurological cutaneous articular syndrome), hyperimmunoglobulinemia D with periodic fever syndrome, tumor necrosis factor–receptor associated periodic syndrome, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, relapsing polychondritis, Schnitzler syndrome, Sweet syndrome, Behçet disease, gout, sunburn and contact hypersensitivity, hidradenitis suppurativa, and metastatic melanoma.⁷ Clearly, the ketogenic diet may be employed in a therapeutic manner (though to what degree, we need further study) for these dermatologic conditions based on the interaction with the NRLP3 inflammasome and IL-1β.

Acne

A link between acne and diet has long been suspected, but a lack of well-controlled studies has caused only speculation to remain. Recent literature suggests that the effects of insulin may be a notable driver of acne through effects on sex hormones and subsequent effects on sebum production and inflammation. Cordain et al⁹ discuss the mechanism by which insulin can worsen acne in a valuable article, which Paoli et al¹⁰ later corroborated. Essentially, insulin propagates acne by 2 known mechanisms. First, an increase in serum insulin causes a rise in insulinlike growth factor 1 levels and a decrease in insulinlike growth factor binding protein 3 levels, which directly influences keratinocyte proliferation and reduces retinoic acid receptor/retinoid X receptor activity in the skin, causing hyperkeratinization and concomitant abnormal desquamation of the follicular epithelium.^9,10 Second, this increase in insulinlike growth factor 1 and insulin causes a decrease in sex hormone–binding globulin and leads to increased androgen production and circulation in the skin, which causes an increase in sebum production. These factors combined with skin that is colonized with Cutibacterium acnes lead to an inflammatory response and the disease known as acne vulgaris.^9,10 A ketogenic diet could help ameliorate acne because it results in very little insulin secretion, unlike the typical Western diet, which causes frequent large spikes in insulin levels. Furthermore, the anti-inflammatory effects of ketones would benefit the inflammatory nature of this disease.

DM and Diabetic Skin Disease

Diabetes mellitus carries with it the risk for skin diseases specific to the diabetic disease process, such as increased risk for bacterial and fungal infections, venous stasis, pruritus (secondary to poor circulation), acanthosis nigricans, diabetic dermopathy, necrobiosis lipoidica diabeticorum, digital sclerosis, and bullosis diabeticorum.¹¹ It is well established that better control of DM results in better disease state outcomes.¹² The ketogenic diet has shown itself to be a formidable and successful treatment in the diseases of carbohydrate intolerance (eg, metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, type 2 DM) because of several known mechanisms, including less glucose entering the body and thus less fat deposition, end-product glycation, and free-radical production (discussed below); enhanced fat loss and metabolic efficiency; increased insulin sensitivity; and decreased inflammation.¹³ Lowering a patient’s insulin resistance through a ketogenic diet may help prevent or treat diabetic skin disease.

Dermatologic Malignancy

A ketogenic diet has been of interest in oncology research as an adjunctive therapy for several reasons: anti-inflammatory effects, antioxidation effects, possible effects on mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) regulation,⁷ and exploitation of the Warburg effect.¹⁴ One article discusses how mTOR, a cell-cycle regulator of particular importance in cancer biology, can be influenced by ketones both directly and indirectly through modulating the inflammatory response.⁷ It has been shown that suppressing mTOR activity limits and slows tumor growth and spread. Ketones also may prove to be a unique method of metabolically exploiting cancer physiology. The Warburg effect, which earned Otto Warburg the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1931, is the observation that cancerous cells produce adenosine triphosphate solely through aerobic glycolysis followed by lactic acid fermentation.¹⁴ This phenomenon is the basis of the positron emission tomography scan. There are several small studies of the effects of ketogenic diets on malignancy, and although none of these studies are of substantial size or control, they show that a ketogenic diet can halt or even reverse tumor growth.¹⁵ The hypothesis is that because cancer cells cannot metabolize ketones (but normal cells can), the Warburg effect can be taken advantage of through a ketogenic diet to aid in the treatment of malignant disease.¹⁴ If further studies find it a formidable treatment, it most certainly would be helpful for the dermatologist involved in the treatment of cutaneous cancers.

Oxidative Stress

Oxidative stress, a state brought about when reactive oxygen species (ROS) production exceeds the antioxidant capacity of the cell and causes damage, is known to be a central part of certain skin diseases (eg, acne, psoriasis, cutaneous malignancy, varicose ulcers, cutaneous allergic reactions, and drug-induced skin photosensitivity).⁷ There are 2 proven mechanisms by which a ketogenic diet can augment the body’s innate antioxidation capacity. First, ketones activate a potent antioxidant upregulating protein known as NRF2, which is bound in cytosol and remains inactive until activated by certain stimuli (ie, ketones).¹⁶ Migration to the nucleus causes transcriptional changes in DNA to upregulate, via a myriad of pathways, antioxidant production in the cell; most notably, it results in increased glutathione levels.¹⁷ NRF2 also targets several genes involved in chronic inflammatory skin diseases that cause an increase in the antioxidant capacity.¹⁸ As an aside, several foods encouraged on a ketogenic diet also activate NRF2 independently of ketones (eg, coffee, broccoli).¹⁹ Second, a ketogenic diet results in fewer produced ROS and an increase in the nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide ratio produced by the mitochondria; in short, it is a more efficient way of producing cellular energy while enhancing mitochondrial function. When fewer ROS are produced, there is less oxidative stress that needs to be attended to by the cell and less cellular damage. Feichtinger et al¹⁹ point out that mitochondrial inefficiency and dysfunction often are overlooked components in several skin diseases, and based on the studies discussed above, these diseases may be aided with a ketogenic diet.

Patient Applications

Clearly, a ketogenic diet is therapeutic, and there are many promising potential roles it may play in the treatment of a wide variety of health and disease states through hormonal normalization, antioxidant effects, anti-inflammatory effects, and improvement of metabolic risk factors. However, there are vast limitations to what is known about the ketogenic diet and how it might be employed, particularly by the dermatologist. First, the ketogenic diet lacks a firm definition. Although processed inflammatory vegetable oils and meats are low in carbohydrates and high in fat by definition, it is impossible to argue that they are healthy options for consumption and disease prevention and treatment. Second, nutrigenomics dictates that there must be an individual role in how the diet is employed (eg, patients who are lactose intolerant will need to stay away from dairy). Third, there are no clear proven clinical results from the ketogenic diet in the realm of dermatology. Fourth, as with everything, there are potential detrimental side effects of the ketogenic diet that must be considered for patients (though there are established screening procedures and prophylactic therapies that are beyond the scope of this article). Further, other diets have shown benefit for many other disease states and health promotion purposes (eg, the Mediterranean diet).²⁰ We do not know yet if the avoidance of certain dietary factors such as processed carbohydrates and fats are more beneficial than adopting a state of ketosis at this time, and therefore we are not claiming superiority of one dietary approach over others that are proven to promote health.

Because there are no large-scale studies of the ketogenic diet, there is no verified standardization of initiating and monitoring it, though certain academic centers do have published methods of doing so.²¹ There are ample anecdotal methods of initiating, maintaining, and monitoring the ketogenic diet.²² In short, drastic restriction of carbohydrate intake and increased fat consumption are the staples of initiating the diet. Medium-chain triglyceride oil supplementation, coffee consumption, intermittent fasting, and low-level aerobic activity also are thought to aid in transition to a ketogenic state. As a result, a dermatologist may recommend that patients interested in this option begin by focusing on fat, fiber, and protein consumption while greatly reducing the amount of carbohydrates in the diet. Morning walks or more intense workouts for fitter patients should be encouraged. Consumption of serum ketone–enhancing foods (eg, coffee, medium-chain triglyceride oil, coconut products) also should be encouraged. A popular beverage known as Bulletproof coffee also may be of interest.²³ A blood ketone meter can be used for biofeedback to reinforce these behaviors by aiming for proper β-hydroxybutyrate levels. Numerous companies and websites exist for supporting those patients wishing to pursue a ketogenic state, some hosted by physicians/researchers with others hosted by laypeople with an interest in the topic; discretion should be used as to the clinical and scientific accuracy of these sites. The dermatologist in particular can follow these patients and assess for changes in severity of skin disease, subjective well-being, need for medications and adjunctive therapies, and status of comorbid conditions.

For more information on the ketogenic diet, consider reading the works of the following physicians and researchers who all have been involved with or are currently conducting research in the medical use of ketones and ketogenic diets: David Perlmutter, MD; Thomas Seyfried, PhD; Dominic D’Agostino, PhD; Terry Wahls, MD; Jeff Volek, PhD; and Peter Attia, MD.

Conclusion

Based on the available data, there is potential for use of the ketogenic diet in an adjunctive manner for dermatologic applications, and studies should be undertaken to establish the efficacy or inefficacy of this diet as a preventive measure or treatment of skin disease. With the large push for complementary and alternative therapies over the last decade, particularly for skin disease, the time for research on the ketogenic diet is ripe. Over the coming years, it is our hope that larger clinical, randomized, controlled trials will be conducted for the benefit of dermatology patients worldwide.

The ketogenic diet has been therapeutically employed by physicians since the times of Hippocrates, primarily for its effect on the nervous system.¹ The neurologic literature is inundated with the uses of this medicinal diet for applications in the treatment of epilepsy, neurodegenerative disease, malignancy, and enzyme deficiencies, among others.² In recent years, physicians and scientists have moved to study the application of a ketogenic diet in the realms of cardiovascular disease,³ autoimmune disease,⁴ management of diabetes mellitus (DM) and obesity,^3,5 and enhancement of sports and combat performance,⁶ all with promising results. Increased interest in alternative therapies among the lay population and the efficacy purported by many adherents has spurred intrigue by health care professionals. Over the last decade, there has seen a boom in so-called holistic approaches to health; included are the Paleo Diet, Primal Blueprint Diet, Bulletproof Diet, and the ketogenic/low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. The benefits of ketones in these diets—through intermittent fasting or cyclical ketosis—–for cognitive enhancement, overall well-being, amelioration of chronic disease states, and increased health span have been promulgated to the lay population. But to date, there is a large gap in the literature on the applications of ketones as well as the ketogenic diet in dermatology and skin health and disease.

The aim of this article is not to summarize the uses of ketones and the ketogenic diet in dermatologic applications (because, unfortunately, those studies have not been undertaken) but to provide evidence from all available literature to support the need for targeted research and to encourage dermatologists to investigate ketones and their role in treating skin disease, primarily in an adjunctive manner. In doing so, a clearly medicinal diet may gain a foothold in the disease-treatment repertoire and among health-promoting agents of the dermatologist. Given the amount of capital being spent on health care, there is an ever-increasing need for low-cost, safe, and tolerable treatments that can be used for multiple disease processes and to promote health. We believe the ketogenic diet is such an adjunctive therapeutic option, as it has clearly been proven to be tolerable, safe, and efficacious for many people over the last millennia.

We conducted a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using varying combinations of the terms ketones, ketogenic, skin, inflammation, metabolic, oxidation, dermatology, and dermatologic and found 12 articles. Herein, we summarize the relevant articles and the works cited by those articles.

Adverse Effects of the Ketogenic Diet

As with all medical therapies, the ketogenic diet is not without risk of adverse effects, which should be communicated at the outset of this article and with patients in the clinic. The only known absolute contraindications to a ketogenic diet are porphyria and pyruvate carboxylase deficiency secondary to underlying metabolic derangements.⁷ Certain metabolic cytopathies and carnitine deficiency are relative contraindications, and patients with these conditions should be cautiously placed on this diet and closely monitored. Dehydration, acidosis, lethargy, hypoglycemia, dyslipidemia, electrolyte imbalances, prurigo pigmentosa, and gastrointestinal distress may be an acute issue, but these effects are transient and can be managed. Chronic adverse effects are nephrolithiasis (there are recommended screening procedures for those at risk and prophylactic therapies, which is beyond the scope of this article) and weight loss.⁷

NLRP3 Inflammasome Suppression

Youm et al⁸ reported their findings in Nature Medicine that β-hydroxybutyrate, a ketone body that naturally circulates in the human body, specifically suppresses activity of the NLRP3 inflammasome. The NLRP3 inflammasome serves as the activating platform for IL-1β.⁸ Aberrant and elevated IL-1β levels cause or are associated with a number of dermatologic diseases—namely, the autoinflammatory syndromes (familial cold autoinflammatory syndrome, Muckle-Wells syndrome, neonatal-onset multisystemic disease/chronic infantile neurological cutaneous articular syndrome), hyperimmunoglobulinemia D with periodic fever syndrome, tumor necrosis factor–receptor associated periodic syndrome, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, relapsing polychondritis, Schnitzler syndrome, Sweet syndrome, Behçet disease, gout, sunburn and contact hypersensitivity, hidradenitis suppurativa, and metastatic melanoma.⁷ Clearly, the ketogenic diet may be employed in a therapeutic manner (though to what degree, we need further study) for these dermatologic conditions based on the interaction with the NRLP3 inflammasome and IL-1β.

Acne

A link between acne and diet has long been suspected, but a lack of well-controlled studies has caused only speculation to remain. Recent literature suggests that the effects of insulin may be a notable driver of acne through effects on sex hormones and subsequent effects on sebum production and inflammation. Cordain et al⁹ discuss the mechanism by which insulin can worsen acne in a valuable article, which Paoli et al¹⁰ later corroborated. Essentially, insulin propagates acne by 2 known mechanisms. First, an increase in serum insulin causes a rise in insulinlike growth factor 1 levels and a decrease in insulinlike growth factor binding protein 3 levels, which directly influences keratinocyte proliferation and reduces retinoic acid receptor/retinoid X receptor activity in the skin, causing hyperkeratinization and concomitant abnormal desquamation of the follicular epithelium.^9,10 Second, this increase in insulinlike growth factor 1 and insulin causes a decrease in sex hormone–binding globulin and leads to increased androgen production and circulation in the skin, which causes an increase in sebum production. These factors combined with skin that is colonized with Cutibacterium acnes lead to an inflammatory response and the disease known as acne vulgaris.^9,10 A ketogenic diet could help ameliorate acne because it results in very little insulin secretion, unlike the typical Western diet, which causes frequent large spikes in insulin levels. Furthermore, the anti-inflammatory effects of ketones would benefit the inflammatory nature of this disease.

DM and Diabetic Skin Disease

Diabetes mellitus carries with it the risk for skin diseases specific to the diabetic disease process, such as increased risk for bacterial and fungal infections, venous stasis, pruritus (secondary to poor circulation), acanthosis nigricans, diabetic dermopathy, necrobiosis lipoidica diabeticorum, digital sclerosis, and bullosis diabeticorum.¹¹ It is well established that better control of DM results in better disease state outcomes.¹² The ketogenic diet has shown itself to be a formidable and successful treatment in the diseases of carbohydrate intolerance (eg, metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, type 2 DM) because of several known mechanisms, including less glucose entering the body and thus less fat deposition, end-product glycation, and free-radical production (discussed below); enhanced fat loss and metabolic efficiency; increased insulin sensitivity; and decreased inflammation.¹³ Lowering a patient’s insulin resistance through a ketogenic diet may help prevent or treat diabetic skin disease.

Dermatologic Malignancy

A ketogenic diet has been of interest in oncology research as an adjunctive therapy for several reasons: anti-inflammatory effects, antioxidation effects, possible effects on mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) regulation,⁷ and exploitation of the Warburg effect.¹⁴ One article discusses how mTOR, a cell-cycle regulator of particular importance in cancer biology, can be influenced by ketones both directly and indirectly through modulating the inflammatory response.⁷ It has been shown that suppressing mTOR activity limits and slows tumor growth and spread. Ketones also may prove to be a unique method of metabolically exploiting cancer physiology. The Warburg effect, which earned Otto Warburg the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1931, is the observation that cancerous cells produce adenosine triphosphate solely through aerobic glycolysis followed by lactic acid fermentation.¹⁴ This phenomenon is the basis of the positron emission tomography scan. There are several small studies of the effects of ketogenic diets on malignancy, and although none of these studies are of substantial size or control, they show that a ketogenic diet can halt or even reverse tumor growth.¹⁵ The hypothesis is that because cancer cells cannot metabolize ketones (but normal cells can), the Warburg effect can be taken advantage of through a ketogenic diet to aid in the treatment of malignant disease.¹⁴ If further studies find it a formidable treatment, it most certainly would be helpful for the dermatologist involved in the treatment of cutaneous cancers.

Oxidative Stress

Oxidative stress, a state brought about when reactive oxygen species (ROS) production exceeds the antioxidant capacity of the cell and causes damage, is known to be a central part of certain skin diseases (eg, acne, psoriasis, cutaneous malignancy, varicose ulcers, cutaneous allergic reactions, and drug-induced skin photosensitivity).⁷ There are 2 proven mechanisms by which a ketogenic diet can augment the body’s innate antioxidation capacity. First, ketones activate a potent antioxidant upregulating protein known as NRF2, which is bound in cytosol and remains inactive until activated by certain stimuli (ie, ketones).¹⁶ Migration to the nucleus causes transcriptional changes in DNA to upregulate, via a myriad of pathways, antioxidant production in the cell; most notably, it results in increased glutathione levels.¹⁷ NRF2 also targets several genes involved in chronic inflammatory skin diseases that cause an increase in the antioxidant capacity.¹⁸ As an aside, several foods encouraged on a ketogenic diet also activate NRF2 independently of ketones (eg, coffee, broccoli).¹⁹ Second, a ketogenic diet results in fewer produced ROS and an increase in the nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide ratio produced by the mitochondria; in short, it is a more efficient way of producing cellular energy while enhancing mitochondrial function. When fewer ROS are produced, there is less oxidative stress that needs to be attended to by the cell and less cellular damage. Feichtinger et al¹⁹ point out that mitochondrial inefficiency and dysfunction often are overlooked components in several skin diseases, and based on the studies discussed above, these diseases may be aided with a ketogenic diet.

Patient Applications

Clearly, a ketogenic diet is therapeutic, and there are many promising potential roles it may play in the treatment of a wide variety of health and disease states through hormonal normalization, antioxidant effects, anti-inflammatory effects, and improvement of metabolic risk factors. However, there are vast limitations to what is known about the ketogenic diet and how it might be employed, particularly by the dermatologist. First, the ketogenic diet lacks a firm definition. Although processed inflammatory vegetable oils and meats are low in carbohydrates and high in fat by definition, it is impossible to argue that they are healthy options for consumption and disease prevention and treatment. Second, nutrigenomics dictates that there must be an individual role in how the diet is employed (eg, patients who are lactose intolerant will need to stay away from dairy). Third, there are no clear proven clinical results from the ketogenic diet in the realm of dermatology. Fourth, as with everything, there are potential detrimental side effects of the ketogenic diet that must be considered for patients (though there are established screening procedures and prophylactic therapies that are beyond the scope of this article). Further, other diets have shown benefit for many other disease states and health promotion purposes (eg, the Mediterranean diet).²⁰ We do not know yet if the avoidance of certain dietary factors such as processed carbohydrates and fats are more beneficial than adopting a state of ketosis at this time, and therefore we are not claiming superiority of one dietary approach over others that are proven to promote health.

Because there are no large-scale studies of the ketogenic diet, there is no verified standardization of initiating and monitoring it, though certain academic centers do have published methods of doing so.²¹ There are ample anecdotal methods of initiating, maintaining, and monitoring the ketogenic diet.²² In short, drastic restriction of carbohydrate intake and increased fat consumption are the staples of initiating the diet. Medium-chain triglyceride oil supplementation, coffee consumption, intermittent fasting, and low-level aerobic activity also are thought to aid in transition to a ketogenic state. As a result, a dermatologist may recommend that patients interested in this option begin by focusing on fat, fiber, and protein consumption while greatly reducing the amount of carbohydrates in the diet. Morning walks or more intense workouts for fitter patients should be encouraged. Consumption of serum ketone–enhancing foods (eg, coffee, medium-chain triglyceride oil, coconut products) also should be encouraged. A popular beverage known as Bulletproof coffee also may be of interest.²³ A blood ketone meter can be used for biofeedback to reinforce these behaviors by aiming for proper β-hydroxybutyrate levels. Numerous companies and websites exist for supporting those patients wishing to pursue a ketogenic state, some hosted by physicians/researchers with others hosted by laypeople with an interest in the topic; discretion should be used as to the clinical and scientific accuracy of these sites. The dermatologist in particular can follow these patients and assess for changes in severity of skin disease, subjective well-being, need for medications and adjunctive therapies, and status of comorbid conditions.

For more information on the ketogenic diet, consider reading the works of the following physicians and researchers who all have been involved with or are currently conducting research in the medical use of ketones and ketogenic diets: David Perlmutter, MD; Thomas Seyfried, PhD; Dominic D’Agostino, PhD; Terry Wahls, MD; Jeff Volek, PhD; and Peter Attia, MD.

Conclusion

Based on the available data, there is potential for use of the ketogenic diet in an adjunctive manner for dermatologic applications, and studies should be undertaken to establish the efficacy or inefficacy of this diet as a preventive measure or treatment of skin disease. With the large push for complementary and alternative therapies over the last decade, particularly for skin disease, the time for research on the ketogenic diet is ripe. Over the coming years, it is our hope that larger clinical, randomized, controlled trials will be conducted for the benefit of dermatology patients worldwide.

The ketogenic diet has been therapeutically employed by physicians since the times of Hippocrates, primarily for its effect on the nervous system.¹ The neurologic literature is inundated with the uses of this medicinal diet for applications in the treatment of epilepsy, neurodegenerative disease, malignancy, and enzyme deficiencies, among others.² In recent years, physicians and scientists have moved to study the application of a ketogenic diet in the realms of cardiovascular disease,³ autoimmune disease,⁴ management of diabetes mellitus (DM) and obesity,^3,5 and enhancement of sports and combat performance,⁶ all with promising results. Increased interest in alternative therapies among the lay population and the efficacy purported by many adherents has spurred intrigue by health care professionals. Over the last decade, there has seen a boom in so-called holistic approaches to health; included are the Paleo Diet, Primal Blueprint Diet, Bulletproof Diet, and the ketogenic/low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. The benefits of ketones in these diets—through intermittent fasting or cyclical ketosis—–for cognitive enhancement, overall well-being, amelioration of chronic disease states, and increased health span have been promulgated to the lay population. But to date, there is a large gap in the literature on the applications of ketones as well as the ketogenic diet in dermatology and skin health and disease.

The aim of this article is not to summarize the uses of ketones and the ketogenic diet in dermatologic applications (because, unfortunately, those studies have not been undertaken) but to provide evidence from all available literature to support the need for targeted research and to encourage dermatologists to investigate ketones and their role in treating skin disease, primarily in an adjunctive manner. In doing so, a clearly medicinal diet may gain a foothold in the disease-treatment repertoire and among health-promoting agents of the dermatologist. Given the amount of capital being spent on health care, there is an ever-increasing need for low-cost, safe, and tolerable treatments that can be used for multiple disease processes and to promote health. We believe the ketogenic diet is such an adjunctive therapeutic option, as it has clearly been proven to be tolerable, safe, and efficacious for many people over the last millennia.

We conducted a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using varying combinations of the terms ketones, ketogenic, skin, inflammation, metabolic, oxidation, dermatology, and dermatologic and found 12 articles. Herein, we summarize the relevant articles and the works cited by those articles.

Adverse Effects of the Ketogenic Diet

As with all medical therapies, the ketogenic diet is not without risk of adverse effects, which should be communicated at the outset of this article and with patients in the clinic. The only known absolute contraindications to a ketogenic diet are porphyria and pyruvate carboxylase deficiency secondary to underlying metabolic derangements.⁷ Certain metabolic cytopathies and carnitine deficiency are relative contraindications, and patients with these conditions should be cautiously placed on this diet and closely monitored. Dehydration, acidosis, lethargy, hypoglycemia, dyslipidemia, electrolyte imbalances, prurigo pigmentosa, and gastrointestinal distress may be an acute issue, but these effects are transient and can be managed. Chronic adverse effects are nephrolithiasis (there are recommended screening procedures for those at risk and prophylactic therapies, which is beyond the scope of this article) and weight loss.⁷

NLRP3 Inflammasome Suppression

Youm et al⁸ reported their findings in Nature Medicine that β-hydroxybutyrate, a ketone body that naturally circulates in the human body, specifically suppresses activity of the NLRP3 inflammasome. The NLRP3 inflammasome serves as the activating platform for IL-1β.⁸ Aberrant and elevated IL-1β levels cause or are associated with a number of dermatologic diseases—namely, the autoinflammatory syndromes (familial cold autoinflammatory syndrome, Muckle-Wells syndrome, neonatal-onset multisystemic disease/chronic infantile neurological cutaneous articular syndrome), hyperimmunoglobulinemia D with periodic fever syndrome, tumor necrosis factor–receptor associated periodic syndrome, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, relapsing polychondritis, Schnitzler syndrome, Sweet syndrome, Behçet disease, gout, sunburn and contact hypersensitivity, hidradenitis suppurativa, and metastatic melanoma.⁷ Clearly, the ketogenic diet may be employed in a therapeutic manner (though to what degree, we need further study) for these dermatologic conditions based on the interaction with the NRLP3 inflammasome and IL-1β.

Acne

A link between acne and diet has long been suspected, but a lack of well-controlled studies has caused only speculation to remain. Recent literature suggests that the effects of insulin may be a notable driver of acne through effects on sex hormones and subsequent effects on sebum production and inflammation. Cordain et al⁹ discuss the mechanism by which insulin can worsen acne in a valuable article, which Paoli et al¹⁰ later corroborated. Essentially, insulin propagates acne by 2 known mechanisms. First, an increase in serum insulin causes a rise in insulinlike growth factor 1 levels and a decrease in insulinlike growth factor binding protein 3 levels, which directly influences keratinocyte proliferation and reduces retinoic acid receptor/retinoid X receptor activity in the skin, causing hyperkeratinization and concomitant abnormal desquamation of the follicular epithelium.^9,10 Second, this increase in insulinlike growth factor 1 and insulin causes a decrease in sex hormone–binding globulin and leads to increased androgen production and circulation in the skin, which causes an increase in sebum production. These factors combined with skin that is colonized with Cutibacterium acnes lead to an inflammatory response and the disease known as acne vulgaris.^9,10 A ketogenic diet could help ameliorate acne because it results in very little insulin secretion, unlike the typical Western diet, which causes frequent large spikes in insulin levels. Furthermore, the anti-inflammatory effects of ketones would benefit the inflammatory nature of this disease.

DM and Diabetic Skin Disease

Diabetes mellitus carries with it the risk for skin diseases specific to the diabetic disease process, such as increased risk for bacterial and fungal infections, venous stasis, pruritus (secondary to poor circulation), acanthosis nigricans, diabetic dermopathy, necrobiosis lipoidica diabeticorum, digital sclerosis, and bullosis diabeticorum.¹¹ It is well established that better control of DM results in better disease state outcomes.¹² The ketogenic diet has shown itself to be a formidable and successful treatment in the diseases of carbohydrate intolerance (eg, metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, type 2 DM) because of several known mechanisms, including less glucose entering the body and thus less fat deposition, end-product glycation, and free-radical production (discussed below); enhanced fat loss and metabolic efficiency; increased insulin sensitivity; and decreased inflammation.¹³ Lowering a patient’s insulin resistance through a ketogenic diet may help prevent or treat diabetic skin disease.

Dermatologic Malignancy

A ketogenic diet has been of interest in oncology research as an adjunctive therapy for several reasons: anti-inflammatory effects, antioxidation effects, possible effects on mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) regulation,⁷ and exploitation of the Warburg effect.¹⁴ One article discusses how mTOR, a cell-cycle regulator of particular importance in cancer biology, can be influenced by ketones both directly and indirectly through modulating the inflammatory response.⁷ It has been shown that suppressing mTOR activity limits and slows tumor growth and spread. Ketones also may prove to be a unique method of metabolically exploiting cancer physiology. The Warburg effect, which earned Otto Warburg the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1931, is the observation that cancerous cells produce adenosine triphosphate solely through aerobic glycolysis followed by lactic acid fermentation.¹⁴ This phenomenon is the basis of the positron emission tomography scan. There are several small studies of the effects of ketogenic diets on malignancy, and although none of these studies are of substantial size or control, they show that a ketogenic diet can halt or even reverse tumor growth.¹⁵ The hypothesis is that because cancer cells cannot metabolize ketones (but normal cells can), the Warburg effect can be taken advantage of through a ketogenic diet to aid in the treatment of malignant disease.¹⁴ If further studies find it a formidable treatment, it most certainly would be helpful for the dermatologist involved in the treatment of cutaneous cancers.

Oxidative Stress

Oxidative stress, a state brought about when reactive oxygen species (ROS) production exceeds the antioxidant capacity of the cell and causes damage, is known to be a central part of certain skin diseases (eg, acne, psoriasis, cutaneous malignancy, varicose ulcers, cutaneous allergic reactions, and drug-induced skin photosensitivity).⁷ There are 2 proven mechanisms by which a ketogenic diet can augment the body’s innate antioxidation capacity. First, ketones activate a potent antioxidant upregulating protein known as NRF2, which is bound in cytosol and remains inactive until activated by certain stimuli (ie, ketones).¹⁶ Migration to the nucleus causes transcriptional changes in DNA to upregulate, via a myriad of pathways, antioxidant production in the cell; most notably, it results in increased glutathione levels.¹⁷ NRF2 also targets several genes involved in chronic inflammatory skin diseases that cause an increase in the antioxidant capacity.¹⁸ As an aside, several foods encouraged on a ketogenic diet also activate NRF2 independently of ketones (eg, coffee, broccoli).¹⁹ Second, a ketogenic diet results in fewer produced ROS and an increase in the nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide ratio produced by the mitochondria; in short, it is a more efficient way of producing cellular energy while enhancing mitochondrial function. When fewer ROS are produced, there is less oxidative stress that needs to be attended to by the cell and less cellular damage. Feichtinger et al¹⁹ point out that mitochondrial inefficiency and dysfunction often are overlooked components in several skin diseases, and based on the studies discussed above, these diseases may be aided with a ketogenic diet.

Patient Applications

Clearly, a ketogenic diet is therapeutic, and there are many promising potential roles it may play in the treatment of a wide variety of health and disease states through hormonal normalization, antioxidant effects, anti-inflammatory effects, and improvement of metabolic risk factors. However, there are vast limitations to what is known about the ketogenic diet and how it might be employed, particularly by the dermatologist. First, the ketogenic diet lacks a firm definition. Although processed inflammatory vegetable oils and meats are low in carbohydrates and high in fat by definition, it is impossible to argue that they are healthy options for consumption and disease prevention and treatment. Second, nutrigenomics dictates that there must be an individual role in how the diet is employed (eg, patients who are lactose intolerant will need to stay away from dairy). Third, there are no clear proven clinical results from the ketogenic diet in the realm of dermatology. Fourth, as with everything, there are potential detrimental side effects of the ketogenic diet that must be considered for patients (though there are established screening procedures and prophylactic therapies that are beyond the scope of this article). Further, other diets have shown benefit for many other disease states and health promotion purposes (eg, the Mediterranean diet).²⁰ We do not know yet if the avoidance of certain dietary factors such as processed carbohydrates and fats are more beneficial than adopting a state of ketosis at this time, and therefore we are not claiming superiority of one dietary approach over others that are proven to promote health.

Because there are no large-scale studies of the ketogenic diet, there is no verified standardization of initiating and monitoring it, though certain academic centers do have published methods of doing so.²¹ There are ample anecdotal methods of initiating, maintaining, and monitoring the ketogenic diet.²² In short, drastic restriction of carbohydrate intake and increased fat consumption are the staples of initiating the diet. Medium-chain triglyceride oil supplementation, coffee consumption, intermittent fasting, and low-level aerobic activity also are thought to aid in transition to a ketogenic state. As a result, a dermatologist may recommend that patients interested in this option begin by focusing on fat, fiber, and protein consumption while greatly reducing the amount of carbohydrates in the diet. Morning walks or more intense workouts for fitter patients should be encouraged. Consumption of serum ketone–enhancing foods (eg, coffee, medium-chain triglyceride oil, coconut products) also should be encouraged. A popular beverage known as Bulletproof coffee also may be of interest.²³ A blood ketone meter can be used for biofeedback to reinforce these behaviors by aiming for proper β-hydroxybutyrate levels. Numerous companies and websites exist for supporting those patients wishing to pursue a ketogenic state, some hosted by physicians/researchers with others hosted by laypeople with an interest in the topic; discretion should be used as to the clinical and scientific accuracy of these sites. The dermatologist in particular can follow these patients and assess for changes in severity of skin disease, subjective well-being, need for medications and adjunctive therapies, and status of comorbid conditions.

For more information on the ketogenic diet, consider reading the works of the following physicians and researchers who all have been involved with or are currently conducting research in the medical use of ketones and ketogenic diets: David Perlmutter, MD; Thomas Seyfried, PhD; Dominic D’Agostino, PhD; Terry Wahls, MD; Jeff Volek, PhD; and Peter Attia, MD.

Conclusion

Based on the available data, there is potential for use of the ketogenic diet in an adjunctive manner for dermatologic applications, and studies should be undertaken to establish the efficacy or inefficacy of this diet as a preventive measure or treatment of skin disease. With the large push for complementary and alternative therapies over the last decade, particularly for skin disease, the time for research on the ketogenic diet is ripe. Over the coming years, it is our hope that larger clinical, randomized, controlled trials will be conducted for the benefit of dermatology patients worldwide.

Interleukin-17 and IL-23 inhibitors were safe and well-tolerated in most patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis during treatment for up to 52 weeks, according to the results of a meta-analysis of 44 studies.

While associated with more adverse events than with placebo, IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors are “generally well-tolerated and considered safe,” but the extent of adverse events and the existence of a possible drug class effect “have not been fully investigated,” wrote Nikolai D. Loft, MD, of the department of dermatology and allergy at Herlev and Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, the researchers identified phase 3 studies with data on adverse event reports in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis who were treated with either IL-17 inhibitors (brodalumab, ixekizumab, or secukinumab) or IL-23 inhibitors (guselkumab, risankizumab, or tildrakizumab).

Overall, across all treatments, the proportion of patients with reports of any adverse events ranged from 0.49 to 0.57 in short-term studies (12-16 weeks) and from 0.83 to 0.93 with long-term treatment (52 weeks). In a pooled analysis, the proportion of patients with any adverse events was 0.57, 0.52, 0.72, and 0.81, at 12, 16, 24, and 52 weeks, respectively.

The most common adverse events across all treatments were infections, nasopharyngitis, and headaches. Among those on ixekizumab, injection-site reactions was one of the most common adverse events reported, in nearly 16% of patients after 52 weeks of treatment, the authors noted.

Fewer adverse events were reported in patients on IL-23 inhibitors, compared with those on IL-17 inhibitors. The proportion of patients reporting serious adverse events was “low,” the researchers wrote. Patients on tildrakizumab had the lowest proportion of any adverse events overall, based on short-term data over 12-16 weeks.

No significant differences emerged in reported adverse events across IL-17 inhibitors after 52 weeks.

Other findings included a higher prevalence of Candida infections among those treated with IL-17 inhibitors after 12-16 weeks and 24 weeks, compared with those on placebo, but the infections, described as mild to moderate, did not result in drug discontinuation, the authors noted. The potential risk of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) associated with IL-17 inhibitors has been raised as a concern, but in their analysis, “IBD was very rare and after 12 weeks no difference between active treatments and placebo was seen.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including incomplete data for interdrug comparison, varying time points for safety measures, differences in dosing in clinical trials than the approved dosing, and lack of longer-term follow-up data for most of the treatments, the researchers noted. However, the analysis was strengthened by the inclusion of phase 3 studies with both short-and long-term data, and “overall, IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors appear to be well-tolerated with good safety profiles.”

Dr. Loft disclosed serving as an honorary speaker for Eli Lilly; other coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies; two authors reported no conflicts of interest. There were no funding sources for the study listed.

SOURCE: Loft ND et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2019 Nov 13. doi: 10.1111/jdv.16073.

Interleukin-17 and IL-23 inhibitors were safe and well-tolerated in most patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis during treatment for up to 52 weeks, according to the results of a meta-analysis of 44 studies.

While associated with more adverse events than with placebo, IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors are “generally well-tolerated and considered safe,” but the extent of adverse events and the existence of a possible drug class effect “have not been fully investigated,” wrote Nikolai D. Loft, MD, of the department of dermatology and allergy at Herlev and Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, the researchers identified phase 3 studies with data on adverse event reports in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis who were treated with either IL-17 inhibitors (brodalumab, ixekizumab, or secukinumab) or IL-23 inhibitors (guselkumab, risankizumab, or tildrakizumab).

Overall, across all treatments, the proportion of patients with reports of any adverse events ranged from 0.49 to 0.57 in short-term studies (12-16 weeks) and from 0.83 to 0.93 with long-term treatment (52 weeks). In a pooled analysis, the proportion of patients with any adverse events was 0.57, 0.52, 0.72, and 0.81, at 12, 16, 24, and 52 weeks, respectively.

The most common adverse events across all treatments were infections, nasopharyngitis, and headaches. Among those on ixekizumab, injection-site reactions was one of the most common adverse events reported, in nearly 16% of patients after 52 weeks of treatment, the authors noted.

Fewer adverse events were reported in patients on IL-23 inhibitors, compared with those on IL-17 inhibitors. The proportion of patients reporting serious adverse events was “low,” the researchers wrote. Patients on tildrakizumab had the lowest proportion of any adverse events overall, based on short-term data over 12-16 weeks.

No significant differences emerged in reported adverse events across IL-17 inhibitors after 52 weeks.

Other findings included a higher prevalence of Candida infections among those treated with IL-17 inhibitors after 12-16 weeks and 24 weeks, compared with those on placebo, but the infections, described as mild to moderate, did not result in drug discontinuation, the authors noted. The potential risk of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) associated with IL-17 inhibitors has been raised as a concern, but in their analysis, “IBD was very rare and after 12 weeks no difference between active treatments and placebo was seen.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including incomplete data for interdrug comparison, varying time points for safety measures, differences in dosing in clinical trials than the approved dosing, and lack of longer-term follow-up data for most of the treatments, the researchers noted. However, the analysis was strengthened by the inclusion of phase 3 studies with both short-and long-term data, and “overall, IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors appear to be well-tolerated with good safety profiles.”

Dr. Loft disclosed serving as an honorary speaker for Eli Lilly; other coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies; two authors reported no conflicts of interest. There were no funding sources for the study listed.

SOURCE: Loft ND et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2019 Nov 13. doi: 10.1111/jdv.16073.

Interleukin-17 and IL-23 inhibitors were safe and well-tolerated in most patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis during treatment for up to 52 weeks, according to the results of a meta-analysis of 44 studies.

While associated with more adverse events than with placebo, IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors are “generally well-tolerated and considered safe,” but the extent of adverse events and the existence of a possible drug class effect “have not been fully investigated,” wrote Nikolai D. Loft, MD, of the department of dermatology and allergy at Herlev and Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, the researchers identified phase 3 studies with data on adverse event reports in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis who were treated with either IL-17 inhibitors (brodalumab, ixekizumab, or secukinumab) or IL-23 inhibitors (guselkumab, risankizumab, or tildrakizumab).

Overall, across all treatments, the proportion of patients with reports of any adverse events ranged from 0.49 to 0.57 in short-term studies (12-16 weeks) and from 0.83 to 0.93 with long-term treatment (52 weeks). In a pooled analysis, the proportion of patients with any adverse events was 0.57, 0.52, 0.72, and 0.81, at 12, 16, 24, and 52 weeks, respectively.

The most common adverse events across all treatments were infections, nasopharyngitis, and headaches. Among those on ixekizumab, injection-site reactions was one of the most common adverse events reported, in nearly 16% of patients after 52 weeks of treatment, the authors noted.

Fewer adverse events were reported in patients on IL-23 inhibitors, compared with those on IL-17 inhibitors. The proportion of patients reporting serious adverse events was “low,” the researchers wrote. Patients on tildrakizumab had the lowest proportion of any adverse events overall, based on short-term data over 12-16 weeks.

No significant differences emerged in reported adverse events across IL-17 inhibitors after 52 weeks.

Other findings included a higher prevalence of Candida infections among those treated with IL-17 inhibitors after 12-16 weeks and 24 weeks, compared with those on placebo, but the infections, described as mild to moderate, did not result in drug discontinuation, the authors noted. The potential risk of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) associated with IL-17 inhibitors has been raised as a concern, but in their analysis, “IBD was very rare and after 12 weeks no difference between active treatments and placebo was seen.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including incomplete data for interdrug comparison, varying time points for safety measures, differences in dosing in clinical trials than the approved dosing, and lack of longer-term follow-up data for most of the treatments, the researchers noted. However, the analysis was strengthened by the inclusion of phase 3 studies with both short-and long-term data, and “overall, IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors appear to be well-tolerated with good safety profiles.”

Dr. Loft disclosed serving as an honorary speaker for Eli Lilly; other coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies; two authors reported no conflicts of interest. There were no funding sources for the study listed.

SOURCE: Loft ND et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2019 Nov 13. doi: 10.1111/jdv.16073.

The use of ultrasound in screening for psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis could reduce the number of unnecessary referrals to rheumatologists, according to a research letter published in the British Journal of Dermatology.

Bogdanhoda/Thinkstock

Up to one-third of patients with psoriasis have underlying psoriatic arthritis (PsA), but half of all patients with psoriasis experience nonspecific musculoskeletal complaints.

“Different screening tools have been developed for the dermatology practice to distinguish patients with a higher likelihood of having PsA; however, the low specificities of these tools limit their use in clinical practice,” wrote Dilek Solmaz, MD, and colleagues at the University of Ottawa.

In this prospective study, 51 patients with psoriasis were screened for referral to a rheumatologist using the Early Arthritis for Psoriatic Patients and Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool questionnaires. They also underwent a limited ultrasound scanning of wrists, hands, feet, and the most painful joint, which was reviewed by experienced rheumatologists.

A dermatologist was asked to make a decision on referral based on the questionnaire data alone, then invited to revisit that decision after viewing the ultrasound results. When basing their decision on the questionnaires only, the dermatologist decided to refer 92% of patients to a rheumatologist. Of these patients, 40% were subsequently diagnosed with PsA, which represented a sensitivity of 95% but specificity of just 9%.

After reviewing the ultrasound data, the dermatologist revised their recommendations and only referred 43% of patients. Of these, 68% were later diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis. Among the patients who were not referred after the ultrasound review, five were diagnosed with PsA, but two had isolated axial involvement with no peripheral joint disease. Excluding these two cases, the sensitivity decreased to 88% but specificity increased to 77%.

“Screening tools in psoriasis that have high sensitivities usually have low specificities, which means a higher number of patients to be referred to rheumatology than needed,” the authors wrote. “Our study demonstrated that a musculoskeletal [ultrasound] based on a predefined protocol improves the referrals made to rheumatology.”

The authors did note that the ultrasounds were reviewed by experienced rheumatologists, so the results might not be generalizable to less-experienced sonographers without experience in musculoskeletal disorders.

The study was funded by AbbVie. One author declared receiving funding for a fellowship from UCB. Two authors declared honoraria and advisory consultancies with the pharmaceutical sector, including AbbVie.

SOURCE: Solmaz D et al. Br J Dermatol. 2019 Nov 28. doi: 10.1111/bjd.18515.

The use of ultrasound in screening for psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis could reduce the number of unnecessary referrals to rheumatologists, according to a research letter published in the British Journal of Dermatology.

Bogdanhoda/Thinkstock

Up to one-third of patients with psoriasis have underlying psoriatic arthritis (PsA), but half of all patients with psoriasis experience nonspecific musculoskeletal complaints.

“Different screening tools have been developed for the dermatology practice to distinguish patients with a higher likelihood of having PsA; however, the low specificities of these tools limit their use in clinical practice,” wrote Dilek Solmaz, MD, and colleagues at the University of Ottawa.

In this prospective study, 51 patients with psoriasis were screened for referral to a rheumatologist using the Early Arthritis for Psoriatic Patients and Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool questionnaires. They also underwent a limited ultrasound scanning of wrists, hands, feet, and the most painful joint, which was reviewed by experienced rheumatologists.

A dermatologist was asked to make a decision on referral based on the questionnaire data alone, then invited to revisit that decision after viewing the ultrasound results. When basing their decision on the questionnaires only, the dermatologist decided to refer 92% of patients to a rheumatologist. Of these patients, 40% were subsequently diagnosed with PsA, which represented a sensitivity of 95% but specificity of just 9%.

After reviewing the ultrasound data, the dermatologist revised their recommendations and only referred 43% of patients. Of these, 68% were later diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis. Among the patients who were not referred after the ultrasound review, five were diagnosed with PsA, but two had isolated axial involvement with no peripheral joint disease. Excluding these two cases, the sensitivity decreased to 88% but specificity increased to 77%.

“Screening tools in psoriasis that have high sensitivities usually have low specificities, which means a higher number of patients to be referred to rheumatology than needed,” the authors wrote. “Our study demonstrated that a musculoskeletal [ultrasound] based on a predefined protocol improves the referrals made to rheumatology.”

The authors did note that the ultrasounds were reviewed by experienced rheumatologists, so the results might not be generalizable to less-experienced sonographers without experience in musculoskeletal disorders.

The study was funded by AbbVie. One author declared receiving funding for a fellowship from UCB. Two authors declared honoraria and advisory consultancies with the pharmaceutical sector, including AbbVie.

SOURCE: Solmaz D et al. Br J Dermatol. 2019 Nov 28. doi: 10.1111/bjd.18515.

The use of ultrasound in screening for psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis could reduce the number of unnecessary referrals to rheumatologists, according to a research letter published in the British Journal of Dermatology.

Bogdanhoda/Thinkstock

Up to one-third of patients with psoriasis have underlying psoriatic arthritis (PsA), but half of all patients with psoriasis experience nonspecific musculoskeletal complaints.

“Different screening tools have been developed for the dermatology practice to distinguish patients with a higher likelihood of having PsA; however, the low specificities of these tools limit their use in clinical practice,” wrote Dilek Solmaz, MD, and colleagues at the University of Ottawa.

In this prospective study, 51 patients with psoriasis were screened for referral to a rheumatologist using the Early Arthritis for Psoriatic Patients and Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool questionnaires. They also underwent a limited ultrasound scanning of wrists, hands, feet, and the most painful joint, which was reviewed by experienced rheumatologists.

A dermatologist was asked to make a decision on referral based on the questionnaire data alone, then invited to revisit that decision after viewing the ultrasound results. When basing their decision on the questionnaires only, the dermatologist decided to refer 92% of patients to a rheumatologist. Of these patients, 40% were subsequently diagnosed with PsA, which represented a sensitivity of 95% but specificity of just 9%.

After reviewing the ultrasound data, the dermatologist revised their recommendations and only referred 43% of patients. Of these, 68% were later diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis. Among the patients who were not referred after the ultrasound review, five were diagnosed with PsA, but two had isolated axial involvement with no peripheral joint disease. Excluding these two cases, the sensitivity decreased to 88% but specificity increased to 77%.

“Screening tools in psoriasis that have high sensitivities usually have low specificities, which means a higher number of patients to be referred to rheumatology than needed,” the authors wrote. “Our study demonstrated that a musculoskeletal [ultrasound] based on a predefined protocol improves the referrals made to rheumatology.”

The authors did note that the ultrasounds were reviewed by experienced rheumatologists, so the results might not be generalizable to less-experienced sonographers without experience in musculoskeletal disorders.

The study was funded by AbbVie. One author declared receiving funding for a fellowship from UCB. Two authors declared honoraria and advisory consultancies with the pharmaceutical sector, including AbbVie.

SOURCE: Solmaz D et al. Br J Dermatol. 2019 Nov 28. doi: 10.1111/bjd.18515.

To the Editor:

A 76-year-old woman with venous insufficiency presented with numerous thick, hyperkeratotic, confluent papules and plaques involving both legs and thighs as well as the lower back. She initially developed lesions on the distal legs, which progressed to involve the thighs and lower back, slowly enlarging over 7 years (Figure 1). The eruption was associated with pruritus and was profoundly malodorous. The patient had been unsuccessfully treated with triamcinolone ointment, bleach baths, and several courses of oral antibiotics. Her history was remarkable for marked venous insufficiency and mild anemia, with a hemoglobin level of 11.9 g/dL (reference range, 14.0–17.5 g/dL). She had no other abnormalities on a comprehensive blood test, basic metabolic panel, or liver function test.

A punch biopsy specimen from the left lower back was obtained and demonstrated papillomatous psoriasiform epidermal hyperplasia with broad parakeratosis, few intracorneal neutrophils, hypogranulosis, and suprapapillary thinning (Figure 2). She was initially treated with oral methotrexate (20 mg weekly), resulting in partial improvement of plaques and complete resolution of pruritus and malodor. After 15 months of treatment with methotrexate, low-dose methotrexate (10 mg weekly) in combination with acitretin 25 mg daily was started, resulting in further improvement of hyperkeratosis (Figure 3). The patient also was given a compounded corticosteroid ointment containing liquor carbonis detergens, salicylic acid, and fluocinonide ointment, achieving minor additional benefit. Comprehensive metabolic panel, lipid panel, and liver function tests were obtained quarterly. Hemoglobin levels remained low, similar to baseline (11.3–12.5 g/dL), while all other values were within reference range. The patient tolerated treatment well, reporting mild dryness of lips on review of systems, which was attributed to acitretin and was treated with emollients.

The etiology of this entity is unknown. An association with diabetes mellitus, pulmonary disease, lymphatic circulation disorders, and immunosuppression has been proposed. Others have reported repeated trauma as contributing to the pathogenesis.¹ For our patient, trauma secondary to scratching, long-standing venous insufficiency, and neglect likely contributed to the development of verrucous plaques.

The diagnosis of verrucous psoriasis can be challenging because of its similarity to several other entities, including verruca vulgaris; epidermal nevus; and squamous cell carcinoma, particularly verrucous carcinoma.^4,6,7 The diagnosis has been less challenging in areas where prior typical psoriatic lesions evolved into a verrucous morphology. Our patient presented a diagnostic challenge and draws attention to this unique variant of psoriasis that could easily be misdiagnosed and lead to inappropriate treatment.

Verrucous psoriasis can be recalcitrant to therapy. Although studies addressing treatment modalities are lacking, several recommendations can be derived from case reports and our patient. The use of topical therapies, including topical corticosteroids (eg, fluocinonide, clobetasol, halobetasol), keratolytic agents (eg, urea, salicylic acid), and calcipotriene, provide only minimal improvement when used as monotherapy.¹ Better success has been reported with systemic therapies, mainly methotrexate and acitretin, with anecdotal reports favoring the use of oral retinoids.^1,6 Conversely, biologic medications such as etanercept, ustekinumab, adalimumab, and infliximab have only provided a partial response.¹ Combination therapies including intralesional triamcinolone plus methotrexate⁴ or methotrexate plus acitretin, as in our patient, seem to provide additional benefit. Methotrexate and acitretin combination therapy has traditionally been avoided because of the risk for hepatotoxicity. However, a case series has demonstrated a moderate safety profile with concurrent use of these drugs in treatment-resistant psoriasis.⁸ In our case, clinical response was most pronounced with combination therapy of methotrexate 10 mg weekly and acitretin 25 mg daily. Thus, strong consideration should be given for combination methotrexate-acitretin therapy in patients with recalcitrant verrucous psoriasis who lack comorbid conditions.

We present a case of verrucous psoriasis, a variant of psoriasis characterized by hypertrophic plaques. We propose that venous insufficiency and long-standing untreated disease was instrumental to the development of these lesions. Furthermore, retinoids, particularly in combination with methotrexate, provided the most benefit for our patient.

Acknowledgment
We thank Stephen Somach, MD (Cleveland, Ohio), for his help interpreting the microscopic findings in our biopsy specimen. He received no compensation.

To the Editor:

A 76-year-old woman with venous insufficiency presented with numerous thick, hyperkeratotic, confluent papules and plaques involving both legs and thighs as well as the lower back. She initially developed lesions on the distal legs, which progressed to involve the thighs and lower back, slowly enlarging over 7 years (Figure 1). The eruption was associated with pruritus and was profoundly malodorous. The patient had been unsuccessfully treated with triamcinolone ointment, bleach baths, and several courses of oral antibiotics. Her history was remarkable for marked venous insufficiency and mild anemia, with a hemoglobin level of 11.9 g/dL (reference range, 14.0–17.5 g/dL). She had no other abnormalities on a comprehensive blood test, basic metabolic panel, or liver function test.

A punch biopsy specimen from the left lower back was obtained and demonstrated papillomatous psoriasiform epidermal hyperplasia with broad parakeratosis, few intracorneal neutrophils, hypogranulosis, and suprapapillary thinning (Figure 2). She was initially treated with oral methotrexate (20 mg weekly), resulting in partial improvement of plaques and complete resolution of pruritus and malodor. After 15 months of treatment with methotrexate, low-dose methotrexate (10 mg weekly) in combination with acitretin 25 mg daily was started, resulting in further improvement of hyperkeratosis (Figure 3). The patient also was given a compounded corticosteroid ointment containing liquor carbonis detergens, salicylic acid, and fluocinonide ointment, achieving minor additional benefit. Comprehensive metabolic panel, lipid panel, and liver function tests were obtained quarterly. Hemoglobin levels remained low, similar to baseline (11.3–12.5 g/dL), while all other values were within reference range. The patient tolerated treatment well, reporting mild dryness of lips on review of systems, which was attributed to acitretin and was treated with emollients.

The etiology of this entity is unknown. An association with diabetes mellitus, pulmonary disease, lymphatic circulation disorders, and immunosuppression has been proposed. Others have reported repeated trauma as contributing to the pathogenesis.¹ For our patient, trauma secondary to scratching, long-standing venous insufficiency, and neglect likely contributed to the development of verrucous plaques.

The diagnosis of verrucous psoriasis can be challenging because of its similarity to several other entities, including verruca vulgaris; epidermal nevus; and squamous cell carcinoma, particularly verrucous carcinoma.^4,6,7 The diagnosis has been less challenging in areas where prior typical psoriatic lesions evolved into a verrucous morphology. Our patient presented a diagnostic challenge and draws attention to this unique variant of psoriasis that could easily be misdiagnosed and lead to inappropriate treatment.

Verrucous psoriasis can be recalcitrant to therapy. Although studies addressing treatment modalities are lacking, several recommendations can be derived from case reports and our patient. The use of topical therapies, including topical corticosteroids (eg, fluocinonide, clobetasol, halobetasol), keratolytic agents (eg, urea, salicylic acid), and calcipotriene, provide only minimal improvement when used as monotherapy.¹ Better success has been reported with systemic therapies, mainly methotrexate and acitretin, with anecdotal reports favoring the use of oral retinoids.^1,6 Conversely, biologic medications such as etanercept, ustekinumab, adalimumab, and infliximab have only provided a partial response.¹ Combination therapies including intralesional triamcinolone plus methotrexate⁴ or methotrexate plus acitretin, as in our patient, seem to provide additional benefit. Methotrexate and acitretin combination therapy has traditionally been avoided because of the risk for hepatotoxicity. However, a case series has demonstrated a moderate safety profile with concurrent use of these drugs in treatment-resistant psoriasis.⁸ In our case, clinical response was most pronounced with combination therapy of methotrexate 10 mg weekly and acitretin 25 mg daily. Thus, strong consideration should be given for combination methotrexate-acitretin therapy in patients with recalcitrant verrucous psoriasis who lack comorbid conditions.

We present a case of verrucous psoriasis, a variant of psoriasis characterized by hypertrophic plaques. We propose that venous insufficiency and long-standing untreated disease was instrumental to the development of these lesions. Furthermore, retinoids, particularly in combination with methotrexate, provided the most benefit for our patient.

Acknowledgment
We thank Stephen Somach, MD (Cleveland, Ohio), for his help interpreting the microscopic findings in our biopsy specimen. He received no compensation.

To the Editor:

A 76-year-old woman with venous insufficiency presented with numerous thick, hyperkeratotic, confluent papules and plaques involving both legs and thighs as well as the lower back. She initially developed lesions on the distal legs, which progressed to involve the thighs and lower back, slowly enlarging over 7 years (Figure 1). The eruption was associated with pruritus and was profoundly malodorous. The patient had been unsuccessfully treated with triamcinolone ointment, bleach baths, and several courses of oral antibiotics. Her history was remarkable for marked venous insufficiency and mild anemia, with a hemoglobin level of 11.9 g/dL (reference range, 14.0–17.5 g/dL). She had no other abnormalities on a comprehensive blood test, basic metabolic panel, or liver function test.

A punch biopsy specimen from the left lower back was obtained and demonstrated papillomatous psoriasiform epidermal hyperplasia with broad parakeratosis, few intracorneal neutrophils, hypogranulosis, and suprapapillary thinning (Figure 2). She was initially treated with oral methotrexate (20 mg weekly), resulting in partial improvement of plaques and complete resolution of pruritus and malodor. After 15 months of treatment with methotrexate, low-dose methotrexate (10 mg weekly) in combination with acitretin 25 mg daily was started, resulting in further improvement of hyperkeratosis (Figure 3). The patient also was given a compounded corticosteroid ointment containing liquor carbonis detergens, salicylic acid, and fluocinonide ointment, achieving minor additional benefit. Comprehensive metabolic panel, lipid panel, and liver function tests were obtained quarterly. Hemoglobin levels remained low, similar to baseline (11.3–12.5 g/dL), while all other values were within reference range. The patient tolerated treatment well, reporting mild dryness of lips on review of systems, which was attributed to acitretin and was treated with emollients.

The etiology of this entity is unknown. An association with diabetes mellitus, pulmonary disease, lymphatic circulation disorders, and immunosuppression has been proposed. Others have reported repeated trauma as contributing to the pathogenesis.¹ For our patient, trauma secondary to scratching, long-standing venous insufficiency, and neglect likely contributed to the development of verrucous plaques.

The diagnosis of verrucous psoriasis can be challenging because of its similarity to several other entities, including verruca vulgaris; epidermal nevus; and squamous cell carcinoma, particularly verrucous carcinoma.^4,6,7 The diagnosis has been less challenging in areas where prior typical psoriatic lesions evolved into a verrucous morphology. Our patient presented a diagnostic challenge and draws attention to this unique variant of psoriasis that could easily be misdiagnosed and lead to inappropriate treatment.

Verrucous psoriasis can be recalcitrant to therapy. Although studies addressing treatment modalities are lacking, several recommendations can be derived from case reports and our patient. The use of topical therapies, including topical corticosteroids (eg, fluocinonide, clobetasol, halobetasol), keratolytic agents (eg, urea, salicylic acid), and calcipotriene, provide only minimal improvement when used as monotherapy.¹ Better success has been reported with systemic therapies, mainly methotrexate and acitretin, with anecdotal reports favoring the use of oral retinoids.^1,6 Conversely, biologic medications such as etanercept, ustekinumab, adalimumab, and infliximab have only provided a partial response.¹ Combination therapies including intralesional triamcinolone plus methotrexate⁴ or methotrexate plus acitretin, as in our patient, seem to provide additional benefit. Methotrexate and acitretin combination therapy has traditionally been avoided because of the risk for hepatotoxicity. However, a case series has demonstrated a moderate safety profile with concurrent use of these drugs in treatment-resistant psoriasis.⁸ In our case, clinical response was most pronounced with combination therapy of methotrexate 10 mg weekly and acitretin 25 mg daily. Thus, strong consideration should be given for combination methotrexate-acitretin therapy in patients with recalcitrant verrucous psoriasis who lack comorbid conditions.

We present a case of verrucous psoriasis, a variant of psoriasis characterized by hypertrophic plaques. We propose that venous insufficiency and long-standing untreated disease was instrumental to the development of these lesions. Furthermore, retinoids, particularly in combination with methotrexate, provided the most benefit for our patient.

Acknowledgment
We thank Stephen Somach, MD (Cleveland, Ohio), for his help interpreting the microscopic findings in our biopsy specimen. He received no compensation.

ATLANTA – Patients taking biologics who received latent tuberculosis testing on an annual basis were unlikely to convert from a negative QuantiFERON test to a positive result, which suggests that the test may be unnecessary for patients without new tuberculosis risk factors, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

In addition, nearly all of the cost of repeat testing for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) went to patients who were not diagnosed with or treated for LTBI, noted Urmi Khanna, MD, a dermatologist with the Cleveland Clinic.

“All in all, about $1.4 million U.S. dollars was spent just on additional QuantiFERON testing, and only 1% of this additional cost was actually spent on testing patients who were diagnosed with and treated for latent tuberculosis,” Dr. Khanna said in her presentation at the meeting.

“Based on this study, we would like to propose that, in low incidence TB regions such as the United States, repeat LTBI testing in patients on biologic therapies should be focused on patients who have new risk factors for TB infection since their last screening,” she said.

The National Psoriasis Foundation has recommended patients be screened annually for LTBI, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the ACR have recommended patients taking biologics be screened annually for LTBI if they have new risk factors for TB, such as coming into contact with immigrants, a person infected with TB, immunosuppressed individuals, or persons working in areas where TB might be present. Annual screening was also recently added to the Medicare Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), which will affect physician reimbursement. “Based on [the addition of this quality outcome measure], we expect that more and more physicians will adopt this practice of annual LTBI screening in all patients on biologics,” Dr. Khanna said.

She and her colleagues examined QuantiFERON tuberculosis test (QFT) results of 10,914 patients from the Cleveland Clinic Foundation between August 2007 and March 2019 where patients were receiving systemic biologic therapy for inflammatory or autoimmune conditions, including nearly 32% with inflammatory bowel disease, 29% with rheumatoid arthritis, and 25% with psoriatic disease. Overall, 5,212 patients were included in the final analysis, and patients had a median of three QFT results. Patients had a median age of 41 years, had taken an average of 1.80 biologics during follow-up, and had a median biologic therapy duration of about 49 months. The most common biologics used were adalimumab (33%), etanercept (17%), and infliximab (17%).

Of these patients, 4,561 patients had negative QFTs (88%), 172 patients had one or more positive QFTs (3%), and 479 patients had one or more indeterminate QFTs (9%). For patients who converted from a negative QFT to a positive QFT, the most common risk factors were exposure to someone with TB (26%), immigrating or traveling to an endemic area (26%), and occupational exposure (16%).

Within the group with one or more positive QFTs, there were 108 patients with baseline positive QFTs prior to starting biologic therapy (2.1%), 61 patients who converted from a baseline negative QFT to a positive QFT (1.2%), and 3 patients where a positive result overlapped with a negative result (0.1%). The majority of patients who converted to a positive QFT result had borderline positive results (70.5%), defined as 0.35 to 1 IU/mL, compared with 29.5% of converters who had a positive QFT result of more than 1.0 IU/mL.

Among the 61 patients who converted to a positive QFT result, 28 patients with LTBI (46%) and 1 patient with an active case of TB (2%) were diagnosed and treated. The active TB case was a 29-year-old patient with inflammatory bowel disease and ankylosing spondylitis receiving adalimumab who had recently traveled to India.

The researchers also examined the cost of additional QFTs in each group. Among negative QFTs, the cost of an additional 9,611 tests was $1,201,375. The cost of additional tests for indeterminate QFTs was $136,200, but Dr. Khanna noted that 99.99% of additional tests in this group were for patients never diagnosed with or treated for LTBI. Additional tests for positive QFTs cost another $47,700, and 26.1% of patients in this group were diagnosed and received treatment for LTBI, compared with 73.9% who did not receive an LTBI diagnosis or treatment.

In the discussion session following the presentation, Dr. Khanna emphasized that discontinuing annual screening in low-risk patients was not standard of care at the Cleveland Clinic, and this study was conducted to raise awareness of focusing testing on patients with new TB risk factors.

Dr. Khanna reported no relevant financial disclosures. A few of her coauthors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Khanna U et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 1802.

ATLANTA – Patients taking biologics who received latent tuberculosis testing on an annual basis were unlikely to convert from a negative QuantiFERON test to a positive result, which suggests that the test may be unnecessary for patients without new tuberculosis risk factors, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

In addition, nearly all of the cost of repeat testing for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) went to patients who were not diagnosed with or treated for LTBI, noted Urmi Khanna, MD, a dermatologist with the Cleveland Clinic.

“All in all, about $1.4 million U.S. dollars was spent just on additional QuantiFERON testing, and only 1% of this additional cost was actually spent on testing patients who were diagnosed with and treated for latent tuberculosis,” Dr. Khanna said in her presentation at the meeting.

“Based on this study, we would like to propose that, in low incidence TB regions such as the United States, repeat LTBI testing in patients on biologic therapies should be focused on patients who have new risk factors for TB infection since their last screening,” she said.

The National Psoriasis Foundation has recommended patients be screened annually for LTBI, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the ACR have recommended patients taking biologics be screened annually for LTBI if they have new risk factors for TB, such as coming into contact with immigrants, a person infected with TB, immunosuppressed individuals, or persons working in areas where TB might be present. Annual screening was also recently added to the Medicare Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), which will affect physician reimbursement. “Based on [the addition of this quality outcome measure], we expect that more and more physicians will adopt this practice of annual LTBI screening in all patients on biologics,” Dr. Khanna said.

She and her colleagues examined QuantiFERON tuberculosis test (QFT) results of 10,914 patients from the Cleveland Clinic Foundation between August 2007 and March 2019 where patients were receiving systemic biologic therapy for inflammatory or autoimmune conditions, including nearly 32% with inflammatory bowel disease, 29% with rheumatoid arthritis, and 25% with psoriatic disease. Overall, 5,212 patients were included in the final analysis, and patients had a median of three QFT results. Patients had a median age of 41 years, had taken an average of 1.80 biologics during follow-up, and had a median biologic therapy duration of about 49 months. The most common biologics used were adalimumab (33%), etanercept (17%), and infliximab (17%).

Of these patients, 4,561 patients had negative QFTs (88%), 172 patients had one or more positive QFTs (3%), and 479 patients had one or more indeterminate QFTs (9%). For patients who converted from a negative QFT to a positive QFT, the most common risk factors were exposure to someone with TB (26%), immigrating or traveling to an endemic area (26%), and occupational exposure (16%).

Within the group with one or more positive QFTs, there were 108 patients with baseline positive QFTs prior to starting biologic therapy (2.1%), 61 patients who converted from a baseline negative QFT to a positive QFT (1.2%), and 3 patients where a positive result overlapped with a negative result (0.1%). The majority of patients who converted to a positive QFT result had borderline positive results (70.5%), defined as 0.35 to 1 IU/mL, compared with 29.5% of converters who had a positive QFT result of more than 1.0 IU/mL.

Among the 61 patients who converted to a positive QFT result, 28 patients with LTBI (46%) and 1 patient with an active case of TB (2%) were diagnosed and treated. The active TB case was a 29-year-old patient with inflammatory bowel disease and ankylosing spondylitis receiving adalimumab who had recently traveled to India.

The researchers also examined the cost of additional QFTs in each group. Among negative QFTs, the cost of an additional 9,611 tests was $1,201,375. The cost of additional tests for indeterminate QFTs was $136,200, but Dr. Khanna noted that 99.99% of additional tests in this group were for patients never diagnosed with or treated for LTBI. Additional tests for positive QFTs cost another $47,700, and 26.1% of patients in this group were diagnosed and received treatment for LTBI, compared with 73.9% who did not receive an LTBI diagnosis or treatment.

In the discussion session following the presentation, Dr. Khanna emphasized that discontinuing annual screening in low-risk patients was not standard of care at the Cleveland Clinic, and this study was conducted to raise awareness of focusing testing on patients with new TB risk factors.

Dr. Khanna reported no relevant financial disclosures. A few of her coauthors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Khanna U et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 1802.

ATLANTA – Patients taking biologics who received latent tuberculosis testing on an annual basis were unlikely to convert from a negative QuantiFERON test to a positive result, which suggests that the test may be unnecessary for patients without new tuberculosis risk factors, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

In addition, nearly all of the cost of repeat testing for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) went to patients who were not diagnosed with or treated for LTBI, noted Urmi Khanna, MD, a dermatologist with the Cleveland Clinic.

“All in all, about $1.4 million U.S. dollars was spent just on additional QuantiFERON testing, and only 1% of this additional cost was actually spent on testing patients who were diagnosed with and treated for latent tuberculosis,” Dr. Khanna said in her presentation at the meeting.

“Based on this study, we would like to propose that, in low incidence TB regions such as the United States, repeat LTBI testing in patients on biologic therapies should be focused on patients who have new risk factors for TB infection since their last screening,” she said.

The National Psoriasis Foundation has recommended patients be screened annually for LTBI, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the ACR have recommended patients taking biologics be screened annually for LTBI if they have new risk factors for TB, such as coming into contact with immigrants, a person infected with TB, immunosuppressed individuals, or persons working in areas where TB might be present. Annual screening was also recently added to the Medicare Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), which will affect physician reimbursement. “Based on [the addition of this quality outcome measure], we expect that more and more physicians will adopt this practice of annual LTBI screening in all patients on biologics,” Dr. Khanna said.

She and her colleagues examined QuantiFERON tuberculosis test (QFT) results of 10,914 patients from the Cleveland Clinic Foundation between August 2007 and March 2019 where patients were receiving systemic biologic therapy for inflammatory or autoimmune conditions, including nearly 32% with inflammatory bowel disease, 29% with rheumatoid arthritis, and 25% with psoriatic disease. Overall, 5,212 patients were included in the final analysis, and patients had a median of three QFT results. Patients had a median age of 41 years, had taken an average of 1.80 biologics during follow-up, and had a median biologic therapy duration of about 49 months. The most common biologics used were adalimumab (33%), etanercept (17%), and infliximab (17%).

Of these patients, 4,561 patients had negative QFTs (88%), 172 patients had one or more positive QFTs (3%), and 479 patients had one or more indeterminate QFTs (9%). For patients who converted from a negative QFT to a positive QFT, the most common risk factors were exposure to someone with TB (26%), immigrating or traveling to an endemic area (26%), and occupational exposure (16%).

Within the group with one or more positive QFTs, there were 108 patients with baseline positive QFTs prior to starting biologic therapy (2.1%), 61 patients who converted from a baseline negative QFT to a positive QFT (1.2%), and 3 patients where a positive result overlapped with a negative result (0.1%). The majority of patients who converted to a positive QFT result had borderline positive results (70.5%), defined as 0.35 to 1 IU/mL, compared with 29.5% of converters who had a positive QFT result of more than 1.0 IU/mL.

Among the 61 patients who converted to a positive QFT result, 28 patients with LTBI (46%) and 1 patient with an active case of TB (2%) were diagnosed and treated. The active TB case was a 29-year-old patient with inflammatory bowel disease and ankylosing spondylitis receiving adalimumab who had recently traveled to India.

The researchers also examined the cost of additional QFTs in each group. Among negative QFTs, the cost of an additional 9,611 tests was $1,201,375. The cost of additional tests for indeterminate QFTs was $136,200, but Dr. Khanna noted that 99.99% of additional tests in this group were for patients never diagnosed with or treated for LTBI. Additional tests for positive QFTs cost another $47,700, and 26.1% of patients in this group were diagnosed and received treatment for LTBI, compared with 73.9% who did not receive an LTBI diagnosis or treatment.

In the discussion session following the presentation, Dr. Khanna emphasized that discontinuing annual screening in low-risk patients was not standard of care at the Cleveland Clinic, and this study was conducted to raise awareness of focusing testing on patients with new TB risk factors.

Dr. Khanna reported no relevant financial disclosures. A few of her coauthors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Khanna U et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 1802.

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder that affects patients’ quality of life and social interactions.¹ Several studies have shown a strong consistent association between psoriasis and depression as well as possible suicidal ideation and behavior (SIB).^1-13 Notable findings from a 2018 review found depression prevalence ranged from 2.1% to 33.7% among patients with psoriasis vs 0% to 22.7% among unaffected patients.⁷ In a 2017 meta-analysis, Singh et al² found increased odds of SIB (odds ratio [OR], 2.05), attempted suicide (OR, 1.32), and completed suicide (OR, 1.20) in patients with psoriasis compared to those without psoriasis. In 2018, Wu and colleagues⁷ reported that odds of SIB among patients with psoriasis ranged from 1.01 to 1.94 times those of patients without psoriasis, and SIB and suicide attempts were more common than in patients with other dermatologic conditions. Koo and colleagues¹ reached similar conclusions. At the same time, the occurrence of attempted and completed suicides among patients in psoriasis clinical trials has raised concerns about whether psoriasis medications also may increase the risk for SIB.⁷

We review research on the effects of psoriasis treatment on patients’ symptoms of depression and SIB, with a focus on recent analyses of depressive symptoms and SIB among patients with psoriasis who received brodalumab in clinical trials. Finally, we suggest approaches clinicians may consider when caring for patients with psoriasis who may be at risk for depression and SIB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed research on the effects of biologic therapy for psoriasis on depression and SIB, with a primary focus on recent large meta-analyses. Published findings on the pattern of SIB in brodalumab clinical trials and effects of brodalumab treatment on symptoms of depression and anxiety are summarized. The most recent evidence (January 2014–December 2018) regarding the mental health comorbidities of psoriasis was assessed using published English-language research data and review articles according to a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the following terms: depression, anxiety, suicide, suicidal ideation and behavior, SIB, brodalumab, or psoriasis. We also reviewed citations within articles to identify relevant sources. Implications for clinical care of patients with psoriasis are discussed based on expert recommendations and the authors’ clinical experience.

RESULTS

Effects of Psoriasis Treatment on Symptoms of Depression and Suicidality

Occurrences of attempted suicide and completed suicide have been reported during treatment with several psoriasis medications,^7,9 raising concerns about whether these medications increase the risk for depression and SIB in an already vulnerable population. Wu and colleagues⁷ reviewed 11 studies published from 2006 to 2017 reporting the effects of medications for the treatment of psoriasis—adalimumab, apremilast, brodalumab, etanercept, and ustekinumab—on measures of depression and anxiety such as the Beck Depression Inventory, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) 8. In each of the 11 studies, symptoms of depression improved after treatment, over time, or compared to placebo. Notably, the magnitude of improvement in symptoms of depression was not strongly linked to the magnitude of clinical improvement.⁷ Other recent studies have reported reductions in symptoms of depression with biologic therapies, including adalimumab, etanercept, guselkumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and ustekinumab.^14-21

With respect to suicidality, an analysis of publicly available data found low rates of completed and attempted suicides (point estimates of 0.0–0.15 per 100 patient-years) in clinical development programs of apremilast, brodalumab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab. Patient suicidality in these trials often occurred in the context of risk factors or stressors such as work, financial difficulties, depression, and substance abuse.⁷ In a detailed 2016 analysis of suicidal behaviors during clinical trials of apremilast, brodalumab, etanercept, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, tofacitinib, ustekinumab, and other investigational agents, Gooderham and colleagues⁹ concluded that the behaviors may have resulted from the disease or patients’ psychosocial status rather than from treatment and that treatment with biologics does not increase the risk for SIB. Improvements in symptoms of depression during treatment suggest the potential to improve patients’ psychiatric outcomes with biologic treatment.⁹

Evidence From Brodalumab Studies

Intensive efforts have been made to assess the effect of brodalumab, a fully human anti–IL-17RA monoclonal antibody shown to be efficacious in the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, on symptoms of depression and to understand the incidence of SIB among patients receiving brodalumab in clinical trials.^22-27

Depression and Anxiety in Studies of Brodalumab
To examine the effects of brodalumab on symptoms of depression, the HADS questionnaire²⁸ was administered to patients in 1 of 3 phase 3 clinical trials of brodalumab.²³ A HADS score of 0 to 7 is considered normal, 8 to 10 is mild, 11 to 14 is moderate, and 15 to 21 is severe.²³ The HADS questionnaire was administered to evaluate the presence and severity of depression and anxiety symptoms at baseline and at weeks 12, 24, 36, and 52.²⁵ This scale was not used in the other 2 phase 3 studies of brodalumab because at the time those studies were initiated, there was no indication to include mental health screenings as part of the study protocol.

Patients were initially randomized to placebo (n=220), brodalumab 140 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W; n=219), or brodalumab 210 mg Q2W (the eventual approved dose; n=222) for 12 weeks.²³ At week 12, patients initially randomized to placebo were switched to brodalumab through week 52. Patients initially randomized to brodalumab 210 mg Q2W were re-randomized to either placebo or brodalumab 210 mg Q2W.²³ Depression and anxiety were common at baseline. Based on HADS scores, depression occurred among 27% and 26% of patients randomized to brodalumab and placebo, respectively; anxiety occurred in 36% of patients in each group.²² Among patients receiving brodalumab 210 mg Q2W from baseline to week 12, HADS depression scores improved in 67% of patients and worsened in 19%. In contrast, the proportion of patients receiving placebo whose depression scores improved (45%) was similar to the proportion whose scores worsened (38%). Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety scores also improved more often with brodalumab than with placebo.²²

Furthermore, among patients who had moderate or severe depression or anxiety at baseline, a greater percentage experienced improvement with brodalumab than placebo.²³ Among 30 patients with moderate to severe HADS depression scores at baseline who were treated with brodalumab 210 mg Q2W, 22 (73%) improved by at least 1 depression category by week 12; in the placebo group, 10 of 22 (45%) improved. Among patients with moderate or severe anxiety scores, 28 of 42 patients (67%) treated with brodalumab 210 mg Q2W improved by at least 1 anxiety category compared to 8 of 27 (30%) placebo-treated patients.²³

Over 52 weeks, HADS depression and anxiety scores continued to show a pattern of improvement among patients receiving brodalumab vs placebo.²⁵ Among patients initially receiving placebo, mean HADS depression scores were unchanged from baseline (5.3) to week 12 (5.5). After patients were switched to brodalumab 210 mg Q2W, there was a trend toward improvement between week 12 (5.4) and week 52 (3.1). Among patients initially treated with brodalumab 210 mg Q2W, mean depression scores fell from baseline (5.5) to week 12 (3.4), then rose again between weeks 12 (2.9) and 52 (3.5) in patients switched to placebo (Figure, A). The pattern of findings was similar for HADS anxiety scores (Figure, B).²⁵ Overall, brodalumab treatment appears to improve symptoms of depression and anxiety in patients being treated for psoriasis. This finding is consistent with the effects reported for other biologic therapies previously discussed.

SIB in Studies of Brodalumab
In addition to assessing the effect of brodalumab treatment on symptoms of depression and anxiety in patients with psoriasis, the brodalumab clinical trial program also tracked patterns of SIB among enrolled patients. In contrast with other clinical trials in which patients with a history of psychiatric disorders or substance abuse were excluded, clinical trials of brodalumab did not exclude patients with psychiatric disorders (eg, SIB, depression) and were therefore reflective of the real-world population of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.²²

In a recently published, detailed analysis of psychiatric adverse events (AEs) in the brodalumab clinical trials, data related to SIB in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis were analyzed from the placebo-controlled phases and open-label, long-term extensions of a placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial and from the previously mentioned 3 phase 3 clinical trials.²² From the initiation of the clinical trial program, AEs were monitored during all trials. In response to completed suicides during some studies, additional SIB evaluations were later added at the request of the US Food and Drug Administration, including the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale, the PHQ-8, and the Columbia Classification Algorithm for Suicide Assessment, to independently adjudicate SIB events.²²

In total, 4464 patients in the brodalumab clinical trials received at least 1 dose of brodalumab, and 4126 of these patients received at least 1 dose of brodalumab 210 mg Q2W.²² Total exposure was 9174 patient-years of brodalumab, and mean exposure was 23 months. During the 52-week controlled phases of the clinical trials, 7 patients receiving brodalumab experienced any form of SIB event, representing a time-adjusted incidence rate of 0.20 events (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.41 events) per 100 patient-years of exposure. During the same 52-week period, patients receiving the comparator drug ustekinumab had an SIB rate of 0.60 events (95% CI, 0.12-1.74 events) per 100 patient-years, which was numerically higher than the rate with brodalumab. Inferential statistical analyses were not performed, but overlapping 95% CIs around these point estimates imply a similar level of SIB risk associated with each agent in these studies. During controlled and uncontrolled treatment periods in all studies, the SIB rate among brodalumab-treated patients was 0.37 events per 100 patient-years.²²

Over all study phases, 3 completed suicides and 1 case adjudicated as indeterminate by the Columbia Classification Algorithm for Suicide Assessment review board were reported.²² All occurred in men aged 39 to 59 years. Of 6 patients with an AE of suicide attempt, all patients had at least 1 SIB risk factor and 3 had a history of SIB. The rate of SIB events was greater in patients with a history of depression (1.42) or suicidality (3.21) compared to those without any history of depression or suicidality (0.21 and 0.20, respectively).²² An examination of the regions in which the brodalumab studies were conducted showed generally consistent SIB incidence rates: 0.52, 0.29, 0.77, and 0 events per 100 patient-years in North America, Europe, Australia, and Russia, respectively.²⁴

As previously described, depression and other risk factors for SIB are prevalent among patients with psoriasis. In addition, the rate of suicide mortality has increased substantially over the last decade in the general population, particularly among middle-aged white men,²⁹ who made up much of the brodalumab clinical trial population.²² Therefore, even without treatment, it would not be surprising that SIB events occurred during the brodalumab trials. Most patients with SIB events during the trials had a history of predisposing risk factors.²² Prescribing information for brodalumab in the United States includes a boxed warning advising physicians to be aware of the risk of SIB as well as a statement that a causal relationship between SIB and brodalumab treatment has not been established.²⁷

COMMENT

This review indicates that depression is increased among patients with psoriasis regardless of treatment regimen⁷; however, the association between psoriasis and suicidality is unclear. In clinical trials of brodalumab, treatment resulted in improved symptoms of depression and anxiety among patients with psoriasis and was associated with lower rates of SIB compared to ustekinumab.^22,23

Despite the boxed warning in the brodalumab package insert concerning suicidality, a causal relationship between brodalumab treatment and increased risk of SIB has not been firmly established.²⁷ The US boxed warning is based on 3 completed suicides and 1 case adjudicated as indeterminate among more than 4000 patients who received at least 1 dose of brodalumab during global clinical trials (0.07% [3/4464]). Compliance in the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program is mandatory, and patient screening and counseling should not be minimized.²⁷ The 3 completed suicides occurred in patients who reported a history of financial stressors, legal difficulties, or depression and anxiety, and they occurred at least 140 days after initiation of treatment with brodalumab, a chronology that does not support a strong association between brodalumab exposure and SIB.²² Taking into consideration the increased risk for depression among individuals with psoriasis and the details surrounding the 3 completed suicides, an evidence-based causal relationship between brodalumab and increased risk for suicidality cannot be concluded. However, physicians must assess risks and benefits of any therapy in the context of the individual patient’s preferences, risk factors, and response to treatment.

Dermatologists who are aware of the comorbidity between psoriasis and mood disorders play an important role in evaluating patients with psoriasis for psychiatric risk factors.^30-32 The dermatologist should discuss with patients the relationship between psoriasis and depression, assess for any history of depression and SIB, and evaluate for signs and symptoms of depression and current SIB.³³ Screening tools, including the HADS or the short, easily administered PHQ-2³⁴ or PHQ-4,³⁵ can be used to assess whether patients have symptoms of depression.^1,36,37 Patients at risk for depression or SIB should be referred to their primary care physician or a mental health care practitioner.³⁷ Currently, there is a gap in knowledge in screening patients for psychiatric issues within the dermatology community^33,38; however, health care providers can give support to help bridge this gap.

Acknowledgments
This study was sponsored by Amgen Inc. Medical writing support was provided under the direction of the authors by Lisa Baker, PhD, and Rebecca E. Slager, PhD, of MedThink SciCom (Cary, North Carolina) and funded by Ortho Dermatologics, a division of Bausch Health US, LLC.

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder that affects patients’ quality of life and social interactions.¹ Several studies have shown a strong consistent association between psoriasis and depression as well as possible suicidal ideation and behavior (SIB).^1-13 Notable findings from a 2018 review found depression prevalence ranged from 2.1% to 33.7% among patients with psoriasis vs 0% to 22.7% among unaffected patients.⁷ In a 2017 meta-analysis, Singh et al² found increased odds of SIB (odds ratio [OR], 2.05), attempted suicide (OR, 1.32), and completed suicide (OR, 1.20) in patients with psoriasis compared to those without psoriasis. In 2018, Wu and colleagues⁷ reported that odds of SIB among patients with psoriasis ranged from 1.01 to 1.94 times those of patients without psoriasis, and SIB and suicide attempts were more common than in patients with other dermatologic conditions. Koo and colleagues¹ reached similar conclusions. At the same time, the occurrence of attempted and completed suicides among patients in psoriasis clinical trials has raised concerns about whether psoriasis medications also may increase the risk for SIB.⁷

We review research on the effects of psoriasis treatment on patients’ symptoms of depression and SIB, with a focus on recent analyses of depressive symptoms and SIB among patients with psoriasis who received brodalumab in clinical trials. Finally, we suggest approaches clinicians may consider when caring for patients with psoriasis who may be at risk for depression and SIB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed research on the effects of biologic therapy for psoriasis on depression and SIB, with a primary focus on recent large meta-analyses. Published findings on the pattern of SIB in brodalumab clinical trials and effects of brodalumab treatment on symptoms of depression and anxiety are summarized. The most recent evidence (January 2014–December 2018) regarding the mental health comorbidities of psoriasis was assessed using published English-language research data and review articles according to a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the following terms: depression, anxiety, suicide, suicidal ideation and behavior, SIB, brodalumab, or psoriasis. We also reviewed citations within articles to identify relevant sources. Implications for clinical care of patients with psoriasis are discussed based on expert recommendations and the authors’ clinical experience.

RESULTS

Effects of Psoriasis Treatment on Symptoms of Depression and Suicidality

Occurrences of attempted suicide and completed suicide have been reported during treatment with several psoriasis medications,^7,9 raising concerns about whether these medications increase the risk for depression and SIB in an already vulnerable population. Wu and colleagues⁷ reviewed 11 studies published from 2006 to 2017 reporting the effects of medications for the treatment of psoriasis—adalimumab, apremilast, brodalumab, etanercept, and ustekinumab—on measures of depression and anxiety such as the Beck Depression Inventory, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) 8. In each of the 11 studies, symptoms of depression improved after treatment, over time, or compared to placebo. Notably, the magnitude of improvement in symptoms of depression was not strongly linked to the magnitude of clinical improvement.⁷ Other recent studies have reported reductions in symptoms of depression with biologic therapies, including adalimumab, etanercept, guselkumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and ustekinumab.^14-21

With respect to suicidality, an analysis of publicly available data found low rates of completed and attempted suicides (point estimates of 0.0–0.15 per 100 patient-years) in clinical development programs of apremilast, brodalumab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab. Patient suicidality in these trials often occurred in the context of risk factors or stressors such as work, financial difficulties, depression, and substance abuse.⁷ In a detailed 2016 analysis of suicidal behaviors during clinical trials of apremilast, brodalumab, etanercept, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, tofacitinib, ustekinumab, and other investigational agents, Gooderham and colleagues⁹ concluded that the behaviors may have resulted from the disease or patients’ psychosocial status rather than from treatment and that treatment with biologics does not increase the risk for SIB. Improvements in symptoms of depression during treatment suggest the potential to improve patients’ psychiatric outcomes with biologic treatment.⁹

Evidence From Brodalumab Studies

Intensive efforts have been made to assess the effect of brodalumab, a fully human anti–IL-17RA monoclonal antibody shown to be efficacious in the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, on symptoms of depression and to understand the incidence of SIB among patients receiving brodalumab in clinical trials.^22-27

Depression and Anxiety in Studies of Brodalumab
To examine the effects of brodalumab on symptoms of depression, the HADS questionnaire²⁸ was administered to patients in 1 of 3 phase 3 clinical trials of brodalumab.²³ A HADS score of 0 to 7 is considered normal, 8 to 10 is mild, 11 to 14 is moderate, and 15 to 21 is severe.²³ The HADS questionnaire was administered to evaluate the presence and severity of depression and anxiety symptoms at baseline and at weeks 12, 24, 36, and 52.²⁵ This scale was not used in the other 2 phase 3 studies of brodalumab because at the time those studies were initiated, there was no indication to include mental health screenings as part of the study protocol.

Patients were initially randomized to placebo (n=220), brodalumab 140 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W; n=219), or brodalumab 210 mg Q2W (the eventual approved dose; n=222) for 12 weeks.²³ At week 12, patients initially randomized to placebo were switched to brodalumab through week 52. Patients initially randomized to brodalumab 210 mg Q2W were re-randomized to either placebo or brodalumab 210 mg Q2W.²³ Depression and anxiety were common at baseline. Based on HADS scores, depression occurred among 27% and 26% of patients randomized to brodalumab and placebo, respectively; anxiety occurred in 36% of patients in each group.²² Among patients receiving brodalumab 210 mg Q2W from baseline to week 12, HADS depression scores improved in 67% of patients and worsened in 19%. In contrast, the proportion of patients receiving placebo whose depression scores improved (45%) was similar to the proportion whose scores worsened (38%). Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety scores also improved more often with brodalumab than with placebo.²²

Furthermore, among patients who had moderate or severe depression or anxiety at baseline, a greater percentage experienced improvement with brodalumab than placebo.²³ Among 30 patients with moderate to severe HADS depression scores at baseline who were treated with brodalumab 210 mg Q2W, 22 (73%) improved by at least 1 depression category by week 12; in the placebo group, 10 of 22 (45%) improved. Among patients with moderate or severe anxiety scores, 28 of 42 patients (67%) treated with brodalumab 210 mg Q2W improved by at least 1 anxiety category compared to 8 of 27 (30%) placebo-treated patients.²³

Over 52 weeks, HADS depression and anxiety scores continued to show a pattern of improvement among patients receiving brodalumab vs placebo.²⁵ Among patients initially receiving placebo, mean HADS depression scores were unchanged from baseline (5.3) to week 12 (5.5). After patients were switched to brodalumab 210 mg Q2W, there was a trend toward improvement between week 12 (5.4) and week 52 (3.1). Among patients initially treated with brodalumab 210 mg Q2W, mean depression scores fell from baseline (5.5) to week 12 (3.4), then rose again between weeks 12 (2.9) and 52 (3.5) in patients switched to placebo (Figure, A). The pattern of findings was similar for HADS anxiety scores (Figure, B).²⁵ Overall, brodalumab treatment appears to improve symptoms of depression and anxiety in patients being treated for psoriasis. This finding is consistent with the effects reported for other biologic therapies previously discussed.

SIB in Studies of Brodalumab
In addition to assessing the effect of brodalumab treatment on symptoms of depression and anxiety in patients with psoriasis, the brodalumab clinical trial program also tracked patterns of SIB among enrolled patients. In contrast with other clinical trials in which patients with a history of psychiatric disorders or substance abuse were excluded, clinical trials of brodalumab did not exclude patients with psychiatric disorders (eg, SIB, depression) and were therefore reflective of the real-world population of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.²²

In a recently published, detailed analysis of psychiatric adverse events (AEs) in the brodalumab clinical trials, data related to SIB in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis were analyzed from the placebo-controlled phases and open-label, long-term extensions of a placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial and from the previously mentioned 3 phase 3 clinical trials.²² From the initiation of the clinical trial program, AEs were monitored during all trials. In response to completed suicides during some studies, additional SIB evaluations were later added at the request of the US Food and Drug Administration, including the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale, the PHQ-8, and the Columbia Classification Algorithm for Suicide Assessment, to independently adjudicate SIB events.²²

In total, 4464 patients in the brodalumab clinical trials received at least 1 dose of brodalumab, and 4126 of these patients received at least 1 dose of brodalumab 210 mg Q2W.²² Total exposure was 9174 patient-years of brodalumab, and mean exposure was 23 months. During the 52-week controlled phases of the clinical trials, 7 patients receiving brodalumab experienced any form of SIB event, representing a time-adjusted incidence rate of 0.20 events (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.41 events) per 100 patient-years of exposure. During the same 52-week period, patients receiving the comparator drug ustekinumab had an SIB rate of 0.60 events (95% CI, 0.12-1.74 events) per 100 patient-years, which was numerically higher than the rate with brodalumab. Inferential statistical analyses were not performed, but overlapping 95% CIs around these point estimates imply a similar level of SIB risk associated with each agent in these studies. During controlled and uncontrolled treatment periods in all studies, the SIB rate among brodalumab-treated patients was 0.37 events per 100 patient-years.²²

Over all study phases, 3 completed suicides and 1 case adjudicated as indeterminate by the Columbia Classification Algorithm for Suicide Assessment review board were reported.²² All occurred in men aged 39 to 59 years. Of 6 patients with an AE of suicide attempt, all patients had at least 1 SIB risk factor and 3 had a history of SIB. The rate of SIB events was greater in patients with a history of depression (1.42) or suicidality (3.21) compared to those without any history of depression or suicidality (0.21 and 0.20, respectively).²² An examination of the regions in which the brodalumab studies were conducted showed generally consistent SIB incidence rates: 0.52, 0.29, 0.77, and 0 events per 100 patient-years in North America, Europe, Australia, and Russia, respectively.²⁴

As previously described, depression and other risk factors for SIB are prevalent among patients with psoriasis. In addition, the rate of suicide mortality has increased substantially over the last decade in the general population, particularly among middle-aged white men,²⁹ who made up much of the brodalumab clinical trial population.²² Therefore, even without treatment, it would not be surprising that SIB events occurred during the brodalumab trials. Most patients with SIB events during the trials had a history of predisposing risk factors.²² Prescribing information for brodalumab in the United States includes a boxed warning advising physicians to be aware of the risk of SIB as well as a statement that a causal relationship between SIB and brodalumab treatment has not been established.²⁷

COMMENT

This review indicates that depression is increased among patients with psoriasis regardless of treatment regimen⁷; however, the association between psoriasis and suicidality is unclear. In clinical trials of brodalumab, treatment resulted in improved symptoms of depression and anxiety among patients with psoriasis and was associated with lower rates of SIB compared to ustekinumab.^22,23

Despite the boxed warning in the brodalumab package insert concerning suicidality, a causal relationship between brodalumab treatment and increased risk of SIB has not been firmly established.²⁷ The US boxed warning is based on 3 completed suicides and 1 case adjudicated as indeterminate among more than 4000 patients who received at least 1 dose of brodalumab during global clinical trials (0.07% [3/4464]). Compliance in the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program is mandatory, and patient screening and counseling should not be minimized.²⁷ The 3 completed suicides occurred in patients who reported a history of financial stressors, legal difficulties, or depression and anxiety, and they occurred at least 140 days after initiation of treatment with brodalumab, a chronology that does not support a strong association between brodalumab exposure and SIB.²² Taking into consideration the increased risk for depression among individuals with psoriasis and the details surrounding the 3 completed suicides, an evidence-based causal relationship between brodalumab and increased risk for suicidality cannot be concluded. However, physicians must assess risks and benefits of any therapy in the context of the individual patient’s preferences, risk factors, and response to treatment.

Dermatologists who are aware of the comorbidity between psoriasis and mood disorders play an important role in evaluating patients with psoriasis for psychiatric risk factors.^30-32 The dermatologist should discuss with patients the relationship between psoriasis and depression, assess for any history of depression and SIB, and evaluate for signs and symptoms of depression and current SIB.³³ Screening tools, including the HADS or the short, easily administered PHQ-2³⁴ or PHQ-4,³⁵ can be used to assess whether patients have symptoms of depression.^1,36,37 Patients at risk for depression or SIB should be referred to their primary care physician or a mental health care practitioner.³⁷ Currently, there is a gap in knowledge in screening patients for psychiatric issues within the dermatology community^33,38; however, health care providers can give support to help bridge this gap.

Acknowledgments
This study was sponsored by Amgen Inc. Medical writing support was provided under the direction of the authors by Lisa Baker, PhD, and Rebecca E. Slager, PhD, of MedThink SciCom (Cary, North Carolina) and funded by Ortho Dermatologics, a division of Bausch Health US, LLC.

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder that affects patients’ quality of life and social interactions.¹ Several studies have shown a strong consistent association between psoriasis and depression as well as possible suicidal ideation and behavior (SIB).^1-13 Notable findings from a 2018 review found depression prevalence ranged from 2.1% to 33.7% among patients with psoriasis vs 0% to 22.7% among unaffected patients.⁷ In a 2017 meta-analysis, Singh et al² found increased odds of SIB (odds ratio [OR], 2.05), attempted suicide (OR, 1.32), and completed suicide (OR, 1.20) in patients with psoriasis compared to those without psoriasis. In 2018, Wu and colleagues⁷ reported that odds of SIB among patients with psoriasis ranged from 1.01 to 1.94 times those of patients without psoriasis, and SIB and suicide attempts were more common than in patients with other dermatologic conditions. Koo and colleagues¹ reached similar conclusions. At the same time, the occurrence of attempted and completed suicides among patients in psoriasis clinical trials has raised concerns about whether psoriasis medications also may increase the risk for SIB.⁷

We review research on the effects of psoriasis treatment on patients’ symptoms of depression and SIB, with a focus on recent analyses of depressive symptoms and SIB among patients with psoriasis who received brodalumab in clinical trials. Finally, we suggest approaches clinicians may consider when caring for patients with psoriasis who may be at risk for depression and SIB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed research on the effects of biologic therapy for psoriasis on depression and SIB, with a primary focus on recent large meta-analyses. Published findings on the pattern of SIB in brodalumab clinical trials and effects of brodalumab treatment on symptoms of depression and anxiety are summarized. The most recent evidence (January 2014–December 2018) regarding the mental health comorbidities of psoriasis was assessed using published English-language research data and review articles according to a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the following terms: depression, anxiety, suicide, suicidal ideation and behavior, SIB, brodalumab, or psoriasis. We also reviewed citations within articles to identify relevant sources. Implications for clinical care of patients with psoriasis are discussed based on expert recommendations and the authors’ clinical experience.

RESULTS

Effects of Psoriasis Treatment on Symptoms of Depression and Suicidality

Occurrences of attempted suicide and completed suicide have been reported during treatment with several psoriasis medications,^7,9 raising concerns about whether these medications increase the risk for depression and SIB in an already vulnerable population. Wu and colleagues⁷ reviewed 11 studies published from 2006 to 2017 reporting the effects of medications for the treatment of psoriasis—adalimumab, apremilast, brodalumab, etanercept, and ustekinumab—on measures of depression and anxiety such as the Beck Depression Inventory, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) 8. In each of the 11 studies, symptoms of depression improved after treatment, over time, or compared to placebo. Notably, the magnitude of improvement in symptoms of depression was not strongly linked to the magnitude of clinical improvement.⁷ Other recent studies have reported reductions in symptoms of depression with biologic therapies, including adalimumab, etanercept, guselkumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and ustekinumab.^14-21

With respect to suicidality, an analysis of publicly available data found low rates of completed and attempted suicides (point estimates of 0.0–0.15 per 100 patient-years) in clinical development programs of apremilast, brodalumab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab. Patient suicidality in these trials often occurred in the context of risk factors or stressors such as work, financial difficulties, depression, and substance abuse.⁷ In a detailed 2016 analysis of suicidal behaviors during clinical trials of apremilast, brodalumab, etanercept, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, tofacitinib, ustekinumab, and other investigational agents, Gooderham and colleagues⁹ concluded that the behaviors may have resulted from the disease or patients’ psychosocial status rather than from treatment and that treatment with biologics does not increase the risk for SIB. Improvements in symptoms of depression during treatment suggest the potential to improve patients’ psychiatric outcomes with biologic treatment.⁹

Evidence From Brodalumab Studies

Intensive efforts have been made to assess the effect of brodalumab, a fully human anti–IL-17RA monoclonal antibody shown to be efficacious in the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, on symptoms of depression and to understand the incidence of SIB among patients receiving brodalumab in clinical trials.^22-27

Depression and Anxiety in Studies of Brodalumab
To examine the effects of brodalumab on symptoms of depression, the HADS questionnaire²⁸ was administered to patients in 1 of 3 phase 3 clinical trials of brodalumab.²³ A HADS score of 0 to 7 is considered normal, 8 to 10 is mild, 11 to 14 is moderate, and 15 to 21 is severe.²³ The HADS questionnaire was administered to evaluate the presence and severity of depression and anxiety symptoms at baseline and at weeks 12, 24, 36, and 52.²⁵ This scale was not used in the other 2 phase 3 studies of brodalumab because at the time those studies were initiated, there was no indication to include mental health screenings as part of the study protocol.

Patients were initially randomized to placebo (n=220), brodalumab 140 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W; n=219), or brodalumab 210 mg Q2W (the eventual approved dose; n=222) for 12 weeks.²³ At week 12, patients initially randomized to placebo were switched to brodalumab through week 52. Patients initially randomized to brodalumab 210 mg Q2W were re-randomized to either placebo or brodalumab 210 mg Q2W.²³ Depression and anxiety were common at baseline. Based on HADS scores, depression occurred among 27% and 26% of patients randomized to brodalumab and placebo, respectively; anxiety occurred in 36% of patients in each group.²² Among patients receiving brodalumab 210 mg Q2W from baseline to week 12, HADS depression scores improved in 67% of patients and worsened in 19%. In contrast, the proportion of patients receiving placebo whose depression scores improved (45%) was similar to the proportion whose scores worsened (38%). Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety scores also improved more often with brodalumab than with placebo.²²

Furthermore, among patients who had moderate or severe depression or anxiety at baseline, a greater percentage experienced improvement with brodalumab than placebo.²³ Among 30 patients with moderate to severe HADS depression scores at baseline who were treated with brodalumab 210 mg Q2W, 22 (73%) improved by at least 1 depression category by week 12; in the placebo group, 10 of 22 (45%) improved. Among patients with moderate or severe anxiety scores, 28 of 42 patients (67%) treated with brodalumab 210 mg Q2W improved by at least 1 anxiety category compared to 8 of 27 (30%) placebo-treated patients.²³

Over 52 weeks, HADS depression and anxiety scores continued to show a pattern of improvement among patients receiving brodalumab vs placebo.²⁵ Among patients initially receiving placebo, mean HADS depression scores were unchanged from baseline (5.3) to week 12 (5.5). After patients were switched to brodalumab 210 mg Q2W, there was a trend toward improvement between week 12 (5.4) and week 52 (3.1). Among patients initially treated with brodalumab 210 mg Q2W, mean depression scores fell from baseline (5.5) to week 12 (3.4), then rose again between weeks 12 (2.9) and 52 (3.5) in patients switched to placebo (Figure, A). The pattern of findings was similar for HADS anxiety scores (Figure, B).²⁵ Overall, brodalumab treatment appears to improve symptoms of depression and anxiety in patients being treated for psoriasis. This finding is consistent with the effects reported for other biologic therapies previously discussed.

SIB in Studies of Brodalumab
In addition to assessing the effect of brodalumab treatment on symptoms of depression and anxiety in patients with psoriasis, the brodalumab clinical trial program also tracked patterns of SIB among enrolled patients. In contrast with other clinical trials in which patients with a history of psychiatric disorders or substance abuse were excluded, clinical trials of brodalumab did not exclude patients with psychiatric disorders (eg, SIB, depression) and were therefore reflective of the real-world population of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.²²

In a recently published, detailed analysis of psychiatric adverse events (AEs) in the brodalumab clinical trials, data related to SIB in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis were analyzed from the placebo-controlled phases and open-label, long-term extensions of a placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial and from the previously mentioned 3 phase 3 clinical trials.²² From the initiation of the clinical trial program, AEs were monitored during all trials. In response to completed suicides during some studies, additional SIB evaluations were later added at the request of the US Food and Drug Administration, including the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale, the PHQ-8, and the Columbia Classification Algorithm for Suicide Assessment, to independently adjudicate SIB events.²²

In total, 4464 patients in the brodalumab clinical trials received at least 1 dose of brodalumab, and 4126 of these patients received at least 1 dose of brodalumab 210 mg Q2W.²² Total exposure was 9174 patient-years of brodalumab, and mean exposure was 23 months. During the 52-week controlled phases of the clinical trials, 7 patients receiving brodalumab experienced any form of SIB event, representing a time-adjusted incidence rate of 0.20 events (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.41 events) per 100 patient-years of exposure. During the same 52-week period, patients receiving the comparator drug ustekinumab had an SIB rate of 0.60 events (95% CI, 0.12-1.74 events) per 100 patient-years, which was numerically higher than the rate with brodalumab. Inferential statistical analyses were not performed, but overlapping 95% CIs around these point estimates imply a similar level of SIB risk associated with each agent in these studies. During controlled and uncontrolled treatment periods in all studies, the SIB rate among brodalumab-treated patients was 0.37 events per 100 patient-years.²²

Over all study phases, 3 completed suicides and 1 case adjudicated as indeterminate by the Columbia Classification Algorithm for Suicide Assessment review board were reported.²² All occurred in men aged 39 to 59 years. Of 6 patients with an AE of suicide attempt, all patients had at least 1 SIB risk factor and 3 had a history of SIB. The rate of SIB events was greater in patients with a history of depression (1.42) or suicidality (3.21) compared to those without any history of depression or suicidality (0.21 and 0.20, respectively).²² An examination of the regions in which the brodalumab studies were conducted showed generally consistent SIB incidence rates: 0.52, 0.29, 0.77, and 0 events per 100 patient-years in North America, Europe, Australia, and Russia, respectively.²⁴

As previously described, depression and other risk factors for SIB are prevalent among patients with psoriasis. In addition, the rate of suicide mortality has increased substantially over the last decade in the general population, particularly among middle-aged white men,²⁹ who made up much of the brodalumab clinical trial population.²² Therefore, even without treatment, it would not be surprising that SIB events occurred during the brodalumab trials. Most patients with SIB events during the trials had a history of predisposing risk factors.²² Prescribing information for brodalumab in the United States includes a boxed warning advising physicians to be aware of the risk of SIB as well as a statement that a causal relationship between SIB and brodalumab treatment has not been established.²⁷

COMMENT

This review indicates that depression is increased among patients with psoriasis regardless of treatment regimen⁷; however, the association between psoriasis and suicidality is unclear. In clinical trials of brodalumab, treatment resulted in improved symptoms of depression and anxiety among patients with psoriasis and was associated with lower rates of SIB compared to ustekinumab.^22,23

Despite the boxed warning in the brodalumab package insert concerning suicidality, a causal relationship between brodalumab treatment and increased risk of SIB has not been firmly established.²⁷ The US boxed warning is based on 3 completed suicides and 1 case adjudicated as indeterminate among more than 4000 patients who received at least 1 dose of brodalumab during global clinical trials (0.07% [3/4464]). Compliance in the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program is mandatory, and patient screening and counseling should not be minimized.²⁷ The 3 completed suicides occurred in patients who reported a history of financial stressors, legal difficulties, or depression and anxiety, and they occurred at least 140 days after initiation of treatment with brodalumab, a chronology that does not support a strong association between brodalumab exposure and SIB.²² Taking into consideration the increased risk for depression among individuals with psoriasis and the details surrounding the 3 completed suicides, an evidence-based causal relationship between brodalumab and increased risk for suicidality cannot be concluded. However, physicians must assess risks and benefits of any therapy in the context of the individual patient’s preferences, risk factors, and response to treatment.

Dermatologists who are aware of the comorbidity between psoriasis and mood disorders play an important role in evaluating patients with psoriasis for psychiatric risk factors.^30-32 The dermatologist should discuss with patients the relationship between psoriasis and depression, assess for any history of depression and SIB, and evaluate for signs and symptoms of depression and current SIB.³³ Screening tools, including the HADS or the short, easily administered PHQ-2³⁴ or PHQ-4,³⁵ can be used to assess whether patients have symptoms of depression.^1,36,37 Patients at risk for depression or SIB should be referred to their primary care physician or a mental health care practitioner.³⁷ Currently, there is a gap in knowledge in screening patients for psychiatric issues within the dermatology community^33,38; however, health care providers can give support to help bridge this gap.

Acknowledgments
This study was sponsored by Amgen Inc. Medical writing support was provided under the direction of the authors by Lisa Baker, PhD, and Rebecca E. Slager, PhD, of MedThink SciCom (Cary, North Carolina) and funded by Ortho Dermatologics, a division of Bausch Health US, LLC.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the biosimilar infliximab-axxq (Avsola) for various indications, making it the fourth biosimilar of infliximab (Remicade) to be cleared for marketing by the agency.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The tumor necrosis factor inhibitor is indicated for patients with Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who are aged 6 years and older, RA in combination with methotrexate, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and plaque psoriasis. The approval is based on numerous trials. The most common adverse reactions are infections, infusion-related reactions, headache, and abdominal pain.

Full prescribing information can be found on the FDA website, as can more information about biosimilars.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the biosimilar infliximab-axxq (Avsola) for various indications, making it the fourth biosimilar of infliximab (Remicade) to be cleared for marketing by the agency.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The tumor necrosis factor inhibitor is indicated for patients with Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who are aged 6 years and older, RA in combination with methotrexate, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and plaque psoriasis. The approval is based on numerous trials. The most common adverse reactions are infections, infusion-related reactions, headache, and abdominal pain.

Full prescribing information can be found on the FDA website, as can more information about biosimilars.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the biosimilar infliximab-axxq (Avsola) for various indications, making it the fourth biosimilar of infliximab (Remicade) to be cleared for marketing by the agency.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The tumor necrosis factor inhibitor is indicated for patients with Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who are aged 6 years and older, RA in combination with methotrexate, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and plaque psoriasis. The approval is based on numerous trials. The most common adverse reactions are infections, infusion-related reactions, headache, and abdominal pain.

Full prescribing information can be found on the FDA website, as can more information about biosimilars.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

MADRID – The risk of serious adverse events in patients on certolizumab varies considerably across indications for use of the biologic, with differential disease-related rates of systemic corticosteroid use and obesity having a big impact, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

He presented a comprehensive analysis of safety data from all 49 clinical trials of the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for its approved indications. The data set included 11,317 patients who received certolizumab for a collective 21,695 person-years in 27 trials in rheumatoid arthritis patients, 5 in psoriasis, 15 for Crohn’s disease, and one trial each for axial spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis.

“It’s not real-world data, but it is a large group of patients [studied] over many years,” noted Dr. Blauvelt, a dermatologist and president of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.

As a renowned authority on psoriasis, he was part of a multidisciplinary expert panel commissioned by UCB to analyze serious adverse events in the complete clinical trials experience involving the company’s tumor necrosis factor inhibitor certolizumab (Cimzia). The panel included experts from rheumatology, gastroenterology, epidemiology, and other disciplines.

The key takeaway: “When you think about the serious side effects of the drug, you have to think about what the indication is, whether the patients are on systemic corticosteroids, and whether they’re heavy or not,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

Take, for example, the risk of serious infections requiring treatment with intravenous antibiotics. The incidence rates ranged from a low of 1.5 per 100 patient-years in psoriasis patients on certolizumab to a high of 5.97 in those with Crohn’s disease, with rates of 3.44 cases per 100 patient-years among rheumatoid arthritis patients and 1.64-1.67 in those with psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis, respectively. Patients with Crohn’s disease were 2.22-fold more likely than were those with rheumatoid arthritis to experience a serious infection during their clinical trial experience on certolizumab. In contrast, psoriasis patients had a 52% relative risk reduction and those with psoriatic arthritis were 31% less likely to develop a serious infection compared with those with rheumatoid arthritis.

The explanation for these highly variable serious infection rates lies in part on the huge differences in the concurrent use of systemic corticosteroids with certolizumab across indications. A mere 3.3% of psoriasis patients were also on steroids, compared with 46.2% of rheumatoid arthritis patients, 50.8% of those with ankylosing spondylitis, and about 25% of the Crohn’s disease and psoriatic arthritis patients, he noted.

Advanced age was independently associated with increased risk of serious infections. Patients aged 65 or older were 1.68-fold more likely to experience this event than were those under age 45. And patients whose disease duration was 10 years or more at baseline had a 1.36-fold increased serious infection risk compared with those who had less than a 1-year-long disease history, independent of which disease they had.

The prevalence of baseline obesity varied by indication. The mean body mass index was 30.1 kg/m² in the psoriasis patients, 29.8 kg/m² in those with psoriatic arthritis, lowest at 24 kg/m² in Crohn’s disease patients, and a bit over 27 kg/m² in those with rheumatoid arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis.

Obesity alone was not an independent risk factor for serious infection in certolizumab-treated patients; however, the combination of a BMI of 30 kg/m² or more plus systemic corticosteroid use was associated with a greater risk than with steroids alone.

Based upon a multivariate regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, indication, disease duration, use of methotrexate, and prior use of other TNF inhibitors, the investigators calculated that in patients with Crohn’s disease 16.6% of serious infections in patients on certolizumab were attributable to systemic corticosteroid use.
 

Risks of major adverse cardiovascular events and cancer on certolizumab

The risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) while on certolizumab ranged from a high of 0.62 MACE events per 100 patient-years in the rheumatoid arthritis population to a low of 0.1 per 100 patient-years in patients treated for Crohn’s disease or ankylosing spondylitis. Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis patients had MACE rates of 0.27 and 0.54, respectively.

Obesity was independently associated with increased risk of an acute MI and other MACEs. So was advanced age. No surprises there. The investigators calculated that 16.7% of MACEs in patients on certolizumab were attributable to obesity and another 20.9% were attributable to use of systemic corticosteroids.

The incidence rate for all malignancies, including nonmelanoma skin cancer, ranged from a low of 0.46 cases per 100 patient-years in the psoriatic arthritis cohort on certolizumab to a high of 0.93 in those with rheumatoid arthritis, with rates of 0.68, 0.73, and 0.51 in patients with psoriasis, Crohn’s disease, and ankylosing spondylitis, respectively.

Neither systemic corticosteroids, obesity, disease duration, or prior exposure to a TNF inhibitor was linked to increased risk of cancer in patients on certolizumab. The standout risk factor was age: Patients who were 65 or older at baseline were 11.4-fold more likely to develop cancer during participation in their clinical trial than were those younger than 45. Those who were 45 to 65 years old were 4.3-fold more likely to be diagnosed with a malignancy than were those younger than age 45.

Of note, concomitant use of methotrexate was associated with a statistically significant 28% reduction in malignancy risk.

Dr. Blauvelt reported serving as a consultant to and receiving research funding from UCB, the study sponsor, as well as more than two dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Blauvelt A. EADV Congress, Abstract FC04.06.

MADRID – The risk of serious adverse events in patients on certolizumab varies considerably across indications for use of the biologic, with differential disease-related rates of systemic corticosteroid use and obesity having a big impact, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

He presented a comprehensive analysis of safety data from all 49 clinical trials of the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for its approved indications. The data set included 11,317 patients who received certolizumab for a collective 21,695 person-years in 27 trials in rheumatoid arthritis patients, 5 in psoriasis, 15 for Crohn’s disease, and one trial each for axial spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis.

“It’s not real-world data, but it is a large group of patients [studied] over many years,” noted Dr. Blauvelt, a dermatologist and president of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.

As a renowned authority on psoriasis, he was part of a multidisciplinary expert panel commissioned by UCB to analyze serious adverse events in the complete clinical trials experience involving the company’s tumor necrosis factor inhibitor certolizumab (Cimzia). The panel included experts from rheumatology, gastroenterology, epidemiology, and other disciplines.

The key takeaway: “When you think about the serious side effects of the drug, you have to think about what the indication is, whether the patients are on systemic corticosteroids, and whether they’re heavy or not,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

Take, for example, the risk of serious infections requiring treatment with intravenous antibiotics. The incidence rates ranged from a low of 1.5 per 100 patient-years in psoriasis patients on certolizumab to a high of 5.97 in those with Crohn’s disease, with rates of 3.44 cases per 100 patient-years among rheumatoid arthritis patients and 1.64-1.67 in those with psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis, respectively. Patients with Crohn’s disease were 2.22-fold more likely than were those with rheumatoid arthritis to experience a serious infection during their clinical trial experience on certolizumab. In contrast, psoriasis patients had a 52% relative risk reduction and those with psoriatic arthritis were 31% less likely to develop a serious infection compared with those with rheumatoid arthritis.

The explanation for these highly variable serious infection rates lies in part on the huge differences in the concurrent use of systemic corticosteroids with certolizumab across indications. A mere 3.3% of psoriasis patients were also on steroids, compared with 46.2% of rheumatoid arthritis patients, 50.8% of those with ankylosing spondylitis, and about 25% of the Crohn’s disease and psoriatic arthritis patients, he noted.

Advanced age was independently associated with increased risk of serious infections. Patients aged 65 or older were 1.68-fold more likely to experience this event than were those under age 45. And patients whose disease duration was 10 years or more at baseline had a 1.36-fold increased serious infection risk compared with those who had less than a 1-year-long disease history, independent of which disease they had.

The prevalence of baseline obesity varied by indication. The mean body mass index was 30.1 kg/m² in the psoriasis patients, 29.8 kg/m² in those with psoriatic arthritis, lowest at 24 kg/m² in Crohn’s disease patients, and a bit over 27 kg/m² in those with rheumatoid arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis.

Obesity alone was not an independent risk factor for serious infection in certolizumab-treated patients; however, the combination of a BMI of 30 kg/m² or more plus systemic corticosteroid use was associated with a greater risk than with steroids alone.

Based upon a multivariate regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, indication, disease duration, use of methotrexate, and prior use of other TNF inhibitors, the investigators calculated that in patients with Crohn’s disease 16.6% of serious infections in patients on certolizumab were attributable to systemic corticosteroid use.
 

Risks of major adverse cardiovascular events and cancer on certolizumab

The risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) while on certolizumab ranged from a high of 0.62 MACE events per 100 patient-years in the rheumatoid arthritis population to a low of 0.1 per 100 patient-years in patients treated for Crohn’s disease or ankylosing spondylitis. Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis patients had MACE rates of 0.27 and 0.54, respectively.

Obesity was independently associated with increased risk of an acute MI and other MACEs. So was advanced age. No surprises there. The investigators calculated that 16.7% of MACEs in patients on certolizumab were attributable to obesity and another 20.9% were attributable to use of systemic corticosteroids.

The incidence rate for all malignancies, including nonmelanoma skin cancer, ranged from a low of 0.46 cases per 100 patient-years in the psoriatic arthritis cohort on certolizumab to a high of 0.93 in those with rheumatoid arthritis, with rates of 0.68, 0.73, and 0.51 in patients with psoriasis, Crohn’s disease, and ankylosing spondylitis, respectively.

Neither systemic corticosteroids, obesity, disease duration, or prior exposure to a TNF inhibitor was linked to increased risk of cancer in patients on certolizumab. The standout risk factor was age: Patients who were 65 or older at baseline were 11.4-fold more likely to develop cancer during participation in their clinical trial than were those younger than 45. Those who were 45 to 65 years old were 4.3-fold more likely to be diagnosed with a malignancy than were those younger than age 45.

Of note, concomitant use of methotrexate was associated with a statistically significant 28% reduction in malignancy risk.

Dr. Blauvelt reported serving as a consultant to and receiving research funding from UCB, the study sponsor, as well as more than two dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Blauvelt A. EADV Congress, Abstract FC04.06.

MADRID – The risk of serious adverse events in patients on certolizumab varies considerably across indications for use of the biologic, with differential disease-related rates of systemic corticosteroid use and obesity having a big impact, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

He presented a comprehensive analysis of safety data from all 49 clinical trials of the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for its approved indications. The data set included 11,317 patients who received certolizumab for a collective 21,695 person-years in 27 trials in rheumatoid arthritis patients, 5 in psoriasis, 15 for Crohn’s disease, and one trial each for axial spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis.

“It’s not real-world data, but it is a large group of patients [studied] over many years,” noted Dr. Blauvelt, a dermatologist and president of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.

As a renowned authority on psoriasis, he was part of a multidisciplinary expert panel commissioned by UCB to analyze serious adverse events in the complete clinical trials experience involving the company’s tumor necrosis factor inhibitor certolizumab (Cimzia). The panel included experts from rheumatology, gastroenterology, epidemiology, and other disciplines.

The key takeaway: “When you think about the serious side effects of the drug, you have to think about what the indication is, whether the patients are on systemic corticosteroids, and whether they’re heavy or not,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

Take, for example, the risk of serious infections requiring treatment with intravenous antibiotics. The incidence rates ranged from a low of 1.5 per 100 patient-years in psoriasis patients on certolizumab to a high of 5.97 in those with Crohn’s disease, with rates of 3.44 cases per 100 patient-years among rheumatoid arthritis patients and 1.64-1.67 in those with psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis, respectively. Patients with Crohn’s disease were 2.22-fold more likely than were those with rheumatoid arthritis to experience a serious infection during their clinical trial experience on certolizumab. In contrast, psoriasis patients had a 52% relative risk reduction and those with psoriatic arthritis were 31% less likely to develop a serious infection compared with those with rheumatoid arthritis.

The explanation for these highly variable serious infection rates lies in part on the huge differences in the concurrent use of systemic corticosteroids with certolizumab across indications. A mere 3.3% of psoriasis patients were also on steroids, compared with 46.2% of rheumatoid arthritis patients, 50.8% of those with ankylosing spondylitis, and about 25% of the Crohn’s disease and psoriatic arthritis patients, he noted.

Advanced age was independently associated with increased risk of serious infections. Patients aged 65 or older were 1.68-fold more likely to experience this event than were those under age 45. And patients whose disease duration was 10 years or more at baseline had a 1.36-fold increased serious infection risk compared with those who had less than a 1-year-long disease history, independent of which disease they had.

The prevalence of baseline obesity varied by indication. The mean body mass index was 30.1 kg/m² in the psoriasis patients, 29.8 kg/m² in those with psoriatic arthritis, lowest at 24 kg/m² in Crohn’s disease patients, and a bit over 27 kg/m² in those with rheumatoid arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis.

Obesity alone was not an independent risk factor for serious infection in certolizumab-treated patients; however, the combination of a BMI of 30 kg/m² or more plus systemic corticosteroid use was associated with a greater risk than with steroids alone.

Based upon a multivariate regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, indication, disease duration, use of methotrexate, and prior use of other TNF inhibitors, the investigators calculated that in patients with Crohn’s disease 16.6% of serious infections in patients on certolizumab were attributable to systemic corticosteroid use.
 

Risks of major adverse cardiovascular events and cancer on certolizumab

The risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) while on certolizumab ranged from a high of 0.62 MACE events per 100 patient-years in the rheumatoid arthritis population to a low of 0.1 per 100 patient-years in patients treated for Crohn’s disease or ankylosing spondylitis. Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis patients had MACE rates of 0.27 and 0.54, respectively.

Obesity was independently associated with increased risk of an acute MI and other MACEs. So was advanced age. No surprises there. The investigators calculated that 16.7% of MACEs in patients on certolizumab were attributable to obesity and another 20.9% were attributable to use of systemic corticosteroids.

The incidence rate for all malignancies, including nonmelanoma skin cancer, ranged from a low of 0.46 cases per 100 patient-years in the psoriatic arthritis cohort on certolizumab to a high of 0.93 in those with rheumatoid arthritis, with rates of 0.68, 0.73, and 0.51 in patients with psoriasis, Crohn’s disease, and ankylosing spondylitis, respectively.

Neither systemic corticosteroids, obesity, disease duration, or prior exposure to a TNF inhibitor was linked to increased risk of cancer in patients on certolizumab. The standout risk factor was age: Patients who were 65 or older at baseline were 11.4-fold more likely to develop cancer during participation in their clinical trial than were those younger than 45. Those who were 45 to 65 years old were 4.3-fold more likely to be diagnosed with a malignancy than were those younger than age 45.

Of note, concomitant use of methotrexate was associated with a statistically significant 28% reduction in malignancy risk.

Dr. Blauvelt reported serving as a consultant to and receiving research funding from UCB, the study sponsor, as well as more than two dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Blauvelt A. EADV Congress, Abstract FC04.06.