Psoriasis

Dermoscopy increases diagnostic accuracy in the analysis of skin growths.^1,2 Recently the use of dermoscopy has broadened to include inflammatory dermatoses and skin infections.³ To substantiate the value of dermoscopy in assessing psoriasis, we performed a systematic review of the literature and briefly reviewed 31 articles. We also report a case that highlights the differences between psoriasis and basal cell carcinoma (BCC) under dermoscopic examination, and we discuss the literature on the dermoscopic findings of psoriasis with an emphasis on the relative sensitivities and specificities of dermoscopic findings for psoriasis and for BCC.

Case Report

A 63-year-old man with psoriasis and a history of BCC presented for follow-up of psoriasis, which was well-controlled on etanercept. The physical examination was remarkable for scaly pink papules scattered on the trunk and extremities. A new larger red-pink patch was located on the left lower back (Figure 1). Dermoscopic evaluation of the new patch revealed shiny white lines and branching blood vessels (Figure 2). Pathology results of a shave biopsy revealed superficial BCC. The skin cancer was treated with electrodesiccation and curettage.

Comment

The clinical morphology of psoriasis and BCC can be similar, and dermoscopy can help in differentiating between the 2 conditions.

Literature Search on Dermoscopy and Psoriasis
We performed a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE to review the published literature on dermoscopy and psoriasis. Two reviewers (C.H. and L.C.) searched for psoriasis paired with the terms dermoscopy or dermatoscopy or epiluminescence microscopy. Only English-language articles published between 1996 and 2016 were included in the search. Articles that focused solely on confocal microscopy were excluded. Article titles and abstracts were evaluated and articles that omitted mention of dermoscopy and psoriasis were excluded, yielding a total of 31 articles. Of these articles, only 2 discussed the specificity or sensitivity of the dermoscopic findings of psoriasis.^4,5 Most of the articles were case reports and descriptive cross-sectional studies. The reports addressed multiple subtypes of psoriasis, but reports on psoriasis vulgaris and scalp psoriasis were most common (Table). Lallas et al⁶ provided a comprehensive descriptive review of the main findings on dermoscopy for psoriasis and other inflammatory skin conditions, but it lacked a comparison between psoriasis and BCC or data on the sensitivity and specificity of the findings. Two studies reported sensitivity and specificity values for the dermoscopic findings of psoriasis.^4,5 Pan et al⁵ reported a 98% diagnostic probability of psoriasis if red dots, homogeneous vascular pattern, and a light red background are all present. Additionally, they reported that the presence of 4 of 6 criteria for BCC—scattered vascular pattern, arborizing microvessels, telangiectatic or atypical vessels, milky-pink background, and brown dots⁄globules—yielded a diagnostic probability of 99%.⁵ Similarly, Lallas et al⁶ demonstrated that the presence of dotted vessels alone is not sufficient to presume a diagnosis of psoriasis, as this finding can be seen in other inflammatory skin conditions. However, “the combination of regularly distributed dotted vessels over a light red background associated with diffuse white scales was highly predictive of [plaque psoriasis] and allowed a correct diagnosis with 88.0% specificity and 84.9% sensitivity.”⁴ Figure 3 shows a dermoscopic image of plaque psoriasis that demonstrates these findings. The remaining literature corroborated this evidence, with the most commonly reported dermoscopic findings of psoriasis being red dots, red globules, glomerular vessels (also known as twisted capillary loops), red globular rings, and white scale.^7-12

Dermoscopy and BCC
Much has been published on the dermoscopic findings of BCC.^5,13-15 The dermoscopic findings of BCC include large blue-gray ovoid nests, leaflike areas, spoke-wheel–like areas, arborizing vessels (telangiectasia), and ulceration.¹⁵ Superficial BCC is characterized by short fine or arborizing telangiectasia, shallow erosions, and shiny white areas.¹⁵ The positive predictive value of dermoscopy in BCC is as high as 97%.¹⁶ Additionally, multiple studies report a sensitivity of 95% to 99%^5,13,14 and a specificity of 79% to 99% in the use of dermoscopy for identifying BCC. According to Pan et al,⁵ the most sensitive finding for BCC is a scattered vascular pattern (97%), while the most specific finding is arborizing microvessels (99%).

Utility of Dermoscopy
Our case of a 63-year-old man with a history of psoriasis and BCC highlights the usefulness of dermoscopy in accurately determining the features of each condition. Additionally, dermoscopy aids in differentiating between psoriasis and squamous cell carcinoma. In contrast to the dotted vessels seen in psoriasis, squamous cell carcinomas often have peripheral hairpin (glomerular) vessels.¹⁷

If future reports confirm dermoscopy’s utility in accurately diagnosing psoriasis, fewer biopsies may be needed when evaluating patients with new rashes. Furthermore, dermoscopy may expedite treatment of psoriasis (as it can for malignant conditions) by obviating the wait for pathology results currently needed to initiate systemic treatment. For patients with psoriasis who also have sun-damaged skin, dermoscopy may assist in differentiating pink patches and plaques of psoriasis from skin cancer, such as superficial BCCs, which often have shiny white lines not seen in psoriasis.¹⁵

Dermoscopy increases diagnostic accuracy in the analysis of skin growths.^1,2 Recently the use of dermoscopy has broadened to include inflammatory dermatoses and skin infections.³ To substantiate the value of dermoscopy in assessing psoriasis, we performed a systematic review of the literature and briefly reviewed 31 articles. We also report a case that highlights the differences between psoriasis and basal cell carcinoma (BCC) under dermoscopic examination, and we discuss the literature on the dermoscopic findings of psoriasis with an emphasis on the relative sensitivities and specificities of dermoscopic findings for psoriasis and for BCC.

Case Report

A 63-year-old man with psoriasis and a history of BCC presented for follow-up of psoriasis, which was well-controlled on etanercept. The physical examination was remarkable for scaly pink papules scattered on the trunk and extremities. A new larger red-pink patch was located on the left lower back (Figure 1). Dermoscopic evaluation of the new patch revealed shiny white lines and branching blood vessels (Figure 2). Pathology results of a shave biopsy revealed superficial BCC. The skin cancer was treated with electrodesiccation and curettage.

Comment

The clinical morphology of psoriasis and BCC can be similar, and dermoscopy can help in differentiating between the 2 conditions.

Literature Search on Dermoscopy and Psoriasis
We performed a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE to review the published literature on dermoscopy and psoriasis. Two reviewers (C.H. and L.C.) searched for psoriasis paired with the terms dermoscopy or dermatoscopy or epiluminescence microscopy. Only English-language articles published between 1996 and 2016 were included in the search. Articles that focused solely on confocal microscopy were excluded. Article titles and abstracts were evaluated and articles that omitted mention of dermoscopy and psoriasis were excluded, yielding a total of 31 articles. Of these articles, only 2 discussed the specificity or sensitivity of the dermoscopic findings of psoriasis.^4,5 Most of the articles were case reports and descriptive cross-sectional studies. The reports addressed multiple subtypes of psoriasis, but reports on psoriasis vulgaris and scalp psoriasis were most common (Table). Lallas et al⁶ provided a comprehensive descriptive review of the main findings on dermoscopy for psoriasis and other inflammatory skin conditions, but it lacked a comparison between psoriasis and BCC or data on the sensitivity and specificity of the findings. Two studies reported sensitivity and specificity values for the dermoscopic findings of psoriasis.^4,5 Pan et al⁵ reported a 98% diagnostic probability of psoriasis if red dots, homogeneous vascular pattern, and a light red background are all present. Additionally, they reported that the presence of 4 of 6 criteria for BCC—scattered vascular pattern, arborizing microvessels, telangiectatic or atypical vessels, milky-pink background, and brown dots⁄globules—yielded a diagnostic probability of 99%.⁵ Similarly, Lallas et al⁶ demonstrated that the presence of dotted vessels alone is not sufficient to presume a diagnosis of psoriasis, as this finding can be seen in other inflammatory skin conditions. However, “the combination of regularly distributed dotted vessels over a light red background associated with diffuse white scales was highly predictive of [plaque psoriasis] and allowed a correct diagnosis with 88.0% specificity and 84.9% sensitivity.”⁴ Figure 3 shows a dermoscopic image of plaque psoriasis that demonstrates these findings. The remaining literature corroborated this evidence, with the most commonly reported dermoscopic findings of psoriasis being red dots, red globules, glomerular vessels (also known as twisted capillary loops), red globular rings, and white scale.^7-12

Dermoscopy and BCC
Much has been published on the dermoscopic findings of BCC.^5,13-15 The dermoscopic findings of BCC include large blue-gray ovoid nests, leaflike areas, spoke-wheel–like areas, arborizing vessels (telangiectasia), and ulceration.¹⁵ Superficial BCC is characterized by short fine or arborizing telangiectasia, shallow erosions, and shiny white areas.¹⁵ The positive predictive value of dermoscopy in BCC is as high as 97%.¹⁶ Additionally, multiple studies report a sensitivity of 95% to 99%^5,13,14 and a specificity of 79% to 99% in the use of dermoscopy for identifying BCC. According to Pan et al,⁵ the most sensitive finding for BCC is a scattered vascular pattern (97%), while the most specific finding is arborizing microvessels (99%).

Utility of Dermoscopy
Our case of a 63-year-old man with a history of psoriasis and BCC highlights the usefulness of dermoscopy in accurately determining the features of each condition. Additionally, dermoscopy aids in differentiating between psoriasis and squamous cell carcinoma. In contrast to the dotted vessels seen in psoriasis, squamous cell carcinomas often have peripheral hairpin (glomerular) vessels.¹⁷

If future reports confirm dermoscopy’s utility in accurately diagnosing psoriasis, fewer biopsies may be needed when evaluating patients with new rashes. Furthermore, dermoscopy may expedite treatment of psoriasis (as it can for malignant conditions) by obviating the wait for pathology results currently needed to initiate systemic treatment. For patients with psoriasis who also have sun-damaged skin, dermoscopy may assist in differentiating pink patches and plaques of psoriasis from skin cancer, such as superficial BCCs, which often have shiny white lines not seen in psoriasis.¹⁵

Dermoscopy increases diagnostic accuracy in the analysis of skin growths.^1,2 Recently the use of dermoscopy has broadened to include inflammatory dermatoses and skin infections.³ To substantiate the value of dermoscopy in assessing psoriasis, we performed a systematic review of the literature and briefly reviewed 31 articles. We also report a case that highlights the differences between psoriasis and basal cell carcinoma (BCC) under dermoscopic examination, and we discuss the literature on the dermoscopic findings of psoriasis with an emphasis on the relative sensitivities and specificities of dermoscopic findings for psoriasis and for BCC.

Case Report

A 63-year-old man with psoriasis and a history of BCC presented for follow-up of psoriasis, which was well-controlled on etanercept. The physical examination was remarkable for scaly pink papules scattered on the trunk and extremities. A new larger red-pink patch was located on the left lower back (Figure 1). Dermoscopic evaluation of the new patch revealed shiny white lines and branching blood vessels (Figure 2). Pathology results of a shave biopsy revealed superficial BCC. The skin cancer was treated with electrodesiccation and curettage.

Comment

The clinical morphology of psoriasis and BCC can be similar, and dermoscopy can help in differentiating between the 2 conditions.

Literature Search on Dermoscopy and Psoriasis
We performed a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE to review the published literature on dermoscopy and psoriasis. Two reviewers (C.H. and L.C.) searched for psoriasis paired with the terms dermoscopy or dermatoscopy or epiluminescence microscopy. Only English-language articles published between 1996 and 2016 were included in the search. Articles that focused solely on confocal microscopy were excluded. Article titles and abstracts were evaluated and articles that omitted mention of dermoscopy and psoriasis were excluded, yielding a total of 31 articles. Of these articles, only 2 discussed the specificity or sensitivity of the dermoscopic findings of psoriasis.^4,5 Most of the articles were case reports and descriptive cross-sectional studies. The reports addressed multiple subtypes of psoriasis, but reports on psoriasis vulgaris and scalp psoriasis were most common (Table). Lallas et al⁶ provided a comprehensive descriptive review of the main findings on dermoscopy for psoriasis and other inflammatory skin conditions, but it lacked a comparison between psoriasis and BCC or data on the sensitivity and specificity of the findings. Two studies reported sensitivity and specificity values for the dermoscopic findings of psoriasis.^4,5 Pan et al⁵ reported a 98% diagnostic probability of psoriasis if red dots, homogeneous vascular pattern, and a light red background are all present. Additionally, they reported that the presence of 4 of 6 criteria for BCC—scattered vascular pattern, arborizing microvessels, telangiectatic or atypical vessels, milky-pink background, and brown dots⁄globules—yielded a diagnostic probability of 99%.⁵ Similarly, Lallas et al⁶ demonstrated that the presence of dotted vessels alone is not sufficient to presume a diagnosis of psoriasis, as this finding can be seen in other inflammatory skin conditions. However, “the combination of regularly distributed dotted vessels over a light red background associated with diffuse white scales was highly predictive of [plaque psoriasis] and allowed a correct diagnosis with 88.0% specificity and 84.9% sensitivity.”⁴ Figure 3 shows a dermoscopic image of plaque psoriasis that demonstrates these findings. The remaining literature corroborated this evidence, with the most commonly reported dermoscopic findings of psoriasis being red dots, red globules, glomerular vessels (also known as twisted capillary loops), red globular rings, and white scale.^7-12

Dermoscopy and BCC
Much has been published on the dermoscopic findings of BCC.^5,13-15 The dermoscopic findings of BCC include large blue-gray ovoid nests, leaflike areas, spoke-wheel–like areas, arborizing vessels (telangiectasia), and ulceration.¹⁵ Superficial BCC is characterized by short fine or arborizing telangiectasia, shallow erosions, and shiny white areas.¹⁵ The positive predictive value of dermoscopy in BCC is as high as 97%.¹⁶ Additionally, multiple studies report a sensitivity of 95% to 99%^5,13,14 and a specificity of 79% to 99% in the use of dermoscopy for identifying BCC. According to Pan et al,⁵ the most sensitive finding for BCC is a scattered vascular pattern (97%), while the most specific finding is arborizing microvessels (99%).

Utility of Dermoscopy
Our case of a 63-year-old man with a history of psoriasis and BCC highlights the usefulness of dermoscopy in accurately determining the features of each condition. Additionally, dermoscopy aids in differentiating between psoriasis and squamous cell carcinoma. In contrast to the dotted vessels seen in psoriasis, squamous cell carcinomas often have peripheral hairpin (glomerular) vessels.¹⁷

If future reports confirm dermoscopy’s utility in accurately diagnosing psoriasis, fewer biopsies may be needed when evaluating patients with new rashes. Furthermore, dermoscopy may expedite treatment of psoriasis (as it can for malignant conditions) by obviating the wait for pathology results currently needed to initiate systemic treatment. For patients with psoriasis who also have sun-damaged skin, dermoscopy may assist in differentiating pink patches and plaques of psoriasis from skin cancer, such as superficial BCCs, which often have shiny white lines not seen in psoriasis.¹⁵

The prevalence of psoriasis among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–positive patients in the United States is reported to be approximately 1% to 3%, which is similar to the rates reported for the general population.¹ Recalcitrant cases of psoriasis in patients with no history of the condition can be the initial manifestation of HIV infection. In patients with preexisting psoriasis, a flare of their disease can be seen following infection, and progression of HIV correlates with worsening psoriasis.² Psoriatic arthropathy also affects 23% to 50% of HIV-positive patients with psoriasis worldwide, which may be higher than the general population,¹ with more severe joint disease.

The management of psoriatic disease in the HIV-positive population is challenging. The current first-line recommendations for treatment include topical therapies, phototherapy, and highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), followed by oral retinoids as second-line agents.³ However, the clinical course of psoriasis in HIV-positive patients often is progressive and refractory²; therefore, these therapies often are inadequate to control both skin and joint manifestations. Most other currently available systemic therapies for psoriatic disease are immunosuppressive, which poses a distinct clinical challenge because HIV-positive patients are already immunocompromised.

There currently are many systemic immunosuppressive agents used for the treatment of psoriatic disease, including oral agents (eg, methotrexate, hydroxyurea, cyclosporine), as well as newer biologic medications, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α inhibitors etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, and certolizumab pegol. Golimumab and certolizumab pegol currently are indicated for psoriatic arthritis only. Other newer biologic therapies include ustekinumab, which inhibits IL-12 and IL-23, and secukinumab, which inhibits IL-17A. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the most current literature to explore the efficacy and safety data as they pertain to systemic immunosuppressive therapies for the treatment of psoriatic disease in HIV-positive individuals.

Methods

To investigate the efficacy and safety of systemic immunosuppressive therapies for psoriatic disease in HIV-positive individuals, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE (1985-2015) was conducted using the terms psoriasis and HIV and psoriatic arthritis and HIV combined with each of the following systemic immunosuppressive agents: methotrexate, hydroxyurea, cyclosporine, etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, certolizumab pegol, ustekinumab, and secukinumab. Pediatric cases and articles that were not available in the English language were excluded.

For each case, patient demographic information (ie, age, sex), prior failed psoriasis treatments, and history of HAART were documented. The dosing regimen of the systemic agent was noted when different from the US Food and Drug administration–approved dosage for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis. The duration of immunosuppressive therapy as well as pretreatment and posttreatment CD4 and viral counts (when available) were collected. The response to treatment and adverse effects were summarized.

Results

Our review of the literature yielded a total of 25 reported cases of systemic immunosuppressive therapies used to treat psoriatic disease in HIV-positive patients, including methotrexate, cyclosporine, etanercept, adalimumab, in-fliximab, and ustekinumab (Table). There were no reports of the use of hydroxyurea, golimumab, certolizumab pegol, or secukinumab to treat psoriatic disease in this patient population.

Methotrexate
Eight individual cases of methotrexate used to treat psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis in HIV-positive patients were reported.^4-6 Duvic et al⁶ described 4 patients with psoriatic disease that was treated with methotrexate with varying efficacy. One patient developed toxic encephalopathy, which improved after discontinuation of methotrexate; however, he died 5 months later from pneumocystis pneumonia. In this early study, none of the 4 patients were on antiretroviral therapy for HIV.⁶

In the cases reported by Masson et al⁴ and Maurer et al,⁵ 4 patients were treated with a single antiretroviral agent and received appropriate prophylaxis against opportunistic infections. In 1 case, methotrexate was given at a chemotherapeutic dose of 525 mg once weekly for Kaposi sarcoma.⁴ In 2 of 4 cases, the patients developed pneumocystis pneumonia.^4,5

Cyclosporine
There were 2 case reports of successful treatment of psoriatic disease with cyclosporine in HIV-positive patients.^7,8 Skin and joint manifestations improved rapidly without reports of infection for 2⁷ and 8 years.⁸ Both patients were treated with one antiretroviral agent.^7,8

Etanercept
There were 5 case reports of successful treatment of psoriatic disease with etanercept. In all 5 cases the patients were on HAART, and the CD4 count increased or remained stable and viral count became undetectable or remained stable following treatment.^9-13 In 2 cases, the patient also had hepatitis C virus, which remained stable throughout the treatment period.^9,12 The maximum duration of treatment was 6 years, with only 1 reported adverse event.¹³ In this case reported by Aboulafia et al,¹³ the patient experienced recurrent polymicrobial infections, including enterococcal cellulitis, cystitis, and bacteremia, as well as pseudomonas pneumonia and septic arthritis. Therapy was discontinued at 6 months. Four months after discontinuation of etanercept, the patient died from infectious causes.¹³

Adalimumab
There was 1 case of successful treatment of psoriatic disease with adalimumab in an HIV-positive patient. In this case, the patient was on HAART, and CD4 and viral counts improved substantially after 30 months of treatment.¹⁴

Infliximab
Six individual cases of successful treatment of psoriatic disease with infliximab were reported.^15-17 In a report by Cepeda et al,¹⁵ HIV-positive patients with various rheumatologic diseases were chosen to receive etanercept followed by adalimumab and/or infliximab if clinical improvement was not observed on etanercept. In 3 patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, inadequate response was observed on etanercept. Two of these 3 patients received adalimumab with only partial response. All 3 were treated with infliximab in the end and showed excellent response. One of the patients experienced facial abscess responsive to antibiotics and was continued on infliximab therapy without further complications. In all 6 cases of infliximab therapy, the patients were on HAART, and CD4 and viral counts improved or remained stable.¹⁵

Ustekinumab
There were 3 case reports of successful treatment of psoriatic disease with ustekinumab in HIV-positive patients on HAART. CD4 and viral counts improved or remained stable.^18-20

Comment

Currently, all of the systemic immunosuppressive therapies approved for psoriatic disease have a warning by the US Food and Drug Administration for increased risk of serious infection. Given such labels, these therapies are not routinely prescribed for HIV-positive patients who are already immunocompromised; however, many HIV-positive patients have severe psoriatic disease that cannot be adequately treated with first- and second-line therapies including topical agents, phototherapy, or oral retinoids.

Our comprehensive review yielded a total of 25 reported cases of systemic immunosuppressive therapies used to treat psoriatic disease in HIV-positive patients including methotrexate, cyclosporine, etanercept, adalimumab, in-fliximab, and ustekinumab. Although data are limited to case reports and case series, some trends were observed.

Efficacy
In most of the cases reviewed, the patients had inadequate improvement of psoriatic disease with first- and second-line therapies, which included antiretrovirals alone, topical agents, phototherapy, and oral retinoids. Some cases reported poor response to methotrexate and cyclosporine.^4-8 Biologic agents were effective in many such cases.

Safety
Overall, there were 11 cases in which the patient was not on adequate HAART while being treated with systemic immunosuppressive therapy for psoriatic disease.^4-8,15 Of them, 3 were associated with serious infection while on methotrexate.^5,6 There was only 1 report of serious infection¹³ of 14 cases in which the patient was on concomitant HAART. In this case, which reported polymicrobial infections and subsequent death of the patient, the infections continued after discontinuing etanercept; thus, the association is unclear. Interestingly, despite multiple infections, the CD4 and viral counts were stable throughout treatment with etanercept.¹³

From reviewing the 4 total cases^5,6,13 of serious infection, HAART appears to be a valuable concomitant treatment during systemic immunosuppressive therapy for HIV-positive patients; however, it does not necessarily prevent serious infections from occurring, and thus the clinician’s diligence in monitoring for signs and symptoms of infection remains important.

CD4 and Viral Counts
Although reports of CD4 and viral counts were not available in earlier studies,^4-8 there were 15 cases that reported consistent pretreatment and posttreatment CD4 and viral counts during treatment with etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, and ustekinumab.^9-20 In all cases, the CD4 count was stable or increased. Similarly, the viral count was stable or decreased. All patients, except 1 by Cepeda et al,¹⁵ were on concomitant HAART.^9-14,16-20

Although data are limited, treatment of psoriatic disease with biologic agents when used in combination with HAART may have beneficial effects on CD4 and viral counts. Tumor necrosis factor has a role in HIV expression through the action of nuclear factor κβ.²¹ An increase in TNF levels is shown to be associated with increased viral count, decreased CD4 count, and increased symptoms of HIV progression, such as fever, fatigue, cachexia, and dementia.²² Although more studies are necessary, TNF-α inhibitors may have a positive effect on HIV while simultaneously treating psoriatic disease. Other cytokines (eg, IL-12, IL-23, IL-17) involved in the mechanism of action of other biologic agents (ustekinumab and secukinumab) have not been shown to be directly associated with HIV activity; however, studies have shown that IL-10 has a role in inhibiting HIV-1 replication and inhibits secretion of proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-12 and TNF-α.²¹ It may be speculated that the inhibition of IL-12 and TNF-α may create a positive feedback effect to increase IL-10, which in turn inhibits HIV replication.

Conclusion

Although there are limited data on the efficacy and safety of systemic immunosuppressive therapies for the treatment of psoriatic disease in HIV-positive patients, a review of 25 individual cases suggest that these treatments are not only required but also are sufficient to treat some of the most resistant cases. It is possible that with adequate concomitant HAART and monitoring for signs and symptoms of infection, the likelihood of serious infection may be low. Furthermore, biologic agents may have a positive effect over other systemic immunosuppressive agents, such as methotrexate and cyclosporine, in improving CD4 and viral counts when used in combination with HAART. Although randomized controlled trials are necessary, current biologic therapies such as etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, and ustekinumab may be safe viable options as third-line treatment of severe psoriasis in the HIV-positive population.

The prevalence of psoriasis among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–positive patients in the United States is reported to be approximately 1% to 3%, which is similar to the rates reported for the general population.¹ Recalcitrant cases of psoriasis in patients with no history of the condition can be the initial manifestation of HIV infection. In patients with preexisting psoriasis, a flare of their disease can be seen following infection, and progression of HIV correlates with worsening psoriasis.² Psoriatic arthropathy also affects 23% to 50% of HIV-positive patients with psoriasis worldwide, which may be higher than the general population,¹ with more severe joint disease.

The management of psoriatic disease in the HIV-positive population is challenging. The current first-line recommendations for treatment include topical therapies, phototherapy, and highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), followed by oral retinoids as second-line agents.³ However, the clinical course of psoriasis in HIV-positive patients often is progressive and refractory²; therefore, these therapies often are inadequate to control both skin and joint manifestations. Most other currently available systemic therapies for psoriatic disease are immunosuppressive, which poses a distinct clinical challenge because HIV-positive patients are already immunocompromised.

There currently are many systemic immunosuppressive agents used for the treatment of psoriatic disease, including oral agents (eg, methotrexate, hydroxyurea, cyclosporine), as well as newer biologic medications, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α inhibitors etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, and certolizumab pegol. Golimumab and certolizumab pegol currently are indicated for psoriatic arthritis only. Other newer biologic therapies include ustekinumab, which inhibits IL-12 and IL-23, and secukinumab, which inhibits IL-17A. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the most current literature to explore the efficacy and safety data as they pertain to systemic immunosuppressive therapies for the treatment of psoriatic disease in HIV-positive individuals.

Methods

To investigate the efficacy and safety of systemic immunosuppressive therapies for psoriatic disease in HIV-positive individuals, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE (1985-2015) was conducted using the terms psoriasis and HIV and psoriatic arthritis and HIV combined with each of the following systemic immunosuppressive agents: methotrexate, hydroxyurea, cyclosporine, etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, certolizumab pegol, ustekinumab, and secukinumab. Pediatric cases and articles that were not available in the English language were excluded.

For each case, patient demographic information (ie, age, sex), prior failed psoriasis treatments, and history of HAART were documented. The dosing regimen of the systemic agent was noted when different from the US Food and Drug administration–approved dosage for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis. The duration of immunosuppressive therapy as well as pretreatment and posttreatment CD4 and viral counts (when available) were collected. The response to treatment and adverse effects were summarized.

Results

Our review of the literature yielded a total of 25 reported cases of systemic immunosuppressive therapies used to treat psoriatic disease in HIV-positive patients, including methotrexate, cyclosporine, etanercept, adalimumab, in-fliximab, and ustekinumab (Table). There were no reports of the use of hydroxyurea, golimumab, certolizumab pegol, or secukinumab to treat psoriatic disease in this patient population.

Methotrexate
Eight individual cases of methotrexate used to treat psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis in HIV-positive patients were reported.^4-6 Duvic et al⁶ described 4 patients with psoriatic disease that was treated with methotrexate with varying efficacy. One patient developed toxic encephalopathy, which improved after discontinuation of methotrexate; however, he died 5 months later from pneumocystis pneumonia. In this early study, none of the 4 patients were on antiretroviral therapy for HIV.⁶

In the cases reported by Masson et al⁴ and Maurer et al,⁵ 4 patients were treated with a single antiretroviral agent and received appropriate prophylaxis against opportunistic infections. In 1 case, methotrexate was given at a chemotherapeutic dose of 525 mg once weekly for Kaposi sarcoma.⁴ In 2 of 4 cases, the patients developed pneumocystis pneumonia.^4,5

Cyclosporine
There were 2 case reports of successful treatment of psoriatic disease with cyclosporine in HIV-positive patients.^7,8 Skin and joint manifestations improved rapidly without reports of infection for 2⁷ and 8 years.⁸ Both patients were treated with one antiretroviral agent.^7,8

Etanercept
There were 5 case reports of successful treatment of psoriatic disease with etanercept. In all 5 cases the patients were on HAART, and the CD4 count increased or remained stable and viral count became undetectable or remained stable following treatment.^9-13 In 2 cases, the patient also had hepatitis C virus, which remained stable throughout the treatment period.^9,12 The maximum duration of treatment was 6 years, with only 1 reported adverse event.¹³ In this case reported by Aboulafia et al,¹³ the patient experienced recurrent polymicrobial infections, including enterococcal cellulitis, cystitis, and bacteremia, as well as pseudomonas pneumonia and septic arthritis. Therapy was discontinued at 6 months. Four months after discontinuation of etanercept, the patient died from infectious causes.¹³

Adalimumab
There was 1 case of successful treatment of psoriatic disease with adalimumab in an HIV-positive patient. In this case, the patient was on HAART, and CD4 and viral counts improved substantially after 30 months of treatment.¹⁴

Infliximab
Six individual cases of successful treatment of psoriatic disease with infliximab were reported.^15-17 In a report by Cepeda et al,¹⁵ HIV-positive patients with various rheumatologic diseases were chosen to receive etanercept followed by adalimumab and/or infliximab if clinical improvement was not observed on etanercept. In 3 patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, inadequate response was observed on etanercept. Two of these 3 patients received adalimumab with only partial response. All 3 were treated with infliximab in the end and showed excellent response. One of the patients experienced facial abscess responsive to antibiotics and was continued on infliximab therapy without further complications. In all 6 cases of infliximab therapy, the patients were on HAART, and CD4 and viral counts improved or remained stable.¹⁵

Ustekinumab
There were 3 case reports of successful treatment of psoriatic disease with ustekinumab in HIV-positive patients on HAART. CD4 and viral counts improved or remained stable.^18-20

Comment

Currently, all of the systemic immunosuppressive therapies approved for psoriatic disease have a warning by the US Food and Drug Administration for increased risk of serious infection. Given such labels, these therapies are not routinely prescribed for HIV-positive patients who are already immunocompromised; however, many HIV-positive patients have severe psoriatic disease that cannot be adequately treated with first- and second-line therapies including topical agents, phototherapy, or oral retinoids.

Our comprehensive review yielded a total of 25 reported cases of systemic immunosuppressive therapies used to treat psoriatic disease in HIV-positive patients including methotrexate, cyclosporine, etanercept, adalimumab, in-fliximab, and ustekinumab. Although data are limited to case reports and case series, some trends were observed.

Efficacy
In most of the cases reviewed, the patients had inadequate improvement of psoriatic disease with first- and second-line therapies, which included antiretrovirals alone, topical agents, phototherapy, and oral retinoids. Some cases reported poor response to methotrexate and cyclosporine.^4-8 Biologic agents were effective in many such cases.

Safety
Overall, there were 11 cases in which the patient was not on adequate HAART while being treated with systemic immunosuppressive therapy for psoriatic disease.^4-8,15 Of them, 3 were associated with serious infection while on methotrexate.^5,6 There was only 1 report of serious infection¹³ of 14 cases in which the patient was on concomitant HAART. In this case, which reported polymicrobial infections and subsequent death of the patient, the infections continued after discontinuing etanercept; thus, the association is unclear. Interestingly, despite multiple infections, the CD4 and viral counts were stable throughout treatment with etanercept.¹³

From reviewing the 4 total cases^5,6,13 of serious infection, HAART appears to be a valuable concomitant treatment during systemic immunosuppressive therapy for HIV-positive patients; however, it does not necessarily prevent serious infections from occurring, and thus the clinician’s diligence in monitoring for signs and symptoms of infection remains important.

CD4 and Viral Counts
Although reports of CD4 and viral counts were not available in earlier studies,^4-8 there were 15 cases that reported consistent pretreatment and posttreatment CD4 and viral counts during treatment with etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, and ustekinumab.^9-20 In all cases, the CD4 count was stable or increased. Similarly, the viral count was stable or decreased. All patients, except 1 by Cepeda et al,¹⁵ were on concomitant HAART.^9-14,16-20

Although data are limited, treatment of psoriatic disease with biologic agents when used in combination with HAART may have beneficial effects on CD4 and viral counts. Tumor necrosis factor has a role in HIV expression through the action of nuclear factor κβ.²¹ An increase in TNF levels is shown to be associated with increased viral count, decreased CD4 count, and increased symptoms of HIV progression, such as fever, fatigue, cachexia, and dementia.²² Although more studies are necessary, TNF-α inhibitors may have a positive effect on HIV while simultaneously treating psoriatic disease. Other cytokines (eg, IL-12, IL-23, IL-17) involved in the mechanism of action of other biologic agents (ustekinumab and secukinumab) have not been shown to be directly associated with HIV activity; however, studies have shown that IL-10 has a role in inhibiting HIV-1 replication and inhibits secretion of proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-12 and TNF-α.²¹ It may be speculated that the inhibition of IL-12 and TNF-α may create a positive feedback effect to increase IL-10, which in turn inhibits HIV replication.

Conclusion

Although there are limited data on the efficacy and safety of systemic immunosuppressive therapies for the treatment of psoriatic disease in HIV-positive patients, a review of 25 individual cases suggest that these treatments are not only required but also are sufficient to treat some of the most resistant cases. It is possible that with adequate concomitant HAART and monitoring for signs and symptoms of infection, the likelihood of serious infection may be low. Furthermore, biologic agents may have a positive effect over other systemic immunosuppressive agents, such as methotrexate and cyclosporine, in improving CD4 and viral counts when used in combination with HAART. Although randomized controlled trials are necessary, current biologic therapies such as etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, and ustekinumab may be safe viable options as third-line treatment of severe psoriasis in the HIV-positive population.

The prevalence of psoriasis among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–positive patients in the United States is reported to be approximately 1% to 3%, which is similar to the rates reported for the general population.¹ Recalcitrant cases of psoriasis in patients with no history of the condition can be the initial manifestation of HIV infection. In patients with preexisting psoriasis, a flare of their disease can be seen following infection, and progression of HIV correlates with worsening psoriasis.² Psoriatic arthropathy also affects 23% to 50% of HIV-positive patients with psoriasis worldwide, which may be higher than the general population,¹ with more severe joint disease.

The management of psoriatic disease in the HIV-positive population is challenging. The current first-line recommendations for treatment include topical therapies, phototherapy, and highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), followed by oral retinoids as second-line agents.³ However, the clinical course of psoriasis in HIV-positive patients often is progressive and refractory²; therefore, these therapies often are inadequate to control both skin and joint manifestations. Most other currently available systemic therapies for psoriatic disease are immunosuppressive, which poses a distinct clinical challenge because HIV-positive patients are already immunocompromised.

There currently are many systemic immunosuppressive agents used for the treatment of psoriatic disease, including oral agents (eg, methotrexate, hydroxyurea, cyclosporine), as well as newer biologic medications, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α inhibitors etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, and certolizumab pegol. Golimumab and certolizumab pegol currently are indicated for psoriatic arthritis only. Other newer biologic therapies include ustekinumab, which inhibits IL-12 and IL-23, and secukinumab, which inhibits IL-17A. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the most current literature to explore the efficacy and safety data as they pertain to systemic immunosuppressive therapies for the treatment of psoriatic disease in HIV-positive individuals.

Methods

To investigate the efficacy and safety of systemic immunosuppressive therapies for psoriatic disease in HIV-positive individuals, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE (1985-2015) was conducted using the terms psoriasis and HIV and psoriatic arthritis and HIV combined with each of the following systemic immunosuppressive agents: methotrexate, hydroxyurea, cyclosporine, etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, certolizumab pegol, ustekinumab, and secukinumab. Pediatric cases and articles that were not available in the English language were excluded.

For each case, patient demographic information (ie, age, sex), prior failed psoriasis treatments, and history of HAART were documented. The dosing regimen of the systemic agent was noted when different from the US Food and Drug administration–approved dosage for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis. The duration of immunosuppressive therapy as well as pretreatment and posttreatment CD4 and viral counts (when available) were collected. The response to treatment and adverse effects were summarized.

Results

Our review of the literature yielded a total of 25 reported cases of systemic immunosuppressive therapies used to treat psoriatic disease in HIV-positive patients, including methotrexate, cyclosporine, etanercept, adalimumab, in-fliximab, and ustekinumab (Table). There were no reports of the use of hydroxyurea, golimumab, certolizumab pegol, or secukinumab to treat psoriatic disease in this patient population.

Methotrexate
Eight individual cases of methotrexate used to treat psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis in HIV-positive patients were reported.^4-6 Duvic et al⁶ described 4 patients with psoriatic disease that was treated with methotrexate with varying efficacy. One patient developed toxic encephalopathy, which improved after discontinuation of methotrexate; however, he died 5 months later from pneumocystis pneumonia. In this early study, none of the 4 patients were on antiretroviral therapy for HIV.⁶

In the cases reported by Masson et al⁴ and Maurer et al,⁵ 4 patients were treated with a single antiretroviral agent and received appropriate prophylaxis against opportunistic infections. In 1 case, methotrexate was given at a chemotherapeutic dose of 525 mg once weekly for Kaposi sarcoma.⁴ In 2 of 4 cases, the patients developed pneumocystis pneumonia.^4,5

Cyclosporine
There were 2 case reports of successful treatment of psoriatic disease with cyclosporine in HIV-positive patients.^7,8 Skin and joint manifestations improved rapidly without reports of infection for 2⁷ and 8 years.⁸ Both patients were treated with one antiretroviral agent.^7,8

Etanercept
There were 5 case reports of successful treatment of psoriatic disease with etanercept. In all 5 cases the patients were on HAART, and the CD4 count increased or remained stable and viral count became undetectable or remained stable following treatment.^9-13 In 2 cases, the patient also had hepatitis C virus, which remained stable throughout the treatment period.^9,12 The maximum duration of treatment was 6 years, with only 1 reported adverse event.¹³ In this case reported by Aboulafia et al,¹³ the patient experienced recurrent polymicrobial infections, including enterococcal cellulitis, cystitis, and bacteremia, as well as pseudomonas pneumonia and septic arthritis. Therapy was discontinued at 6 months. Four months after discontinuation of etanercept, the patient died from infectious causes.¹³

Adalimumab
There was 1 case of successful treatment of psoriatic disease with adalimumab in an HIV-positive patient. In this case, the patient was on HAART, and CD4 and viral counts improved substantially after 30 months of treatment.¹⁴

Infliximab
Six individual cases of successful treatment of psoriatic disease with infliximab were reported.^15-17 In a report by Cepeda et al,¹⁵ HIV-positive patients with various rheumatologic diseases were chosen to receive etanercept followed by adalimumab and/or infliximab if clinical improvement was not observed on etanercept. In 3 patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, inadequate response was observed on etanercept. Two of these 3 patients received adalimumab with only partial response. All 3 were treated with infliximab in the end and showed excellent response. One of the patients experienced facial abscess responsive to antibiotics and was continued on infliximab therapy without further complications. In all 6 cases of infliximab therapy, the patients were on HAART, and CD4 and viral counts improved or remained stable.¹⁵

Ustekinumab
There were 3 case reports of successful treatment of psoriatic disease with ustekinumab in HIV-positive patients on HAART. CD4 and viral counts improved or remained stable.^18-20

Comment

Currently, all of the systemic immunosuppressive therapies approved for psoriatic disease have a warning by the US Food and Drug Administration for increased risk of serious infection. Given such labels, these therapies are not routinely prescribed for HIV-positive patients who are already immunocompromised; however, many HIV-positive patients have severe psoriatic disease that cannot be adequately treated with first- and second-line therapies including topical agents, phototherapy, or oral retinoids.

Our comprehensive review yielded a total of 25 reported cases of systemic immunosuppressive therapies used to treat psoriatic disease in HIV-positive patients including methotrexate, cyclosporine, etanercept, adalimumab, in-fliximab, and ustekinumab. Although data are limited to case reports and case series, some trends were observed.

Efficacy
In most of the cases reviewed, the patients had inadequate improvement of psoriatic disease with first- and second-line therapies, which included antiretrovirals alone, topical agents, phototherapy, and oral retinoids. Some cases reported poor response to methotrexate and cyclosporine.^4-8 Biologic agents were effective in many such cases.

Safety
Overall, there were 11 cases in which the patient was not on adequate HAART while being treated with systemic immunosuppressive therapy for psoriatic disease.^4-8,15 Of them, 3 were associated with serious infection while on methotrexate.^5,6 There was only 1 report of serious infection¹³ of 14 cases in which the patient was on concomitant HAART. In this case, which reported polymicrobial infections and subsequent death of the patient, the infections continued after discontinuing etanercept; thus, the association is unclear. Interestingly, despite multiple infections, the CD4 and viral counts were stable throughout treatment with etanercept.¹³

From reviewing the 4 total cases^5,6,13 of serious infection, HAART appears to be a valuable concomitant treatment during systemic immunosuppressive therapy for HIV-positive patients; however, it does not necessarily prevent serious infections from occurring, and thus the clinician’s diligence in monitoring for signs and symptoms of infection remains important.

CD4 and Viral Counts
Although reports of CD4 and viral counts were not available in earlier studies,^4-8 there were 15 cases that reported consistent pretreatment and posttreatment CD4 and viral counts during treatment with etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, and ustekinumab.^9-20 In all cases, the CD4 count was stable or increased. Similarly, the viral count was stable or decreased. All patients, except 1 by Cepeda et al,¹⁵ were on concomitant HAART.^9-14,16-20

Although data are limited, treatment of psoriatic disease with biologic agents when used in combination with HAART may have beneficial effects on CD4 and viral counts. Tumor necrosis factor has a role in HIV expression through the action of nuclear factor κβ.²¹ An increase in TNF levels is shown to be associated with increased viral count, decreased CD4 count, and increased symptoms of HIV progression, such as fever, fatigue, cachexia, and dementia.²² Although more studies are necessary, TNF-α inhibitors may have a positive effect on HIV while simultaneously treating psoriatic disease. Other cytokines (eg, IL-12, IL-23, IL-17) involved in the mechanism of action of other biologic agents (ustekinumab and secukinumab) have not been shown to be directly associated with HIV activity; however, studies have shown that IL-10 has a role in inhibiting HIV-1 replication and inhibits secretion of proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-12 and TNF-α.²¹ It may be speculated that the inhibition of IL-12 and TNF-α may create a positive feedback effect to increase IL-10, which in turn inhibits HIV replication.

Conclusion

Although there are limited data on the efficacy and safety of systemic immunosuppressive therapies for the treatment of psoriatic disease in HIV-positive patients, a review of 25 individual cases suggest that these treatments are not only required but also are sufficient to treat some of the most resistant cases. It is possible that with adequate concomitant HAART and monitoring for signs and symptoms of infection, the likelihood of serious infection may be low. Furthermore, biologic agents may have a positive effect over other systemic immunosuppressive agents, such as methotrexate and cyclosporine, in improving CD4 and viral counts when used in combination with HAART. Although randomized controlled trials are necessary, current biologic therapies such as etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, and ustekinumab may be safe viable options as third-line treatment of severe psoriasis in the HIV-positive population.

Over the last decade we have come to understand the nature of psoriasis as a systemic inflammatory condition rather than as simply a skin disease. With this concept, we have continued to identify systemic comorbidities associated with psoriasis, including cardiovascular risk, diabetes mellitus, and metabolic syndrome. As dermatologists, we must serve as the gatekeeper for our patients with psoriasis and help to screen for comorbidities as well as provide appropriate counseling and referral.

Of the potential benefits of novel systemic therapies for psoriasis, the potential for addressing comorbid conditions with these treatments is critically important. Therefore, when I discuss psoriasis treatments, I always review and emphasize the anti-inflammatory effects of these agents. Although we know that psoriasis increases the risk for vascular inflammation and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), it has been unclear if psoriasis duration affects these risks.

Egeberg et al¹ utilized 2 resources to understand the effect of psoriasis duration on vascular disease and cardiovascular events: a human imaging study and a population-based study of cardiovascular disease events. In the first part of the study, patients with psoriasis (N=190) underwent fludeoxyglucose F 18 positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Next, MACE risk was examined using nationwide registries (adjusted hazard ratio in patients with psoriasis [n=87,161] vs the general population [n=4,234,793]). In the imaging study, participants had low cardiovascular risk by traditional risk scores. The authors found that vascular inflammation as demonstrated by the imaging system was significantly associated with disease duration (β=.171; P=.002). In the population-based study, psoriasis duration had a strong relationship with MACE risk (1.0% per additional year of psoriasis duration [hazard ratio, 1.010; 95% confidence interval, 1.007-1.013]). The researchers reported that every standard deviation increase in disease duration increased the target-to-background ratio by 2.5%, which translated into an absolute increase of approximately 10% in future adverse events.¹

Therefore, the authors concluded that there were negative effects of psoriasis duration on vascular inflammation and MACEs,¹ which suggests that the cumulative duration of low-grade chronic inflammation may accelerate vascular disease development and MACEs. The authors therefore noted that providers should consider inquiring about duration of disease to counsel for heightened cardiovascular disease risk in psoriasis patients.¹

We have some evidence that therapeutic intervention may be useful. Wu et al² compared MACE risk in psoriasis patients receiving methotrexate or tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitors. They also assessed the impact of TNF-α inhibitor treatment duration on MACE risk. The authors concluded that psoriasis patients receiving TNF-α inhibitors had a lower MACE risk compared to those receiving methotrexate. Cumulative exposure to TNF-α inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk for MACEs.²

The findings of these studies are poignant and help to further emphasize the importance of proper identification and treatment of psoriasis and its comorbidities. This information also adds an element of urgency to the way we look at this disease and demonstrates that we must intervene as soon as possible in this process.

Over the last decade we have come to understand the nature of psoriasis as a systemic inflammatory condition rather than as simply a skin disease. With this concept, we have continued to identify systemic comorbidities associated with psoriasis, including cardiovascular risk, diabetes mellitus, and metabolic syndrome. As dermatologists, we must serve as the gatekeeper for our patients with psoriasis and help to screen for comorbidities as well as provide appropriate counseling and referral.

Of the potential benefits of novel systemic therapies for psoriasis, the potential for addressing comorbid conditions with these treatments is critically important. Therefore, when I discuss psoriasis treatments, I always review and emphasize the anti-inflammatory effects of these agents. Although we know that psoriasis increases the risk for vascular inflammation and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), it has been unclear if psoriasis duration affects these risks.

Egeberg et al¹ utilized 2 resources to understand the effect of psoriasis duration on vascular disease and cardiovascular events: a human imaging study and a population-based study of cardiovascular disease events. In the first part of the study, patients with psoriasis (N=190) underwent fludeoxyglucose F 18 positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Next, MACE risk was examined using nationwide registries (adjusted hazard ratio in patients with psoriasis [n=87,161] vs the general population [n=4,234,793]). In the imaging study, participants had low cardiovascular risk by traditional risk scores. The authors found that vascular inflammation as demonstrated by the imaging system was significantly associated with disease duration (β=.171; P=.002). In the population-based study, psoriasis duration had a strong relationship with MACE risk (1.0% per additional year of psoriasis duration [hazard ratio, 1.010; 95% confidence interval, 1.007-1.013]). The researchers reported that every standard deviation increase in disease duration increased the target-to-background ratio by 2.5%, which translated into an absolute increase of approximately 10% in future adverse events.¹

Therefore, the authors concluded that there were negative effects of psoriasis duration on vascular inflammation and MACEs,¹ which suggests that the cumulative duration of low-grade chronic inflammation may accelerate vascular disease development and MACEs. The authors therefore noted that providers should consider inquiring about duration of disease to counsel for heightened cardiovascular disease risk in psoriasis patients.¹

We have some evidence that therapeutic intervention may be useful. Wu et al² compared MACE risk in psoriasis patients receiving methotrexate or tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitors. They also assessed the impact of TNF-α inhibitor treatment duration on MACE risk. The authors concluded that psoriasis patients receiving TNF-α inhibitors had a lower MACE risk compared to those receiving methotrexate. Cumulative exposure to TNF-α inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk for MACEs.²

The findings of these studies are poignant and help to further emphasize the importance of proper identification and treatment of psoriasis and its comorbidities. This information also adds an element of urgency to the way we look at this disease and demonstrates that we must intervene as soon as possible in this process.

Over the last decade we have come to understand the nature of psoriasis as a systemic inflammatory condition rather than as simply a skin disease. With this concept, we have continued to identify systemic comorbidities associated with psoriasis, including cardiovascular risk, diabetes mellitus, and metabolic syndrome. As dermatologists, we must serve as the gatekeeper for our patients with psoriasis and help to screen for comorbidities as well as provide appropriate counseling and referral.

Of the potential benefits of novel systemic therapies for psoriasis, the potential for addressing comorbid conditions with these treatments is critically important. Therefore, when I discuss psoriasis treatments, I always review and emphasize the anti-inflammatory effects of these agents. Although we know that psoriasis increases the risk for vascular inflammation and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), it has been unclear if psoriasis duration affects these risks.

Egeberg et al¹ utilized 2 resources to understand the effect of psoriasis duration on vascular disease and cardiovascular events: a human imaging study and a population-based study of cardiovascular disease events. In the first part of the study, patients with psoriasis (N=190) underwent fludeoxyglucose F 18 positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Next, MACE risk was examined using nationwide registries (adjusted hazard ratio in patients with psoriasis [n=87,161] vs the general population [n=4,234,793]). In the imaging study, participants had low cardiovascular risk by traditional risk scores. The authors found that vascular inflammation as demonstrated by the imaging system was significantly associated with disease duration (β=.171; P=.002). In the population-based study, psoriasis duration had a strong relationship with MACE risk (1.0% per additional year of psoriasis duration [hazard ratio, 1.010; 95% confidence interval, 1.007-1.013]). The researchers reported that every standard deviation increase in disease duration increased the target-to-background ratio by 2.5%, which translated into an absolute increase of approximately 10% in future adverse events.¹

Therefore, the authors concluded that there were negative effects of psoriasis duration on vascular inflammation and MACEs,¹ which suggests that the cumulative duration of low-grade chronic inflammation may accelerate vascular disease development and MACEs. The authors therefore noted that providers should consider inquiring about duration of disease to counsel for heightened cardiovascular disease risk in psoriasis patients.¹

We have some evidence that therapeutic intervention may be useful. Wu et al² compared MACE risk in psoriasis patients receiving methotrexate or tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitors. They also assessed the impact of TNF-α inhibitor treatment duration on MACE risk. The authors concluded that psoriasis patients receiving TNF-α inhibitors had a lower MACE risk compared to those receiving methotrexate. Cumulative exposure to TNF-α inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk for MACEs.²

The findings of these studies are poignant and help to further emphasize the importance of proper identification and treatment of psoriasis and its comorbidities. This information also adds an element of urgency to the way we look at this disease and demonstrates that we must intervene as soon as possible in this process.

Biologic agents have provided patients with moderate to severe psoriasis with treatment alternatives that have improved systemic safety profiles and disease control¹; however, case reports of associated neurologic complications have been emerging. Tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitors have been associated with central and peripheral demyelinating disorders. Notably, efalizumab was withdrawn from the market for its association with fatal cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).^2,3 It is imperative for dermatologists to be familiar with the clinical presentation, evaluation, and diagnostic criteria of neurologic complications of biologic agents used in the treatment of psoriasis.

Leukoencephalopathy

Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy is a fatal demyelinating neurodegenerative disease caused by reactivation of the ubiquitous John Cunningham virus. Primary asymptomatic infection is thought to occur during childhood, then the virus remains latent. Reactivation usually occurs during severe immunosuppression and is classically described in human immunodeficiency virus infection, lymphoproliferative disorders, and other forms of cancer.⁴ A summary of PML and its association with biologics is found in Table 1.^5-13 Few case reports of TNF-α inhibitor–associated PML exist, mostly in the presence of confounding factors such as immunosuppression or underlying autoimmune disease.^10-13 Presenting symptoms of PML often are subacute, rapidly progressive, and can be focal or multifocal and include motor, cognitive, and visual deficits. Of note, there are 2 reported cases of ustekinumab associated with reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome, which is a hypertensive encephalopathy characterized by headache, altered mental status, vision abnormalities, and seizures.^14,15 Fortunately, this disease is reversible with blood pressure control and removal of the immunosuppressive agent.¹⁶

Demyelinating Disorders

Clinical presentation of demyelinating events associated with biologic agents are varied but include optic neuritis, multiple sclerosis, transverse myelitis, and Guillain-Barré syndrome, among others.^17-28 These demyelinating disorders with their salient features and associated biologics are summarized in Table 2.^17-20,22-28 Patients on biologic agents, especially TNF-α inhibitors, with new-onset visual, motor, or sensory changes warrant closer inspection. Currently, there are no data on any neurologic side effects occurring with the new biologic secukinumab.²⁹

Conclusion

Biologic agents are effective in treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, but awareness of associated neurological adverse effects, though rare, is important to consider. Physicians need to be able to counsel patients concerning these risks and promote informed decision-making prior to initiating biologics. Patients with a personal or strong family history of demyelinating disease should be considered for alternative treatment options before initiating anti–TNF-α therapy. Since the withdrawal of efalizumab, no new cases of PML have been reported in patients who were previously on a long-term course. Dermatologists should be vigilant in detecting signs of neurological complications so that an expedited evaluation and neurology referral may prevent progression of disease.

Biologic agents have provided patients with moderate to severe psoriasis with treatment alternatives that have improved systemic safety profiles and disease control¹; however, case reports of associated neurologic complications have been emerging. Tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitors have been associated with central and peripheral demyelinating disorders. Notably, efalizumab was withdrawn from the market for its association with fatal cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).^2,3 It is imperative for dermatologists to be familiar with the clinical presentation, evaluation, and diagnostic criteria of neurologic complications of biologic agents used in the treatment of psoriasis.

Leukoencephalopathy

Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy is a fatal demyelinating neurodegenerative disease caused by reactivation of the ubiquitous John Cunningham virus. Primary asymptomatic infection is thought to occur during childhood, then the virus remains latent. Reactivation usually occurs during severe immunosuppression and is classically described in human immunodeficiency virus infection, lymphoproliferative disorders, and other forms of cancer.⁴ A summary of PML and its association with biologics is found in Table 1.^5-13 Few case reports of TNF-α inhibitor–associated PML exist, mostly in the presence of confounding factors such as immunosuppression or underlying autoimmune disease.^10-13 Presenting symptoms of PML often are subacute, rapidly progressive, and can be focal or multifocal and include motor, cognitive, and visual deficits. Of note, there are 2 reported cases of ustekinumab associated with reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome, which is a hypertensive encephalopathy characterized by headache, altered mental status, vision abnormalities, and seizures.^14,15 Fortunately, this disease is reversible with blood pressure control and removal of the immunosuppressive agent.¹⁶

Demyelinating Disorders

Clinical presentation of demyelinating events associated with biologic agents are varied but include optic neuritis, multiple sclerosis, transverse myelitis, and Guillain-Barré syndrome, among others.^17-28 These demyelinating disorders with their salient features and associated biologics are summarized in Table 2.^17-20,22-28 Patients on biologic agents, especially TNF-α inhibitors, with new-onset visual, motor, or sensory changes warrant closer inspection. Currently, there are no data on any neurologic side effects occurring with the new biologic secukinumab.²⁹

Conclusion

Biologic agents are effective in treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, but awareness of associated neurological adverse effects, though rare, is important to consider. Physicians need to be able to counsel patients concerning these risks and promote informed decision-making prior to initiating biologics. Patients with a personal or strong family history of demyelinating disease should be considered for alternative treatment options before initiating anti–TNF-α therapy. Since the withdrawal of efalizumab, no new cases of PML have been reported in patients who were previously on a long-term course. Dermatologists should be vigilant in detecting signs of neurological complications so that an expedited evaluation and neurology referral may prevent progression of disease.

Biologic agents have provided patients with moderate to severe psoriasis with treatment alternatives that have improved systemic safety profiles and disease control¹; however, case reports of associated neurologic complications have been emerging. Tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitors have been associated with central and peripheral demyelinating disorders. Notably, efalizumab was withdrawn from the market for its association with fatal cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).^2,3 It is imperative for dermatologists to be familiar with the clinical presentation, evaluation, and diagnostic criteria of neurologic complications of biologic agents used in the treatment of psoriasis.

Leukoencephalopathy

Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy is a fatal demyelinating neurodegenerative disease caused by reactivation of the ubiquitous John Cunningham virus. Primary asymptomatic infection is thought to occur during childhood, then the virus remains latent. Reactivation usually occurs during severe immunosuppression and is classically described in human immunodeficiency virus infection, lymphoproliferative disorders, and other forms of cancer.⁴ A summary of PML and its association with biologics is found in Table 1.^5-13 Few case reports of TNF-α inhibitor–associated PML exist, mostly in the presence of confounding factors such as immunosuppression or underlying autoimmune disease.^10-13 Presenting symptoms of PML often are subacute, rapidly progressive, and can be focal or multifocal and include motor, cognitive, and visual deficits. Of note, there are 2 reported cases of ustekinumab associated with reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome, which is a hypertensive encephalopathy characterized by headache, altered mental status, vision abnormalities, and seizures.^14,15 Fortunately, this disease is reversible with blood pressure control and removal of the immunosuppressive agent.¹⁶

Demyelinating Disorders

Clinical presentation of demyelinating events associated with biologic agents are varied but include optic neuritis, multiple sclerosis, transverse myelitis, and Guillain-Barré syndrome, among others.^17-28 These demyelinating disorders with their salient features and associated biologics are summarized in Table 2.^17-20,22-28 Patients on biologic agents, especially TNF-α inhibitors, with new-onset visual, motor, or sensory changes warrant closer inspection. Currently, there are no data on any neurologic side effects occurring with the new biologic secukinumab.²⁹

Conclusion

Biologic agents are effective in treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, but awareness of associated neurological adverse effects, though rare, is important to consider. Physicians need to be able to counsel patients concerning these risks and promote informed decision-making prior to initiating biologics. Patients with a personal or strong family history of demyelinating disease should be considered for alternative treatment options before initiating anti–TNF-α therapy. Since the withdrawal of efalizumab, no new cases of PML have been reported in patients who were previously on a long-term course. Dermatologists should be vigilant in detecting signs of neurological complications so that an expedited evaluation and neurology referral may prevent progression of disease.

Black, Asian, and other non-Hispanic Americans are less likely than are whites to seek treatment for psoriasis, according to data on 842 patients, reported Alexander H. Fischer, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and his colleagues.

Data from previous studies have shown that racial and ethnic minorities have more severe psoriasis and a lower quality of life as a result of the disease, compared with white patients, the researchers noted in a study published as a research letter in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Penn Medicine

SOURCE: Fischer AH et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Jan;78[1]:200-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2017.07.052.

Black, Asian, and other non-Hispanic Americans are less likely than are whites to seek treatment for psoriasis, according to data on 842 patients, reported Alexander H. Fischer, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and his colleagues.

Data from previous studies have shown that racial and ethnic minorities have more severe psoriasis and a lower quality of life as a result of the disease, compared with white patients, the researchers noted in a study published as a research letter in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Penn Medicine

SOURCE: Fischer AH et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Jan;78[1]:200-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2017.07.052.

Black, Asian, and other non-Hispanic Americans are less likely than are whites to seek treatment for psoriasis, according to data on 842 patients, reported Alexander H. Fischer, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and his colleagues.

Data from previous studies have shown that racial and ethnic minorities have more severe psoriasis and a lower quality of life as a result of the disease, compared with white patients, the researchers noted in a study published as a research letter in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Penn Medicine

SOURCE: Fischer AH et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Jan;78[1]:200-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2017.07.052.

Myth: Patients Are Not Willing to Give Themselves Injections

Injectable biologics target specific parts of the immune system, making them popular treatment options for psoriasis patients, with ample research on their efficacy. Performing a self-injection can be daunting for patients trying a biologic for the first time, and clinicians should be aware of the dearth of patient education material. Although patients may be fearful of self-injections, especially the first few treatments, their worries can be assuaged with proper instruction and appropriate delivery method.

Abrouk et al sought to provide an online guide and video on biologic injections to increase the success of the therapy and compliance among patients. They created a printable guide that covers the supplies needed, procedure techniques, and plans for traveling with medications. Because pain is a common concern for patients, they suggest numbing the injection area with an ice pack first. They also offer tips on dealing with injection-site reactions such as redness or bruising.

Nurse practitioners and physician assistants can be used to give psoriasis patients more personalized attention regarding the fear of injections. They can explain the injection procedures and describe differences between administration techniques. Some patients may prefer using an autoinjector versus a prefilled syringe, which may impact the treatment administered. Taking photographs to show progress with therapy also may motivate patients to tolerate therapy.

The National Psoriasis Foundation provides the following tips to make it easier for patients to self-inject and reduce the chance of an injection-site reaction:

• Pick an easy injection site, such as the top of the rights, abdomen, or back of the arms.
• Rotate injection sites from right to left.
• Numb the area.
• Warm the pen up by taking it out of the refrigerator 1.5 hours before it is used.
• Be patient and avoid moving the injection pen before the needle is finished administering the drug.

By giving psoriasis patients educational materials, you can empower them to control their disease with injectable biologics.

Expert Commentary

Most of my patients who use a biologic for the first time are undaunted by learning to inject themselves. I can think of just 1 of my ~300 biologic patients who has to come in every few weeks for their medicine to be injected by one of our nurses. Surprisingly, some patients (I'd estimate 5% of my biologic patients) actually prefer the syringe compared to the autoinjector, with some comments saying that the syringe is less painful and less abrupt. Needle phobia should not be a reason to not prescribe a biologic for a patient with severe psoriasis who needs it.

—Jashin J. Wu, MD (Los Angeles, California)

Myth: Patients Are Not Willing to Give Themselves Injections

Injectable biologics target specific parts of the immune system, making them popular treatment options for psoriasis patients, with ample research on their efficacy. Performing a self-injection can be daunting for patients trying a biologic for the first time, and clinicians should be aware of the dearth of patient education material. Although patients may be fearful of self-injections, especially the first few treatments, their worries can be assuaged with proper instruction and appropriate delivery method.

Abrouk et al sought to provide an online guide and video on biologic injections to increase the success of the therapy and compliance among patients. They created a printable guide that covers the supplies needed, procedure techniques, and plans for traveling with medications. Because pain is a common concern for patients, they suggest numbing the injection area with an ice pack first. They also offer tips on dealing with injection-site reactions such as redness or bruising.

Nurse practitioners and physician assistants can be used to give psoriasis patients more personalized attention regarding the fear of injections. They can explain the injection procedures and describe differences between administration techniques. Some patients may prefer using an autoinjector versus a prefilled syringe, which may impact the treatment administered. Taking photographs to show progress with therapy also may motivate patients to tolerate therapy.

The National Psoriasis Foundation provides the following tips to make it easier for patients to self-inject and reduce the chance of an injection-site reaction:

• Pick an easy injection site, such as the top of the rights, abdomen, or back of the arms.
• Rotate injection sites from right to left.
• Numb the area.
• Warm the pen up by taking it out of the refrigerator 1.5 hours before it is used.
• Be patient and avoid moving the injection pen before the needle is finished administering the drug.

By giving psoriasis patients educational materials, you can empower them to control their disease with injectable biologics.

Expert Commentary

Most of my patients who use a biologic for the first time are undaunted by learning to inject themselves. I can think of just 1 of my ~300 biologic patients who has to come in every few weeks for their medicine to be injected by one of our nurses. Surprisingly, some patients (I'd estimate 5% of my biologic patients) actually prefer the syringe compared to the autoinjector, with some comments saying that the syringe is less painful and less abrupt. Needle phobia should not be a reason to not prescribe a biologic for a patient with severe psoriasis who needs it.

—Jashin J. Wu, MD (Los Angeles, California)

Myth: Patients Are Not Willing to Give Themselves Injections

Injectable biologics target specific parts of the immune system, making them popular treatment options for psoriasis patients, with ample research on their efficacy. Performing a self-injection can be daunting for patients trying a biologic for the first time, and clinicians should be aware of the dearth of patient education material. Although patients may be fearful of self-injections, especially the first few treatments, their worries can be assuaged with proper instruction and appropriate delivery method.

Abrouk et al sought to provide an online guide and video on biologic injections to increase the success of the therapy and compliance among patients. They created a printable guide that covers the supplies needed, procedure techniques, and plans for traveling with medications. Because pain is a common concern for patients, they suggest numbing the injection area with an ice pack first. They also offer tips on dealing with injection-site reactions such as redness or bruising.

Nurse practitioners and physician assistants can be used to give psoriasis patients more personalized attention regarding the fear of injections. They can explain the injection procedures and describe differences between administration techniques. Some patients may prefer using an autoinjector versus a prefilled syringe, which may impact the treatment administered. Taking photographs to show progress with therapy also may motivate patients to tolerate therapy.

The National Psoriasis Foundation provides the following tips to make it easier for patients to self-inject and reduce the chance of an injection-site reaction:

• Pick an easy injection site, such as the top of the rights, abdomen, or back of the arms.
• Rotate injection sites from right to left.
• Numb the area.
• Warm the pen up by taking it out of the refrigerator 1.5 hours before it is used.
• Be patient and avoid moving the injection pen before the needle is finished administering the drug.

By giving psoriasis patients educational materials, you can empower them to control their disease with injectable biologics.

Expert Commentary

Most of my patients who use a biologic for the first time are undaunted by learning to inject themselves. I can think of just 1 of my ~300 biologic patients who has to come in every few weeks for their medicine to be injected by one of our nurses. Surprisingly, some patients (I'd estimate 5% of my biologic patients) actually prefer the syringe compared to the autoinjector, with some comments saying that the syringe is less painful and less abrupt. Needle phobia should not be a reason to not prescribe a biologic for a patient with severe psoriasis who needs it.

—Jashin J. Wu, MD (Los Angeles, California)

GENEVA – The interleukin-23 inhibitor guselkumab generates the same impressive improvement in skin disease in psoriatic arthritis patients as has been seen in psoriasis without joint disease, Alexa B. Kimball, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

However, psoriatic arthritis patients’ improvement in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores is less robust than in patients with psoriasis only, added Dr. Kimball, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and CEO of Harvard Medical Faculty Physicians at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

SOURCE: Kimball A et al. https://eadvgeneva2017.org/

GENEVA – The interleukin-23 inhibitor guselkumab generates the same impressive improvement in skin disease in psoriatic arthritis patients as has been seen in psoriasis without joint disease, Alexa B. Kimball, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

However, psoriatic arthritis patients’ improvement in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores is less robust than in patients with psoriasis only, added Dr. Kimball, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and CEO of Harvard Medical Faculty Physicians at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

SOURCE: Kimball A et al. https://eadvgeneva2017.org/

GENEVA – The interleukin-23 inhibitor guselkumab generates the same impressive improvement in skin disease in psoriatic arthritis patients as has been seen in psoriasis without joint disease, Alexa B. Kimball, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

However, psoriatic arthritis patients’ improvement in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores is less robust than in patients with psoriasis only, added Dr. Kimball, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and CEO of Harvard Medical Faculty Physicians at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

SOURCE: Kimball A et al. https://eadvgeneva2017.org/

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Ixifi (infliximab-qbtx), a biosimilar of Remicade, the original infliximab product. Ixifi is the third infliximab biosimilar to be approved by the FDA, and it is approved for all the same indications as Remicade, according to an announcement from its manufacturer, Pfizer.

Ixifi and Remicade are approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in combination with methotrexate, Crohn’s disease, pediatric Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and plaque psoriasis.

lfranki@frontlinemedcom.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Ixifi (infliximab-qbtx), a biosimilar of Remicade, the original infliximab product. Ixifi is the third infliximab biosimilar to be approved by the FDA, and it is approved for all the same indications as Remicade, according to an announcement from its manufacturer, Pfizer.

Ixifi and Remicade are approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in combination with methotrexate, Crohn’s disease, pediatric Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and plaque psoriasis.

lfranki@frontlinemedcom.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Ixifi (infliximab-qbtx), a biosimilar of Remicade, the original infliximab product. Ixifi is the third infliximab biosimilar to be approved by the FDA, and it is approved for all the same indications as Remicade, according to an announcement from its manufacturer, Pfizer.

Ixifi and Remicade are approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in combination with methotrexate, Crohn’s disease, pediatric Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and plaque psoriasis.

lfranki@frontlinemedcom.com

GENEVA – The merits of addressing interleukin-23 as a novel therapeutic target in moderate to severe plaque psoriasis were abundantly displayed in 2-year outcomes data for two anti–IL-23 monoclonal antibodies – guselkumab and tildrakizumab – in studies presented back to back at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

These long-term, open-label extensions of previously reported phase 3, randomized, double-blind clinical trials provided evidence of multiple advantages for IL-23 inhibition. The story was similar for both agents: After 2 years of use in the extension studies, the two biologics demonstrated stellar treatment response rates that would have been unimaginable only a few years ago, maintenance of efficacy without drop-off over time, exceedingly low dropout rates, and a safety picture that remains reassuring as experience accumulates. Also, the subcutaneously administered IL-23 inhibitors are attractive from a patient convenience standpoint in that maintenance guselkumab is dosed at 100 mg once every 8 weeks, and tildrakizumab is given once every 12 weeks.

Still, there are differences between the two drugs, most notably in apparent effectiveness. While more than half of guselkumab-treated patients had a Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 100 response – that is, totally clear skin – at 2 years, that was the case for only one-quarter to one-third of patients on tildrakizumab.

Guselkumab (Tremfya) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in July 2017 for treatment of adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Tildrakizumab remains investigational.
 

Guselkumab

The 2-year, open-label extension of the phase 3 VOYAGE 1 trial included 735 patients who were either on guselkumab continuously, crossed from adalimumab (Humira) to guselkumab after 48 weeks, or switched from placebo after 16 weeks.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Tildrakizumab

Two-year results from the ongoing 5-year extension of the phase 3 reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2 trials were presented by Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, president of Probity Medical Research, Waterloo, Ont. This presentation of 2-year outcomes for 1,237 study participants was a feat, considering that the 12-week results of the trials had been published less than 3 months earlier (Lancet. 2017 Jul 15;390[10091]:276-88).

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Controversy over how to report long-term outcomes

A hot topic among clinical trialists in dermatology concerns how to report study results. The traditional method in studies funded by pharmaceutical companies is known as the “last observation carried forward” analysis. It casts the study drug results in the most favorable possible light because, when a subject drops out of a trial for any reason, their last measured value for response to treatment is carried forward as though the patient completed the study. Thus, psoriasis patients who drop out because they couldn’t tolerate a therapy or developed a serious side effect dictating discontinuation will be scored on the basis of their last PASI response, creating a bias in favor of active treatment.

A more conservative analytic method is known as the “nonresponder imputation” analysis. By this method, a patient who drops out of a trial is automatically categorized as a treatment failure, even if the reason was that the patient moved and could no longer make visits to the study center.

The prespecified guselkumab analysis presented by Dr. Blauvelt involved nonresponder imputation through year 1 and imputation based on the reason for discontinuation in the second year. In contrast, the 2-year tildrakizumab analysis presented by Dr. Papp used the far more common last observation carried forward method.

To help the audience appreciate the importance of looking at the analytic methods used in a studies and help them understand the clinical significance of the results, Dr. Blauvelt provided a reanalysis of the 2-year guselkumab data using the last observation carried forward method. Across the board, the numbers became more favorable. For example, the PASI 75 rate of 95.7% using the prespecified nonresponder imputation analysis crept up to 96.8% under the last observation carried forward method; for comparison, the PASI 75 rates were 81%-84% in the tildrakizumab analysis.

“If you wanted to compare apples to apples with some other drugs, you would use these numbers – the as-observed analysis numbers used by most other companies with other drugs. If you wanted to determine what the true-life numbers are, they’d probably be something between the nonresponder imputation and as-observed numbers,” said to Dr. Blauvelt.

Dr. Papp was untroubled by the use of the last observation carried forward method in the particular case of the tildrakizumab long-term extension study.

“There is reason to believe the as-observed analysis doesn’t affect the integrity of the data because the dropout rate is extraordinarily low,” he said.

The guselkumab analysis was sponsored by Janssen Pharmaceutica; the tildrakizumab analysis was sponsored by Merck and by Sun Pharma. Dr. Blauvelt and Dr. Papp were paid investigators in both studies and serve as scientific advisers to virtually all companies invested in the psoriasis therapy developmental pipeline.

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

GENEVA – The merits of addressing interleukin-23 as a novel therapeutic target in moderate to severe plaque psoriasis were abundantly displayed in 2-year outcomes data for two anti–IL-23 monoclonal antibodies – guselkumab and tildrakizumab – in studies presented back to back at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

These long-term, open-label extensions of previously reported phase 3, randomized, double-blind clinical trials provided evidence of multiple advantages for IL-23 inhibition. The story was similar for both agents: After 2 years of use in the extension studies, the two biologics demonstrated stellar treatment response rates that would have been unimaginable only a few years ago, maintenance of efficacy without drop-off over time, exceedingly low dropout rates, and a safety picture that remains reassuring as experience accumulates. Also, the subcutaneously administered IL-23 inhibitors are attractive from a patient convenience standpoint in that maintenance guselkumab is dosed at 100 mg once every 8 weeks, and tildrakizumab is given once every 12 weeks.

Still, there are differences between the two drugs, most notably in apparent effectiveness. While more than half of guselkumab-treated patients had a Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 100 response – that is, totally clear skin – at 2 years, that was the case for only one-quarter to one-third of patients on tildrakizumab.

Guselkumab (Tremfya) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in July 2017 for treatment of adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Tildrakizumab remains investigational.
 

Guselkumab

The 2-year, open-label extension of the phase 3 VOYAGE 1 trial included 735 patients who were either on guselkumab continuously, crossed from adalimumab (Humira) to guselkumab after 48 weeks, or switched from placebo after 16 weeks.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Tildrakizumab

Two-year results from the ongoing 5-year extension of the phase 3 reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2 trials were presented by Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, president of Probity Medical Research, Waterloo, Ont. This presentation of 2-year outcomes for 1,237 study participants was a feat, considering that the 12-week results of the trials had been published less than 3 months earlier (Lancet. 2017 Jul 15;390[10091]:276-88).

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Controversy over how to report long-term outcomes

A hot topic among clinical trialists in dermatology concerns how to report study results. The traditional method in studies funded by pharmaceutical companies is known as the “last observation carried forward” analysis. It casts the study drug results in the most favorable possible light because, when a subject drops out of a trial for any reason, their last measured value for response to treatment is carried forward as though the patient completed the study. Thus, psoriasis patients who drop out because they couldn’t tolerate a therapy or developed a serious side effect dictating discontinuation will be scored on the basis of their last PASI response, creating a bias in favor of active treatment.

A more conservative analytic method is known as the “nonresponder imputation” analysis. By this method, a patient who drops out of a trial is automatically categorized as a treatment failure, even if the reason was that the patient moved and could no longer make visits to the study center.

The prespecified guselkumab analysis presented by Dr. Blauvelt involved nonresponder imputation through year 1 and imputation based on the reason for discontinuation in the second year. In contrast, the 2-year tildrakizumab analysis presented by Dr. Papp used the far more common last observation carried forward method.

To help the audience appreciate the importance of looking at the analytic methods used in a studies and help them understand the clinical significance of the results, Dr. Blauvelt provided a reanalysis of the 2-year guselkumab data using the last observation carried forward method. Across the board, the numbers became more favorable. For example, the PASI 75 rate of 95.7% using the prespecified nonresponder imputation analysis crept up to 96.8% under the last observation carried forward method; for comparison, the PASI 75 rates were 81%-84% in the tildrakizumab analysis.

“If you wanted to compare apples to apples with some other drugs, you would use these numbers – the as-observed analysis numbers used by most other companies with other drugs. If you wanted to determine what the true-life numbers are, they’d probably be something between the nonresponder imputation and as-observed numbers,” said to Dr. Blauvelt.

Dr. Papp was untroubled by the use of the last observation carried forward method in the particular case of the tildrakizumab long-term extension study.

“There is reason to believe the as-observed analysis doesn’t affect the integrity of the data because the dropout rate is extraordinarily low,” he said.

The guselkumab analysis was sponsored by Janssen Pharmaceutica; the tildrakizumab analysis was sponsored by Merck and by Sun Pharma. Dr. Blauvelt and Dr. Papp were paid investigators in both studies and serve as scientific advisers to virtually all companies invested in the psoriasis therapy developmental pipeline.

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

GENEVA – The merits of addressing interleukin-23 as a novel therapeutic target in moderate to severe plaque psoriasis were abundantly displayed in 2-year outcomes data for two anti–IL-23 monoclonal antibodies – guselkumab and tildrakizumab – in studies presented back to back at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

These long-term, open-label extensions of previously reported phase 3, randomized, double-blind clinical trials provided evidence of multiple advantages for IL-23 inhibition. The story was similar for both agents: After 2 years of use in the extension studies, the two biologics demonstrated stellar treatment response rates that would have been unimaginable only a few years ago, maintenance of efficacy without drop-off over time, exceedingly low dropout rates, and a safety picture that remains reassuring as experience accumulates. Also, the subcutaneously administered IL-23 inhibitors are attractive from a patient convenience standpoint in that maintenance guselkumab is dosed at 100 mg once every 8 weeks, and tildrakizumab is given once every 12 weeks.

Still, there are differences between the two drugs, most notably in apparent effectiveness. While more than half of guselkumab-treated patients had a Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 100 response – that is, totally clear skin – at 2 years, that was the case for only one-quarter to one-third of patients on tildrakizumab.

Guselkumab (Tremfya) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in July 2017 for treatment of adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Tildrakizumab remains investigational.
 

Guselkumab

The 2-year, open-label extension of the phase 3 VOYAGE 1 trial included 735 patients who were either on guselkumab continuously, crossed from adalimumab (Humira) to guselkumab after 48 weeks, or switched from placebo after 16 weeks.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Tildrakizumab

Two-year results from the ongoing 5-year extension of the phase 3 reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2 trials were presented by Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, president of Probity Medical Research, Waterloo, Ont. This presentation of 2-year outcomes for 1,237 study participants was a feat, considering that the 12-week results of the trials had been published less than 3 months earlier (Lancet. 2017 Jul 15;390[10091]:276-88).

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Controversy over how to report long-term outcomes

A hot topic among clinical trialists in dermatology concerns how to report study results. The traditional method in studies funded by pharmaceutical companies is known as the “last observation carried forward” analysis. It casts the study drug results in the most favorable possible light because, when a subject drops out of a trial for any reason, their last measured value for response to treatment is carried forward as though the patient completed the study. Thus, psoriasis patients who drop out because they couldn’t tolerate a therapy or developed a serious side effect dictating discontinuation will be scored on the basis of their last PASI response, creating a bias in favor of active treatment.

A more conservative analytic method is known as the “nonresponder imputation” analysis. By this method, a patient who drops out of a trial is automatically categorized as a treatment failure, even if the reason was that the patient moved and could no longer make visits to the study center.

The prespecified guselkumab analysis presented by Dr. Blauvelt involved nonresponder imputation through year 1 and imputation based on the reason for discontinuation in the second year. In contrast, the 2-year tildrakizumab analysis presented by Dr. Papp used the far more common last observation carried forward method.

To help the audience appreciate the importance of looking at the analytic methods used in a studies and help them understand the clinical significance of the results, Dr. Blauvelt provided a reanalysis of the 2-year guselkumab data using the last observation carried forward method. Across the board, the numbers became more favorable. For example, the PASI 75 rate of 95.7% using the prespecified nonresponder imputation analysis crept up to 96.8% under the last observation carried forward method; for comparison, the PASI 75 rates were 81%-84% in the tildrakizumab analysis.

“If you wanted to compare apples to apples with some other drugs, you would use these numbers – the as-observed analysis numbers used by most other companies with other drugs. If you wanted to determine what the true-life numbers are, they’d probably be something between the nonresponder imputation and as-observed numbers,” said to Dr. Blauvelt.

Dr. Papp was untroubled by the use of the last observation carried forward method in the particular case of the tildrakizumab long-term extension study.

“There is reason to believe the as-observed analysis doesn’t affect the integrity of the data because the dropout rate is extraordinarily low,” he said.

The guselkumab analysis was sponsored by Janssen Pharmaceutica; the tildrakizumab analysis was sponsored by Merck and by Sun Pharma. Dr. Blauvelt and Dr. Papp were paid investigators in both studies and serve as scientific advisers to virtually all companies invested in the psoriasis therapy developmental pipeline.

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

Myth: Psoriasis Treatments Should Not Be Used During Pregnancy

It is likely that dermatologists will encounter female patients with psoriasis who are pregnant or wish to become pregnant during the course of their psoriasis treatment. Earlier this year Porter et al evaluated several psoriasis therapies and discussed their safety for patients with psoriasis during pregnancy. Because psoriasis is a risk factor for adverse pregnancy outcomes, control of disease prior to and during pregnancy may optimize maternal and fetal health, according to the authors. As a result, they outlined the following treatment recommendations:

• Consider anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α agents over IL-12/IL-23 and IL-17 inhibitors.
• Anti–TNF-α agents can be used during the first half of pregnancy.
• Longer-term use of anti–TNF-α agents during pregnancy can be considered depending on psoriasis disease severity.
• If biologic therapy is required during pregnancy, use certolizumab because it does not cross the placenta in significant amounts; etanercept also may be a reasonable alternative.
• Babies born to mothers who are continually treated with biologic agents should not be administered live vaccinations for at least 6 months after birth due to the increased risk of infection; inactive vaccinations can be administered according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.
• Breastfeeding by mothers currently treated with anti–TNF-α agents is generally considered safe.
• Cotreatment with methotrexate and a biologic agent should be avoided.

However, the National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines for treating psoriasis in pregnant or breastfeeding women advise that topical treatments are the first choice of treatment, particularly moisturizers and emollients. Limited use of low- to moderate-potency topical steroids appears to be safe, but women should avoid applying topical steroids to the breasts. Second-line treatment is narrowband UVB phototherapy; if narrowband UVB is not available, use broadband UVB. Breastfeeding women should avoid psoralen plus UVA. The foundation also advises that systemic and biologic drugs should be avoided while pregnant or breastfeeding unless there is a clear medical need. Childbearing women should avoid oral retinoids, methotrexate, and cyclosporine due to a link to birth defects. A useful table of US Food and Drug Administration–approved psoriasis treatments and their category for use by pregnant and breastfeeding women is available online. Specifically, drugs that should absolutely be avoided in this patient population include acitretin, methotrexate, and tazarotene.

For some patients, discontinuing therapy may not be practical. Dermatologists should be prepared to weigh the risks and benefits of treatment to advise patients appropriately. According to Dr. Jeffrey M. Weinberg’s pearls for treating psoriasis in pregnant women in Cutis, “Most biologic therapies are pregnancy category B. We still use these drugs with caution in the setting of pregnancy. If a pregnant patient does wish to continue a biologic therapy, close monitoring and enrollment in a pregnancy registry would be good options.”

RELATED ARTICLE: How to Manage Psoriasis Safely in Pregnant Women

More research is necessary; however, pregnant women often are excluded from clinical trials. Therefore, adverse outcomes should be reported to registries such as the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists or others sponsored by drug manufacturers, which will aid in understanding the effects of psoriasis treatments in pregnant and breastfeeding women.

Expert Commentary

The treatment of psoriasis in pregnancy should be approached in a thoughtful manner. While we always want to minimize therapeutic interventions in pregnant individuals, we also want to maintain control of a disease such as psoriasis. As outlined in this article, there is good amount of flexibility in terms of therapies available to us. It is important to discuss the situation carefully, including the benefits and risks, with the patient and the obstetric professionals, in order to design the optimal regimen for each individual.

—Jeffrey M. Weinberg (New York, New York)

Myth: Psoriasis Treatments Should Not Be Used During Pregnancy

It is likely that dermatologists will encounter female patients with psoriasis who are pregnant or wish to become pregnant during the course of their psoriasis treatment. Earlier this year Porter et al evaluated several psoriasis therapies and discussed their safety for patients with psoriasis during pregnancy. Because psoriasis is a risk factor for adverse pregnancy outcomes, control of disease prior to and during pregnancy may optimize maternal and fetal health, according to the authors. As a result, they outlined the following treatment recommendations:

• Consider anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α agents over IL-12/IL-23 and IL-17 inhibitors.
• Anti–TNF-α agents can be used during the first half of pregnancy.
• Longer-term use of anti–TNF-α agents during pregnancy can be considered depending on psoriasis disease severity.
• If biologic therapy is required during pregnancy, use certolizumab because it does not cross the placenta in significant amounts; etanercept also may be a reasonable alternative.
• Babies born to mothers who are continually treated with biologic agents should not be administered live vaccinations for at least 6 months after birth due to the increased risk of infection; inactive vaccinations can be administered according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.
• Breastfeeding by mothers currently treated with anti–TNF-α agents is generally considered safe.
• Cotreatment with methotrexate and a biologic agent should be avoided.

However, the National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines for treating psoriasis in pregnant or breastfeeding women advise that topical treatments are the first choice of treatment, particularly moisturizers and emollients. Limited use of low- to moderate-potency topical steroids appears to be safe, but women should avoid applying topical steroids to the breasts. Second-line treatment is narrowband UVB phototherapy; if narrowband UVB is not available, use broadband UVB. Breastfeeding women should avoid psoralen plus UVA. The foundation also advises that systemic and biologic drugs should be avoided while pregnant or breastfeeding unless there is a clear medical need. Childbearing women should avoid oral retinoids, methotrexate, and cyclosporine due to a link to birth defects. A useful table of US Food and Drug Administration–approved psoriasis treatments and their category for use by pregnant and breastfeeding women is available online. Specifically, drugs that should absolutely be avoided in this patient population include acitretin, methotrexate, and tazarotene.

For some patients, discontinuing therapy may not be practical. Dermatologists should be prepared to weigh the risks and benefits of treatment to advise patients appropriately. According to Dr. Jeffrey M. Weinberg’s pearls for treating psoriasis in pregnant women in Cutis, “Most biologic therapies are pregnancy category B. We still use these drugs with caution in the setting of pregnancy. If a pregnant patient does wish to continue a biologic therapy, close monitoring and enrollment in a pregnancy registry would be good options.”

RELATED ARTICLE: How to Manage Psoriasis Safely in Pregnant Women

More research is necessary; however, pregnant women often are excluded from clinical trials. Therefore, adverse outcomes should be reported to registries such as the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists or others sponsored by drug manufacturers, which will aid in understanding the effects of psoriasis treatments in pregnant and breastfeeding women.

Expert Commentary

The treatment of psoriasis in pregnancy should be approached in a thoughtful manner. While we always want to minimize therapeutic interventions in pregnant individuals, we also want to maintain control of a disease such as psoriasis. As outlined in this article, there is good amount of flexibility in terms of therapies available to us. It is important to discuss the situation carefully, including the benefits and risks, with the patient and the obstetric professionals, in order to design the optimal regimen for each individual.

—Jeffrey M. Weinberg (New York, New York)

Myth: Psoriasis Treatments Should Not Be Used During Pregnancy

It is likely that dermatologists will encounter female patients with psoriasis who are pregnant or wish to become pregnant during the course of their psoriasis treatment. Earlier this year Porter et al evaluated several psoriasis therapies and discussed their safety for patients with psoriasis during pregnancy. Because psoriasis is a risk factor for adverse pregnancy outcomes, control of disease prior to and during pregnancy may optimize maternal and fetal health, according to the authors. As a result, they outlined the following treatment recommendations:

• Consider anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α agents over IL-12/IL-23 and IL-17 inhibitors.
• Anti–TNF-α agents can be used during the first half of pregnancy.
• Longer-term use of anti–TNF-α agents during pregnancy can be considered depending on psoriasis disease severity.
• If biologic therapy is required during pregnancy, use certolizumab because it does not cross the placenta in significant amounts; etanercept also may be a reasonable alternative.
• Babies born to mothers who are continually treated with biologic agents should not be administered live vaccinations for at least 6 months after birth due to the increased risk of infection; inactive vaccinations can be administered according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.
• Breastfeeding by mothers currently treated with anti–TNF-α agents is generally considered safe.
• Cotreatment with methotrexate and a biologic agent should be avoided.

However, the National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines for treating psoriasis in pregnant or breastfeeding women advise that topical treatments are the first choice of treatment, particularly moisturizers and emollients. Limited use of low- to moderate-potency topical steroids appears to be safe, but women should avoid applying topical steroids to the breasts. Second-line treatment is narrowband UVB phototherapy; if narrowband UVB is not available, use broadband UVB. Breastfeeding women should avoid psoralen plus UVA. The foundation also advises that systemic and biologic drugs should be avoided while pregnant or breastfeeding unless there is a clear medical need. Childbearing women should avoid oral retinoids, methotrexate, and cyclosporine due to a link to birth defects. A useful table of US Food and Drug Administration–approved psoriasis treatments and their category for use by pregnant and breastfeeding women is available online. Specifically, drugs that should absolutely be avoided in this patient population include acitretin, methotrexate, and tazarotene.

For some patients, discontinuing therapy may not be practical. Dermatologists should be prepared to weigh the risks and benefits of treatment to advise patients appropriately. According to Dr. Jeffrey M. Weinberg’s pearls for treating psoriasis in pregnant women in Cutis, “Most biologic therapies are pregnancy category B. We still use these drugs with caution in the setting of pregnancy. If a pregnant patient does wish to continue a biologic therapy, close monitoring and enrollment in a pregnancy registry would be good options.”

RELATED ARTICLE: How to Manage Psoriasis Safely in Pregnant Women

More research is necessary; however, pregnant women often are excluded from clinical trials. Therefore, adverse outcomes should be reported to registries such as the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists or others sponsored by drug manufacturers, which will aid in understanding the effects of psoriasis treatments in pregnant and breastfeeding women.

Expert Commentary

The treatment of psoriasis in pregnancy should be approached in a thoughtful manner. While we always want to minimize therapeutic interventions in pregnant individuals, we also want to maintain control of a disease such as psoriasis. As outlined in this article, there is good amount of flexibility in terms of therapies available to us. It is important to discuss the situation carefully, including the benefits and risks, with the patient and the obstetric professionals, in order to design the optimal regimen for each individual.

—Jeffrey M. Weinberg (New York, New York)