Psoriasis Collection

We are now in the midst of a second revolution in the care of patients with psoriasis. Since biologic therapies for psoriasis were first introduced in 2003 with the approval of alefacept, the psoriasis treatment paradigm has shifted and continues to evolve. Interestingly, the first 2 biologic agents approved for psoriasis, alefacept and efalizumab, are no longer on the market in the United States.

We certainly have made progress since the early days of psoriasis treatment. Over the years, we have come to understand the nature of psoriasis as a systemic inflammatory condition rather than as simply a skin disease. With this knowledge, we have continued to identify systemic comorbidities associated with psoriasis, including cardiovascular risk, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome. It is therefore the role of the dermatologist to serve as the gatekeeper for these individuals and help to screen for comorbidities of psoriasis, as well as provide appropriate counseling and referral.

Additionally, psoriasis therapies have been approved for new segments of the population. In 2016, the US Food and Drug Administration approved a supplemental biologics license application for use of etanercept in children aged 4 years and older with chronic moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy. Last year, the US Food and Drug Administration also approved an expanded indication for ustekinumab for the treatment of adolescents (aged 12 years and older) with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy.

Another treatment development included the approval of apremilast as a new oral therapeutic option for psoriasis patients. This agent, which is approved for both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, has become an attractive therapy for many patients who are new to systemic treatment. Many patients prefer an oral medication and like the fact that no routine laboratory monitoring is required. Often patients leave their dermatologist’s office with 2- to 4-weeks’ worth of samples and can begin their course immediately.

A treat-to-target approach also has been established for psoriasis. In 2016, the Medical Board of the National Psoriasis Foundation¹ created specific treatment goals in order to make achieving clear or almost clear skin the new standard of care. A consensus-building study conducted among 25 psoriasis experts revealed that the most preferred instrument for evaluating disease severity was body surface area (BSA). The time at which most participants preferred to evaluate patient response after starting a new psoriasis therapy was 3 months, and an acceptable response at this timepoint was considered to be either BSA involvement of 3% or less or improvement in BSA involvement of 75% or more compared to baseline. The target response at 3 months after starting treatment was BSA involvement of 1% or less. During the maintenance period, evaluation every 6 months was most preferred, and the target response at every 6-month follow-up evaluation was BSA involvement of 1% or less.¹ These standards enable and encourage both clinicians and patients to maximize their treatment success.

Over the past several years, a variety of new biologic agents also have come to the market, including 3 IL-17 inhibitors (ixekizumab, brodalumab, and secukinumab) and one IL-23 inhibitor (guselkumab). All of these agents have added new options to the armamentarium for psoriasis treatment and are highly effective. Overall, the clinical improvement and safety profiles for these agents are promising, and these new drugs may be equal to or more efficacious than the currently available therapeutic options for psoriasis treatment; however, long-term studies are still needed to further establish the safety and efficacy profiles for these biologic agents. Even more novel therapies are in development, as will be discussed by Lee et al² in this issue.

It is the purpose of this special issue to review new standards of care for psoriasis in 2018. We hope that you find this issue enjoyable and informative.

We are now in the midst of a second revolution in the care of patients with psoriasis. Since biologic therapies for psoriasis were first introduced in 2003 with the approval of alefacept, the psoriasis treatment paradigm has shifted and continues to evolve. Interestingly, the first 2 biologic agents approved for psoriasis, alefacept and efalizumab, are no longer on the market in the United States.

We certainly have made progress since the early days of psoriasis treatment. Over the years, we have come to understand the nature of psoriasis as a systemic inflammatory condition rather than as simply a skin disease. With this knowledge, we have continued to identify systemic comorbidities associated with psoriasis, including cardiovascular risk, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome. It is therefore the role of the dermatologist to serve as the gatekeeper for these individuals and help to screen for comorbidities of psoriasis, as well as provide appropriate counseling and referral.

Additionally, psoriasis therapies have been approved for new segments of the population. In 2016, the US Food and Drug Administration approved a supplemental biologics license application for use of etanercept in children aged 4 years and older with chronic moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy. Last year, the US Food and Drug Administration also approved an expanded indication for ustekinumab for the treatment of adolescents (aged 12 years and older) with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy.

Another treatment development included the approval of apremilast as a new oral therapeutic option for psoriasis patients. This agent, which is approved for both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, has become an attractive therapy for many patients who are new to systemic treatment. Many patients prefer an oral medication and like the fact that no routine laboratory monitoring is required. Often patients leave their dermatologist’s office with 2- to 4-weeks’ worth of samples and can begin their course immediately.

A treat-to-target approach also has been established for psoriasis. In 2016, the Medical Board of the National Psoriasis Foundation¹ created specific treatment goals in order to make achieving clear or almost clear skin the new standard of care. A consensus-building study conducted among 25 psoriasis experts revealed that the most preferred instrument for evaluating disease severity was body surface area (BSA). The time at which most participants preferred to evaluate patient response after starting a new psoriasis therapy was 3 months, and an acceptable response at this timepoint was considered to be either BSA involvement of 3% or less or improvement in BSA involvement of 75% or more compared to baseline. The target response at 3 months after starting treatment was BSA involvement of 1% or less. During the maintenance period, evaluation every 6 months was most preferred, and the target response at every 6-month follow-up evaluation was BSA involvement of 1% or less.¹ These standards enable and encourage both clinicians and patients to maximize their treatment success.

Over the past several years, a variety of new biologic agents also have come to the market, including 3 IL-17 inhibitors (ixekizumab, brodalumab, and secukinumab) and one IL-23 inhibitor (guselkumab). All of these agents have added new options to the armamentarium for psoriasis treatment and are highly effective. Overall, the clinical improvement and safety profiles for these agents are promising, and these new drugs may be equal to or more efficacious than the currently available therapeutic options for psoriasis treatment; however, long-term studies are still needed to further establish the safety and efficacy profiles for these biologic agents. Even more novel therapies are in development, as will be discussed by Lee et al² in this issue.

It is the purpose of this special issue to review new standards of care for psoriasis in 2018. We hope that you find this issue enjoyable and informative.

We are now in the midst of a second revolution in the care of patients with psoriasis. Since biologic therapies for psoriasis were first introduced in 2003 with the approval of alefacept, the psoriasis treatment paradigm has shifted and continues to evolve. Interestingly, the first 2 biologic agents approved for psoriasis, alefacept and efalizumab, are no longer on the market in the United States.

We certainly have made progress since the early days of psoriasis treatment. Over the years, we have come to understand the nature of psoriasis as a systemic inflammatory condition rather than as simply a skin disease. With this knowledge, we have continued to identify systemic comorbidities associated with psoriasis, including cardiovascular risk, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome. It is therefore the role of the dermatologist to serve as the gatekeeper for these individuals and help to screen for comorbidities of psoriasis, as well as provide appropriate counseling and referral.

Additionally, psoriasis therapies have been approved for new segments of the population. In 2016, the US Food and Drug Administration approved a supplemental biologics license application for use of etanercept in children aged 4 years and older with chronic moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy. Last year, the US Food and Drug Administration also approved an expanded indication for ustekinumab for the treatment of adolescents (aged 12 years and older) with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy.

Another treatment development included the approval of apremilast as a new oral therapeutic option for psoriasis patients. This agent, which is approved for both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, has become an attractive therapy for many patients who are new to systemic treatment. Many patients prefer an oral medication and like the fact that no routine laboratory monitoring is required. Often patients leave their dermatologist’s office with 2- to 4-weeks’ worth of samples and can begin their course immediately.

A treat-to-target approach also has been established for psoriasis. In 2016, the Medical Board of the National Psoriasis Foundation¹ created specific treatment goals in order to make achieving clear or almost clear skin the new standard of care. A consensus-building study conducted among 25 psoriasis experts revealed that the most preferred instrument for evaluating disease severity was body surface area (BSA). The time at which most participants preferred to evaluate patient response after starting a new psoriasis therapy was 3 months, and an acceptable response at this timepoint was considered to be either BSA involvement of 3% or less or improvement in BSA involvement of 75% or more compared to baseline. The target response at 3 months after starting treatment was BSA involvement of 1% or less. During the maintenance period, evaluation every 6 months was most preferred, and the target response at every 6-month follow-up evaluation was BSA involvement of 1% or less.¹ These standards enable and encourage both clinicians and patients to maximize their treatment success.

Over the past several years, a variety of new biologic agents also have come to the market, including 3 IL-17 inhibitors (ixekizumab, brodalumab, and secukinumab) and one IL-23 inhibitor (guselkumab). All of these agents have added new options to the armamentarium for psoriasis treatment and are highly effective. Overall, the clinical improvement and safety profiles for these agents are promising, and these new drugs may be equal to or more efficacious than the currently available therapeutic options for psoriasis treatment; however, long-term studies are still needed to further establish the safety and efficacy profiles for these biologic agents. Even more novel therapies are in development, as will be discussed by Lee et al² in this issue.

It is the purpose of this special issue to review new standards of care for psoriasis in 2018. We hope that you find this issue enjoyable and informative.

Dysregulated immune responses including elevations in the inflammatory cytokines tumor necrosis factor (TNF),^1-4 IL- 1 β ,³ and IL-12/23^5-7 have been identified in hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). Targeted biologic agents may offer an opportunity to intervene in specific aberrant inflammatory pathways to effectively treat HS while minimizing a dverse effects (AEs). There is growing evidence, however, that treatment of HS with a single biologic agent is not effective in all patients.^6,8-17 The TNF antagonist adalimumab has been shown to achieve clinical response in approximately 50% of patients (N = 633). ¹⁸In smaller and uncontrolled studies, clinical response was achieved in 70% (7/10) of patients treated with the IL-1 antagonist anakinra¹⁶ and 47 % (8/17) of patients treated with the IL-12/23 antagonist ustekinumab¹⁹ ; however, larger rigorous studies are needed. There is an urgent need for more effective therapeutic strategies for this condition.²⁰

The administration of concurrent biologics may offer the potential for improved disease control through synergistic targeting of multiple inflammatory pathways, particularly for severe and recalcitrant HS. This approach may be effective given insights from mechanistic studies suggesting the involvement of multiple inflammatory pathways in the disease pathogenesis.^3,21 Concurrent anticytokine biologics have been used safely and effectively in other inflammatory diseases; for example, combination therapy with TNF and IL-12/23 antagonists have resulted in near-complete to complete resolution of severe psoriatic skin and joint disease without AEs.^22-24

An increased risk for infection without increased efficacy associated with the use of concurrent anticytokine biologics for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has raised concerns about the safety of this therapeutic approach. In a study of concurrent etanercept and anakinra therapy for RA (N=244), the combined therapy was not more efficacious than etanercept alone (American College of Rheumatology 50% response at week 24: etanercept 25 mg twice weekly, 41%; etanercept 25 mg twice weekly plus anakinra 100 mg once daily, 31%; etanercept 25 mg once weekly plus anakinra 100 mg once daily, 39% [P=.914]).²⁵ Combination therapy also was associated with a higher overall incidence of serious AEs, serious infections requiring antibiotics or hospitalizations, and serious infections leading to study withdrawal. Reported infections included pneumonia, cellulitis, herpes zoster, pneumonitis, and pyelonephritis, but no opportunistic infections or tuberculosis were reported. A single case of lymphoma was reported in the full-dose etanercept plus anakinra group; however, the association with therapy is unclear, as RA itself is associated with an increased risk of malignancy.²⁵

Although these results are notable, caution must be exercised in extrapolating safety and efficacy data for treatment with concurrent biologics from the RA literature for management of HS for several reasons. First, RA is an autoimmune disease that is associated with an increased risk for genitourinary and bronchopulmonary infections and septic arthritis, even in the absence of treatment with steroids and immunomodulatory drugs.^26,27 Increased risk for development of lymphoma, lung cancer, and nonmelanoma skin cancer also has been associated with RA.^28,29 The exact etiology of this increased risk is unknown, but it is thought to relate to immunologic disturbances and chronic systemic inflammation associated with RA.²⁹ Furthermore, RA disease characteristics and comorbidities that may contribute to an increased risk for infection and malignancy include advanced age as well as a history of leukopenia, chronic lung disease, diabetes mellitus, alcoholism, and/or smoking.³⁰ Infection and malignancy risk in RA also may be compounded by immunomodulatory therapies.^31,32

Conversely, although microbes are believed to play an important role in HS initiation and progression, HS is neither considered an infectious disease nor associated with an increased risk for infection.³³ Increased malignancy risk generally is not reported with HS, and systematic therapeutic trials of biologic therapies for HS have been notable for an absence of infectious or malignant AEs compared to placebo.^{12,14,16,18,19} From a mechanistic standpoint, data suggest that HS may be fundamentally distinct from RA and other autoimmune diseases; therefore, it may not be appropriate to extrapolate safety data from the latter to guide therapeutic strategies for the former.

The concept that different inflammatory diseases harbor distinct risks for comorbidities and AEs associated with medications is further supported by data from patients with PAPA syndrome (pyogenic arthritis, pyoderma gangrenosum, and acne), a monogenic autoinflammatory disease characterized by inflammasome activation and subsequent increased signaling via IL-1.³⁴Patients with PAPA syndrome often require a combination therapeutic regimen including simultaneous antibiotics, systemic retinoids and steroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and more than 1 concurrent anticytokine biologic to manage their condition. Despite management with multiple immunosuppressants and immunomodulators, patients with PAPA syndrome rarely develop localized or systemic infections, supporting our hypothesis that different systemic immune-mediated disorders may render a distinct susceptibility to infectious complications. Clinically, patients with PAPA syndrome can have cutaneous disease manifestations consistent with HS, suggesting the possibility of shared underlying inflammatory mechanisms due at least partially to inflammasome activation. This clinical observation may help explain why concurrent anticytokine biologic therapies in conjunction with combinations of steroids and other immunomodulators may be safe and effective in HS patients.

We have safely and effectively treated 2 patients with severe HS with extended courses of concurrent TNF and IL-1 antagonists. Both patients had previously failed treatment with multiple therapeutic interventions, including topical and systemic antibiotics, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, hormonal therapy, biologic monotherapy with several targeted agents, and wide local excision. In the setting of concurrent certolizumab plus anakinra in the first patient and adalimumab plus anakinra in the second, both patients reported reduced drainage, pain, and number of disease flares. Both patients also were maintained on extended treatment courses (11 months and 2 years, respectively) without evidence of infection or malignancy.

Concurrent biologics may be safe and effective in managing recalcitrant HS; however, large prospective studies are needed to confirm these anecdotal findings. As our understanding of HS pathogenesis expands, novel and more effective therapeutic options will be developed. Until then, concurrent biologics may be a potential option for patients with severe recalcitrant HS.

Dysregulated immune responses including elevations in the inflammatory cytokines tumor necrosis factor (TNF),^1-4 IL- 1 β ,³ and IL-12/23^5-7 have been identified in hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). Targeted biologic agents may offer an opportunity to intervene in specific aberrant inflammatory pathways to effectively treat HS while minimizing a dverse effects (AEs). There is growing evidence, however, that treatment of HS with a single biologic agent is not effective in all patients.^6,8-17 The TNF antagonist adalimumab has been shown to achieve clinical response in approximately 50% of patients (N = 633). ¹⁸In smaller and uncontrolled studies, clinical response was achieved in 70% (7/10) of patients treated with the IL-1 antagonist anakinra¹⁶ and 47 % (8/17) of patients treated with the IL-12/23 antagonist ustekinumab¹⁹ ; however, larger rigorous studies are needed. There is an urgent need for more effective therapeutic strategies for this condition.²⁰

The administration of concurrent biologics may offer the potential for improved disease control through synergistic targeting of multiple inflammatory pathways, particularly for severe and recalcitrant HS. This approach may be effective given insights from mechanistic studies suggesting the involvement of multiple inflammatory pathways in the disease pathogenesis.^3,21 Concurrent anticytokine biologics have been used safely and effectively in other inflammatory diseases; for example, combination therapy with TNF and IL-12/23 antagonists have resulted in near-complete to complete resolution of severe psoriatic skin and joint disease without AEs.^22-24

An increased risk for infection without increased efficacy associated with the use of concurrent anticytokine biologics for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has raised concerns about the safety of this therapeutic approach. In a study of concurrent etanercept and anakinra therapy for RA (N=244), the combined therapy was not more efficacious than etanercept alone (American College of Rheumatology 50% response at week 24: etanercept 25 mg twice weekly, 41%; etanercept 25 mg twice weekly plus anakinra 100 mg once daily, 31%; etanercept 25 mg once weekly plus anakinra 100 mg once daily, 39% [P=.914]).²⁵ Combination therapy also was associated with a higher overall incidence of serious AEs, serious infections requiring antibiotics or hospitalizations, and serious infections leading to study withdrawal. Reported infections included pneumonia, cellulitis, herpes zoster, pneumonitis, and pyelonephritis, but no opportunistic infections or tuberculosis were reported. A single case of lymphoma was reported in the full-dose etanercept plus anakinra group; however, the association with therapy is unclear, as RA itself is associated with an increased risk of malignancy.²⁵

Although these results are notable, caution must be exercised in extrapolating safety and efficacy data for treatment with concurrent biologics from the RA literature for management of HS for several reasons. First, RA is an autoimmune disease that is associated with an increased risk for genitourinary and bronchopulmonary infections and septic arthritis, even in the absence of treatment with steroids and immunomodulatory drugs.^26,27 Increased risk for development of lymphoma, lung cancer, and nonmelanoma skin cancer also has been associated with RA.^28,29 The exact etiology of this increased risk is unknown, but it is thought to relate to immunologic disturbances and chronic systemic inflammation associated with RA.²⁹ Furthermore, RA disease characteristics and comorbidities that may contribute to an increased risk for infection and malignancy include advanced age as well as a history of leukopenia, chronic lung disease, diabetes mellitus, alcoholism, and/or smoking.³⁰ Infection and malignancy risk in RA also may be compounded by immunomodulatory therapies.^31,32

Conversely, although microbes are believed to play an important role in HS initiation and progression, HS is neither considered an infectious disease nor associated with an increased risk for infection.³³ Increased malignancy risk generally is not reported with HS, and systematic therapeutic trials of biologic therapies for HS have been notable for an absence of infectious or malignant AEs compared to placebo.^{12,14,16,18,19} From a mechanistic standpoint, data suggest that HS may be fundamentally distinct from RA and other autoimmune diseases; therefore, it may not be appropriate to extrapolate safety data from the latter to guide therapeutic strategies for the former.

The concept that different inflammatory diseases harbor distinct risks for comorbidities and AEs associated with medications is further supported by data from patients with PAPA syndrome (pyogenic arthritis, pyoderma gangrenosum, and acne), a monogenic autoinflammatory disease characterized by inflammasome activation and subsequent increased signaling via IL-1.³⁴Patients with PAPA syndrome often require a combination therapeutic regimen including simultaneous antibiotics, systemic retinoids and steroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and more than 1 concurrent anticytokine biologic to manage their condition. Despite management with multiple immunosuppressants and immunomodulators, patients with PAPA syndrome rarely develop localized or systemic infections, supporting our hypothesis that different systemic immune-mediated disorders may render a distinct susceptibility to infectious complications. Clinically, patients with PAPA syndrome can have cutaneous disease manifestations consistent with HS, suggesting the possibility of shared underlying inflammatory mechanisms due at least partially to inflammasome activation. This clinical observation may help explain why concurrent anticytokine biologic therapies in conjunction with combinations of steroids and other immunomodulators may be safe and effective in HS patients.

We have safely and effectively treated 2 patients with severe HS with extended courses of concurrent TNF and IL-1 antagonists. Both patients had previously failed treatment with multiple therapeutic interventions, including topical and systemic antibiotics, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, hormonal therapy, biologic monotherapy with several targeted agents, and wide local excision. In the setting of concurrent certolizumab plus anakinra in the first patient and adalimumab plus anakinra in the second, both patients reported reduced drainage, pain, and number of disease flares. Both patients also were maintained on extended treatment courses (11 months and 2 years, respectively) without evidence of infection or malignancy.

Concurrent biologics may be safe and effective in managing recalcitrant HS; however, large prospective studies are needed to confirm these anecdotal findings. As our understanding of HS pathogenesis expands, novel and more effective therapeutic options will be developed. Until then, concurrent biologics may be a potential option for patients with severe recalcitrant HS.

Dysregulated immune responses including elevations in the inflammatory cytokines tumor necrosis factor (TNF),^1-4 IL- 1 β ,³ and IL-12/23^5-7 have been identified in hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). Targeted biologic agents may offer an opportunity to intervene in specific aberrant inflammatory pathways to effectively treat HS while minimizing a dverse effects (AEs). There is growing evidence, however, that treatment of HS with a single biologic agent is not effective in all patients.^6,8-17 The TNF antagonist adalimumab has been shown to achieve clinical response in approximately 50% of patients (N = 633). ¹⁸In smaller and uncontrolled studies, clinical response was achieved in 70% (7/10) of patients treated with the IL-1 antagonist anakinra¹⁶ and 47 % (8/17) of patients treated with the IL-12/23 antagonist ustekinumab¹⁹ ; however, larger rigorous studies are needed. There is an urgent need for more effective therapeutic strategies for this condition.²⁰

The administration of concurrent biologics may offer the potential for improved disease control through synergistic targeting of multiple inflammatory pathways, particularly for severe and recalcitrant HS. This approach may be effective given insights from mechanistic studies suggesting the involvement of multiple inflammatory pathways in the disease pathogenesis.^3,21 Concurrent anticytokine biologics have been used safely and effectively in other inflammatory diseases; for example, combination therapy with TNF and IL-12/23 antagonists have resulted in near-complete to complete resolution of severe psoriatic skin and joint disease without AEs.^22-24

An increased risk for infection without increased efficacy associated with the use of concurrent anticytokine biologics for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has raised concerns about the safety of this therapeutic approach. In a study of concurrent etanercept and anakinra therapy for RA (N=244), the combined therapy was not more efficacious than etanercept alone (American College of Rheumatology 50% response at week 24: etanercept 25 mg twice weekly, 41%; etanercept 25 mg twice weekly plus anakinra 100 mg once daily, 31%; etanercept 25 mg once weekly plus anakinra 100 mg once daily, 39% [P=.914]).²⁵ Combination therapy also was associated with a higher overall incidence of serious AEs, serious infections requiring antibiotics or hospitalizations, and serious infections leading to study withdrawal. Reported infections included pneumonia, cellulitis, herpes zoster, pneumonitis, and pyelonephritis, but no opportunistic infections or tuberculosis were reported. A single case of lymphoma was reported in the full-dose etanercept plus anakinra group; however, the association with therapy is unclear, as RA itself is associated with an increased risk of malignancy.²⁵

Although these results are notable, caution must be exercised in extrapolating safety and efficacy data for treatment with concurrent biologics from the RA literature for management of HS for several reasons. First, RA is an autoimmune disease that is associated with an increased risk for genitourinary and bronchopulmonary infections and septic arthritis, even in the absence of treatment with steroids and immunomodulatory drugs.^26,27 Increased risk for development of lymphoma, lung cancer, and nonmelanoma skin cancer also has been associated with RA.^28,29 The exact etiology of this increased risk is unknown, but it is thought to relate to immunologic disturbances and chronic systemic inflammation associated with RA.²⁹ Furthermore, RA disease characteristics and comorbidities that may contribute to an increased risk for infection and malignancy include advanced age as well as a history of leukopenia, chronic lung disease, diabetes mellitus, alcoholism, and/or smoking.³⁰ Infection and malignancy risk in RA also may be compounded by immunomodulatory therapies.^31,32

Conversely, although microbes are believed to play an important role in HS initiation and progression, HS is neither considered an infectious disease nor associated with an increased risk for infection.³³ Increased malignancy risk generally is not reported with HS, and systematic therapeutic trials of biologic therapies for HS have been notable for an absence of infectious or malignant AEs compared to placebo.^{12,14,16,18,19} From a mechanistic standpoint, data suggest that HS may be fundamentally distinct from RA and other autoimmune diseases; therefore, it may not be appropriate to extrapolate safety data from the latter to guide therapeutic strategies for the former.

The concept that different inflammatory diseases harbor distinct risks for comorbidities and AEs associated with medications is further supported by data from patients with PAPA syndrome (pyogenic arthritis, pyoderma gangrenosum, and acne), a monogenic autoinflammatory disease characterized by inflammasome activation and subsequent increased signaling via IL-1.³⁴Patients with PAPA syndrome often require a combination therapeutic regimen including simultaneous antibiotics, systemic retinoids and steroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and more than 1 concurrent anticytokine biologic to manage their condition. Despite management with multiple immunosuppressants and immunomodulators, patients with PAPA syndrome rarely develop localized or systemic infections, supporting our hypothesis that different systemic immune-mediated disorders may render a distinct susceptibility to infectious complications. Clinically, patients with PAPA syndrome can have cutaneous disease manifestations consistent with HS, suggesting the possibility of shared underlying inflammatory mechanisms due at least partially to inflammasome activation. This clinical observation may help explain why concurrent anticytokine biologic therapies in conjunction with combinations of steroids and other immunomodulators may be safe and effective in HS patients.

We have safely and effectively treated 2 patients with severe HS with extended courses of concurrent TNF and IL-1 antagonists. Both patients had previously failed treatment with multiple therapeutic interventions, including topical and systemic antibiotics, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, hormonal therapy, biologic monotherapy with several targeted agents, and wide local excision. In the setting of concurrent certolizumab plus anakinra in the first patient and adalimumab plus anakinra in the second, both patients reported reduced drainage, pain, and number of disease flares. Both patients also were maintained on extended treatment courses (11 months and 2 years, respectively) without evidence of infection or malignancy.

Concurrent biologics may be safe and effective in managing recalcitrant HS; however, large prospective studies are needed to confirm these anecdotal findings. As our understanding of HS pathogenesis expands, novel and more effective therapeutic options will be developed. Until then, concurrent biologics may be a potential option for patients with severe recalcitrant HS.

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects approximately 2% to 3% of the US population.¹ Patients with psoriasis are more likely to have cardiovascular risk factors (eg, obesity, metabolic syndrome) than individuals without psoriasis.² In fact, recent evidence has suggested that a diagnosis of psoriasis is an independent risk factor for cardiometabolic diseases including diabetes, major adverse cardiovascular events, and obesity.³ Given the well-recognized health benefits of physical activity and the associated reduction in coronary heart disease risk,⁴ patients with psoriasis specifically may benefit from regular participation in physical activity. Thus, an enhanced understanding of the relationship between psoriasis and vigorous physical activity would help determine the role of initiating and recommending interventions that implement physical activity for patients with psoriasis. A review was conducted to determine the relationship between psoriasis and vigorous physical activity.

Methods

An English-language literature search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE (January 1, 1946–October 15, 2017) as well as articles in the Embase database (January 1, 1947–October 15, 2017) and Cochrane Library (January 1, 1992–October 15, 2017) using the terms psoriasis and physical activity was performed. The search strategy was established based on a prior review of vigorous physical activity in eczema.⁵ The article titles and/or abstracts were reviewed, and the studies were excluded if they did not evaluate physical activity in patients with psoriasis. Studies without a control group also were excluded. Articles on patients with psoriatic arthritis and studies that involved modification of dietary intake also were excluded.

Two reviewers (M.A. and E.B.L.) independently extracted data from the studies and compiled the results. The following factors were included in the data extracted: study year, location, and design; method of diagnosis of psoriasis; total number of patients included in the study; and age, gender, and level of physical activity of the study patients. Level of physical activity was the exposure, and diagnosis of psoriasis was the dependent variable. Physical activity was defined differently across the studies that were evaluated. To determine study quality, we implemented the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS), a 9-star scoring system that includes items such as selection criteria, comparability, and study outcome.⁶ Studies with an NOS score of 7 or higher were included in the meta-analysis.

Results

The literature search generated 353 nonduplicate articles. A thorough review of the articles yielded 4 studies that were incorporated in the final analysis.^7-10 We aimed to perform a meta-analysis; however, only 1 of the studies included in the final analysis had an NOS score of 7 or higher along with adequate data to be incorporated into our study.¹⁰ As a result, the meta-analysis was converted to a regular review.

The cross-sectional study we reviewed, which had an NOS score of 7, included males and females in the United States aged 20 to 59 years.¹⁰ Data were collected using the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2003 to 2006. The survey measured the likelihood of participation in leisure-time moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and metabolic equivalent task (MET) minutes of MVPA in the past 30 days. Of 6549 participants, 385 were excluded from the analysis due to missing values for 1 or more of the study variables. Of the remaining 6164 participants, 84 (1.4%) reported having a diagnosis of psoriasis with few or no psoriasis patches at the time of the survey, and 71 (1.2%) reported having a diagnosis of psoriasis with few to extensive patches at the time of the survey.¹⁰

Participants with psoriasis were less likely to participate in MVPA in the previous 30 days compared to participants without psoriasis, but the association was not statistically significant.¹⁰ The study demonstrated that, on average, participants with psoriasis spent 31% (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.57 to −0.05) fewer MET minutes on leisure-time MVPA versus participants without psoriasis; however, this association was not statistically significant. It is important to note that the diagnosis of psoriasis was self-reported, and measures of disease duration or areas of involvement were not incorporated.

Comment

Our review revealed that vigorous physical activity may be reduced in patients with psoriasis compared to those without psoriasis. Initially, we aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature; however, only 1 study met the criteria for the systematic review, highlighting the need for more robust studies evaluating this subject.

Do et al¹⁰ demonstrated that psoriasis patients were less likely to participate in MVPA, but the findings were not statistically significant. Of those who participated in MVPA, MET minutes were fewer among patients with few to extensive skin lesions compared to those without psoriasis. The investigators suggested that psoriasis patients with more severe disease tend to exercise less and ultimately would benefit from regular vigorous physical activity.

Frankel et al⁷ performed a prospective cohort study in US women to evaluate the role of physical activity in preventing psoriasis. The investigators reported that the most physically active quintile had a lower multivariate relative risk of psoriasis (0.72; 95% CI, 0.59–0.89; P<.001 for trend) compared to the least active quintile.⁷ Additionally, vigorous physical activity, which was defined as 6 or more MET minutes, was associated with a significantly lower risk of incident psoriasis (0.66; 95% CI, 0.54–0.81; P<.001 for trend), which maintained significance after adjusting for body mass index (BMI). The investigators suggested that, by decreasing chronic inflammation and lowering levels of proinflammatory cytokines, vigorous physical activity may reduce the risk of psoriasis development in women.⁷ It is plausible that vigorous physical activity modifies the state of chronic inflammation, which could subsequently reduce the risk of developing psoriasis; however, further long-term, randomized, prospective studies are needed to verify the relationship between physical activity and development of psoriasis.

Torres et al⁸ performed a cross-sectional questionnaire study to assess physical activity in patients with severe psoriasis (defined as >10% body surface area involvement and/or disease requiring systemic therapy or phototherapy) versus healthy controls. Physical activity level was measured using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. The odds ratio of low-level physical activity compared to non–low-level physical activity among psoriasis patients versus controls was 3.42 (95% CI, 1.47–7.91; P=.002). Additionally, the average total MET minutes of psoriasis patients were significantly reduced compared to those of the healthy controls (P=.001). Thus, the investigators suggested that vigorous physical activity is less likely in psoriasis patients, which may contribute to the increased risk of cardiovascular disease in this population.⁸ Vigorous physical activity would benefit patients with psoriasis to help lower the chronic state of inflammation and cardiometabolic comorbidities.

Demirel et al⁹ performed a study to compare aerobic exercise capacity and daily physical activity level in psoriasis patients (n=30) compared to controls (n=30). Daily physical activity, measured with an accelerometer, was significantly higher in male patients with psoriasis compared to controls (P=.021). No significant difference was reported in maximal aerobic capacity in both male and female psoriasis patients versus controls. The investigators suggested that the level of daily physical activity is not limited in psoriasis patients, yet the small sample size may limit the generalizability of the study.

The ability to dissipate heat during exercise seems to be diminished in patients with psoriasis. Specifically, it has been suggested that psoriasis lesions interfere with normal perspiration.¹¹ Moreover, joint involvement in patients with psoriatic arthritis may lead to physical functional disabilities that can interfere with the ability of these patients to participate in regular physical activity.^12-14 For this reason, our review excluded articles that evaluated patients with psoriatic arthritis. Despite this exclusion, it is important to consider that comorbid psoriatic arthritis in clinical practice may impede patients with psoriasis from participating in physical activity. Additionally, various social aspects also may limit physical activity in psoriasis patients; for instance, psoriasis patients often avoid activities that involve increased exposure of the skin (eg, communal showers, wearing sports attire).¹⁵

Furthermore, obese psoriasis patients are less likely to exercise compared to obese individuals without psoriasis.¹⁶ In patients with higher BMI, the risk of psoriasis is increased.¹⁷ A systematic review suggested that weight loss may improve psoriasis severity.¹⁸ Bariatric surgery also may improve psoriasis.¹⁹ Moreover, obesity may interfere with response to biologic therapies for psoriasis. Specifically, higher BMI is linked with lower response to fixed-dose biologic therapies compared to weight-based biologic options (eg, infliximab).^20,21

Conclusion

Given the increased risk of myocardial infarction in patients with psoriasis, it is important to recognize the barriers to physical activity that psoriasis patients face.²² Due to the considerable health benefits associated with regular physical activity, physicians should encourage patients with psoriasis to participate in physical activity as tolerated. Of note, the studies included in this review varied in their definitions of psoriasis disease severity and measures of physical activity level. Long-term, randomized, prospective studies are needed to clarify the relationship between psoriasis and physical activity. Evidence from these studies would help guide clinical recommendations regarding the role of physical activity for patients with psoriasis.

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects approximately 2% to 3% of the US population.¹ Patients with psoriasis are more likely to have cardiovascular risk factors (eg, obesity, metabolic syndrome) than individuals without psoriasis.² In fact, recent evidence has suggested that a diagnosis of psoriasis is an independent risk factor for cardiometabolic diseases including diabetes, major adverse cardiovascular events, and obesity.³ Given the well-recognized health benefits of physical activity and the associated reduction in coronary heart disease risk,⁴ patients with psoriasis specifically may benefit from regular participation in physical activity. Thus, an enhanced understanding of the relationship between psoriasis and vigorous physical activity would help determine the role of initiating and recommending interventions that implement physical activity for patients with psoriasis. A review was conducted to determine the relationship between psoriasis and vigorous physical activity.

Methods

An English-language literature search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE (January 1, 1946–October 15, 2017) as well as articles in the Embase database (January 1, 1947–October 15, 2017) and Cochrane Library (January 1, 1992–October 15, 2017) using the terms psoriasis and physical activity was performed. The search strategy was established based on a prior review of vigorous physical activity in eczema.⁵ The article titles and/or abstracts were reviewed, and the studies were excluded if they did not evaluate physical activity in patients with psoriasis. Studies without a control group also were excluded. Articles on patients with psoriatic arthritis and studies that involved modification of dietary intake also were excluded.

Two reviewers (M.A. and E.B.L.) independently extracted data from the studies and compiled the results. The following factors were included in the data extracted: study year, location, and design; method of diagnosis of psoriasis; total number of patients included in the study; and age, gender, and level of physical activity of the study patients. Level of physical activity was the exposure, and diagnosis of psoriasis was the dependent variable. Physical activity was defined differently across the studies that were evaluated. To determine study quality, we implemented the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS), a 9-star scoring system that includes items such as selection criteria, comparability, and study outcome.⁶ Studies with an NOS score of 7 or higher were included in the meta-analysis.

Results

The literature search generated 353 nonduplicate articles. A thorough review of the articles yielded 4 studies that were incorporated in the final analysis.^7-10 We aimed to perform a meta-analysis; however, only 1 of the studies included in the final analysis had an NOS score of 7 or higher along with adequate data to be incorporated into our study.¹⁰ As a result, the meta-analysis was converted to a regular review.

The cross-sectional study we reviewed, which had an NOS score of 7, included males and females in the United States aged 20 to 59 years.¹⁰ Data were collected using the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2003 to 2006. The survey measured the likelihood of participation in leisure-time moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and metabolic equivalent task (MET) minutes of MVPA in the past 30 days. Of 6549 participants, 385 were excluded from the analysis due to missing values for 1 or more of the study variables. Of the remaining 6164 participants, 84 (1.4%) reported having a diagnosis of psoriasis with few or no psoriasis patches at the time of the survey, and 71 (1.2%) reported having a diagnosis of psoriasis with few to extensive patches at the time of the survey.¹⁰

Participants with psoriasis were less likely to participate in MVPA in the previous 30 days compared to participants without psoriasis, but the association was not statistically significant.¹⁰ The study demonstrated that, on average, participants with psoriasis spent 31% (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.57 to −0.05) fewer MET minutes on leisure-time MVPA versus participants without psoriasis; however, this association was not statistically significant. It is important to note that the diagnosis of psoriasis was self-reported, and measures of disease duration or areas of involvement were not incorporated.

Comment

Our review revealed that vigorous physical activity may be reduced in patients with psoriasis compared to those without psoriasis. Initially, we aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature; however, only 1 study met the criteria for the systematic review, highlighting the need for more robust studies evaluating this subject.

Do et al¹⁰ demonstrated that psoriasis patients were less likely to participate in MVPA, but the findings were not statistically significant. Of those who participated in MVPA, MET minutes were fewer among patients with few to extensive skin lesions compared to those without psoriasis. The investigators suggested that psoriasis patients with more severe disease tend to exercise less and ultimately would benefit from regular vigorous physical activity.

Frankel et al⁷ performed a prospective cohort study in US women to evaluate the role of physical activity in preventing psoriasis. The investigators reported that the most physically active quintile had a lower multivariate relative risk of psoriasis (0.72; 95% CI, 0.59–0.89; P<.001 for trend) compared to the least active quintile.⁷ Additionally, vigorous physical activity, which was defined as 6 or more MET minutes, was associated with a significantly lower risk of incident psoriasis (0.66; 95% CI, 0.54–0.81; P<.001 for trend), which maintained significance after adjusting for body mass index (BMI). The investigators suggested that, by decreasing chronic inflammation and lowering levels of proinflammatory cytokines, vigorous physical activity may reduce the risk of psoriasis development in women.⁷ It is plausible that vigorous physical activity modifies the state of chronic inflammation, which could subsequently reduce the risk of developing psoriasis; however, further long-term, randomized, prospective studies are needed to verify the relationship between physical activity and development of psoriasis.

Torres et al⁸ performed a cross-sectional questionnaire study to assess physical activity in patients with severe psoriasis (defined as >10% body surface area involvement and/or disease requiring systemic therapy or phototherapy) versus healthy controls. Physical activity level was measured using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. The odds ratio of low-level physical activity compared to non–low-level physical activity among psoriasis patients versus controls was 3.42 (95% CI, 1.47–7.91; P=.002). Additionally, the average total MET minutes of psoriasis patients were significantly reduced compared to those of the healthy controls (P=.001). Thus, the investigators suggested that vigorous physical activity is less likely in psoriasis patients, which may contribute to the increased risk of cardiovascular disease in this population.⁸ Vigorous physical activity would benefit patients with psoriasis to help lower the chronic state of inflammation and cardiometabolic comorbidities.

Demirel et al⁹ performed a study to compare aerobic exercise capacity and daily physical activity level in psoriasis patients (n=30) compared to controls (n=30). Daily physical activity, measured with an accelerometer, was significantly higher in male patients with psoriasis compared to controls (P=.021). No significant difference was reported in maximal aerobic capacity in both male and female psoriasis patients versus controls. The investigators suggested that the level of daily physical activity is not limited in psoriasis patients, yet the small sample size may limit the generalizability of the study.

The ability to dissipate heat during exercise seems to be diminished in patients with psoriasis. Specifically, it has been suggested that psoriasis lesions interfere with normal perspiration.¹¹ Moreover, joint involvement in patients with psoriatic arthritis may lead to physical functional disabilities that can interfere with the ability of these patients to participate in regular physical activity.^12-14 For this reason, our review excluded articles that evaluated patients with psoriatic arthritis. Despite this exclusion, it is important to consider that comorbid psoriatic arthritis in clinical practice may impede patients with psoriasis from participating in physical activity. Additionally, various social aspects also may limit physical activity in psoriasis patients; for instance, psoriasis patients often avoid activities that involve increased exposure of the skin (eg, communal showers, wearing sports attire).¹⁵

Furthermore, obese psoriasis patients are less likely to exercise compared to obese individuals without psoriasis.¹⁶ In patients with higher BMI, the risk of psoriasis is increased.¹⁷ A systematic review suggested that weight loss may improve psoriasis severity.¹⁸ Bariatric surgery also may improve psoriasis.¹⁹ Moreover, obesity may interfere with response to biologic therapies for psoriasis. Specifically, higher BMI is linked with lower response to fixed-dose biologic therapies compared to weight-based biologic options (eg, infliximab).^20,21

Conclusion

Given the increased risk of myocardial infarction in patients with psoriasis, it is important to recognize the barriers to physical activity that psoriasis patients face.²² Due to the considerable health benefits associated with regular physical activity, physicians should encourage patients with psoriasis to participate in physical activity as tolerated. Of note, the studies included in this review varied in their definitions of psoriasis disease severity and measures of physical activity level. Long-term, randomized, prospective studies are needed to clarify the relationship between psoriasis and physical activity. Evidence from these studies would help guide clinical recommendations regarding the role of physical activity for patients with psoriasis.

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects approximately 2% to 3% of the US population.¹ Patients with psoriasis are more likely to have cardiovascular risk factors (eg, obesity, metabolic syndrome) than individuals without psoriasis.² In fact, recent evidence has suggested that a diagnosis of psoriasis is an independent risk factor for cardiometabolic diseases including diabetes, major adverse cardiovascular events, and obesity.³ Given the well-recognized health benefits of physical activity and the associated reduction in coronary heart disease risk,⁴ patients with psoriasis specifically may benefit from regular participation in physical activity. Thus, an enhanced understanding of the relationship between psoriasis and vigorous physical activity would help determine the role of initiating and recommending interventions that implement physical activity for patients with psoriasis. A review was conducted to determine the relationship between psoriasis and vigorous physical activity.

Methods

An English-language literature search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE (January 1, 1946–October 15, 2017) as well as articles in the Embase database (January 1, 1947–October 15, 2017) and Cochrane Library (January 1, 1992–October 15, 2017) using the terms psoriasis and physical activity was performed. The search strategy was established based on a prior review of vigorous physical activity in eczema.⁵ The article titles and/or abstracts were reviewed, and the studies were excluded if they did not evaluate physical activity in patients with psoriasis. Studies without a control group also were excluded. Articles on patients with psoriatic arthritis and studies that involved modification of dietary intake also were excluded.

Two reviewers (M.A. and E.B.L.) independently extracted data from the studies and compiled the results. The following factors were included in the data extracted: study year, location, and design; method of diagnosis of psoriasis; total number of patients included in the study; and age, gender, and level of physical activity of the study patients. Level of physical activity was the exposure, and diagnosis of psoriasis was the dependent variable. Physical activity was defined differently across the studies that were evaluated. To determine study quality, we implemented the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS), a 9-star scoring system that includes items such as selection criteria, comparability, and study outcome.⁶ Studies with an NOS score of 7 or higher were included in the meta-analysis.

Results

The literature search generated 353 nonduplicate articles. A thorough review of the articles yielded 4 studies that were incorporated in the final analysis.^7-10 We aimed to perform a meta-analysis; however, only 1 of the studies included in the final analysis had an NOS score of 7 or higher along with adequate data to be incorporated into our study.¹⁰ As a result, the meta-analysis was converted to a regular review.

The cross-sectional study we reviewed, which had an NOS score of 7, included males and females in the United States aged 20 to 59 years.¹⁰ Data were collected using the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2003 to 2006. The survey measured the likelihood of participation in leisure-time moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and metabolic equivalent task (MET) minutes of MVPA in the past 30 days. Of 6549 participants, 385 were excluded from the analysis due to missing values for 1 or more of the study variables. Of the remaining 6164 participants, 84 (1.4%) reported having a diagnosis of psoriasis with few or no psoriasis patches at the time of the survey, and 71 (1.2%) reported having a diagnosis of psoriasis with few to extensive patches at the time of the survey.¹⁰

Participants with psoriasis were less likely to participate in MVPA in the previous 30 days compared to participants without psoriasis, but the association was not statistically significant.¹⁰ The study demonstrated that, on average, participants with psoriasis spent 31% (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.57 to −0.05) fewer MET minutes on leisure-time MVPA versus participants without psoriasis; however, this association was not statistically significant. It is important to note that the diagnosis of psoriasis was self-reported, and measures of disease duration or areas of involvement were not incorporated.

Comment

Our review revealed that vigorous physical activity may be reduced in patients with psoriasis compared to those without psoriasis. Initially, we aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature; however, only 1 study met the criteria for the systematic review, highlighting the need for more robust studies evaluating this subject.

Do et al¹⁰ demonstrated that psoriasis patients were less likely to participate in MVPA, but the findings were not statistically significant. Of those who participated in MVPA, MET minutes were fewer among patients with few to extensive skin lesions compared to those without psoriasis. The investigators suggested that psoriasis patients with more severe disease tend to exercise less and ultimately would benefit from regular vigorous physical activity.

Frankel et al⁷ performed a prospective cohort study in US women to evaluate the role of physical activity in preventing psoriasis. The investigators reported that the most physically active quintile had a lower multivariate relative risk of psoriasis (0.72; 95% CI, 0.59–0.89; P<.001 for trend) compared to the least active quintile.⁷ Additionally, vigorous physical activity, which was defined as 6 or more MET minutes, was associated with a significantly lower risk of incident psoriasis (0.66; 95% CI, 0.54–0.81; P<.001 for trend), which maintained significance after adjusting for body mass index (BMI). The investigators suggested that, by decreasing chronic inflammation and lowering levels of proinflammatory cytokines, vigorous physical activity may reduce the risk of psoriasis development in women.⁷ It is plausible that vigorous physical activity modifies the state of chronic inflammation, which could subsequently reduce the risk of developing psoriasis; however, further long-term, randomized, prospective studies are needed to verify the relationship between physical activity and development of psoriasis.

Torres et al⁸ performed a cross-sectional questionnaire study to assess physical activity in patients with severe psoriasis (defined as >10% body surface area involvement and/or disease requiring systemic therapy or phototherapy) versus healthy controls. Physical activity level was measured using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. The odds ratio of low-level physical activity compared to non–low-level physical activity among psoriasis patients versus controls was 3.42 (95% CI, 1.47–7.91; P=.002). Additionally, the average total MET minutes of psoriasis patients were significantly reduced compared to those of the healthy controls (P=.001). Thus, the investigators suggested that vigorous physical activity is less likely in psoriasis patients, which may contribute to the increased risk of cardiovascular disease in this population.⁸ Vigorous physical activity would benefit patients with psoriasis to help lower the chronic state of inflammation and cardiometabolic comorbidities.

Demirel et al⁹ performed a study to compare aerobic exercise capacity and daily physical activity level in psoriasis patients (n=30) compared to controls (n=30). Daily physical activity, measured with an accelerometer, was significantly higher in male patients with psoriasis compared to controls (P=.021). No significant difference was reported in maximal aerobic capacity in both male and female psoriasis patients versus controls. The investigators suggested that the level of daily physical activity is not limited in psoriasis patients, yet the small sample size may limit the generalizability of the study.

The ability to dissipate heat during exercise seems to be diminished in patients with psoriasis. Specifically, it has been suggested that psoriasis lesions interfere with normal perspiration.¹¹ Moreover, joint involvement in patients with psoriatic arthritis may lead to physical functional disabilities that can interfere with the ability of these patients to participate in regular physical activity.^12-14 For this reason, our review excluded articles that evaluated patients with psoriatic arthritis. Despite this exclusion, it is important to consider that comorbid psoriatic arthritis in clinical practice may impede patients with psoriasis from participating in physical activity. Additionally, various social aspects also may limit physical activity in psoriasis patients; for instance, psoriasis patients often avoid activities that involve increased exposure of the skin (eg, communal showers, wearing sports attire).¹⁵

Furthermore, obese psoriasis patients are less likely to exercise compared to obese individuals without psoriasis.¹⁶ In patients with higher BMI, the risk of psoriasis is increased.¹⁷ A systematic review suggested that weight loss may improve psoriasis severity.¹⁸ Bariatric surgery also may improve psoriasis.¹⁹ Moreover, obesity may interfere with response to biologic therapies for psoriasis. Specifically, higher BMI is linked with lower response to fixed-dose biologic therapies compared to weight-based biologic options (eg, infliximab).^20,21

Conclusion

Given the increased risk of myocardial infarction in patients with psoriasis, it is important to recognize the barriers to physical activity that psoriasis patients face.²² Due to the considerable health benefits associated with regular physical activity, physicians should encourage patients with psoriasis to participate in physical activity as tolerated. Of note, the studies included in this review varied in their definitions of psoriasis disease severity and measures of physical activity level. Long-term, randomized, prospective studies are needed to clarify the relationship between psoriasis and physical activity. Evidence from these studies would help guide clinical recommendations regarding the role of physical activity for patients with psoriasis.

KAUAI, HAWAII – A topical halobetasol/tazarotene fixed-combination lotion for moderate to severe psoriasis hit all of its efficacy and safety endpoints in two phase 3 randomized, double-blind, multicenter clinical trials, Linda Stein Gold, MD, reported at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by the Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

The fixed combination of halobetasol 0.01%/tazarotene 0.045% lotion takes advantage of an observation made 20 years ago: When tazarotene is combined with a potent topical corticosteroid, therapeutic efficacy is amplified synergistically while the problematic local side effects of each agent are diminished, explained Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology research at the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

KAUAI, HAWAII – A topical halobetasol/tazarotene fixed-combination lotion for moderate to severe psoriasis hit all of its efficacy and safety endpoints in two phase 3 randomized, double-blind, multicenter clinical trials, Linda Stein Gold, MD, reported at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by the Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

The fixed combination of halobetasol 0.01%/tazarotene 0.045% lotion takes advantage of an observation made 20 years ago: When tazarotene is combined with a potent topical corticosteroid, therapeutic efficacy is amplified synergistically while the problematic local side effects of each agent are diminished, explained Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology research at the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

KAUAI, HAWAII – A topical halobetasol/tazarotene fixed-combination lotion for moderate to severe psoriasis hit all of its efficacy and safety endpoints in two phase 3 randomized, double-blind, multicenter clinical trials, Linda Stein Gold, MD, reported at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by the Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

The fixed combination of halobetasol 0.01%/tazarotene 0.045% lotion takes advantage of an observation made 20 years ago: When tazarotene is combined with a potent topical corticosteroid, therapeutic efficacy is amplified synergistically while the problematic local side effects of each agent are diminished, explained Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology research at the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Online consultations between dermatologists, patients with psoriasis, and the patients’ primary care physicians were as effective as in-person consultations in successfully treating the disease in a multicenter, randomized study of 296 patients.

“Innovative telehealth delivery models that emphasize collaboration, quality, and efficiency can be transformative to improving patient-centered outcomes in chronic disease,” April W. Armstrong, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. The online model she tested fostered “increased patient engagement” and provided “comprehensive specialist support,” said Dr. Armstrong, director of the psoriasis program at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

To objectively assess whether online consultations are as effective as in-person examinations, Dr. Armstrong and her associates at three U.S. centers randomized adult psoriasis patients from across the disease spectrum to receive 1 year of dermatology care either in person or online. Patients enrolled in the online arm received training in taking digital images of their skin lesions and uploading the data for remote access by their dermatologist and primary care physician. The frequency of in-person and online consultations was left to the discretion of each patient and his or her physician.

Among the 148 patients randomized to each arm, 17 in the online group and 13 in the in-person group withdrew from the study or were lost to follow-up. The researchers analyzed the results on an intention-to-treat basis.

They assessed three parameters of treatment efficacy that they measured at baseline and then every 3 months out to 1 year: Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, body surface area score, and patient global self-assessment. A comparison of changes between the two treatment arms after 1 year for the first two measures met the study’s prespecified definition of equivalence, Dr. Armstrong reported. The third measure, a patient’s global self-assessment, showed lower patient-assessed disease severity after 1 year among the patients managed online, compared with those managed in person.

The incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events was similar in the two treatment arms.

Dr. Armstrong had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Source: Armstrong A et al. AAD 2018, abstract 6730..

SAN DIEGO – Online consultations between dermatologists, patients with psoriasis, and the patients’ primary care physicians were as effective as in-person consultations in successfully treating the disease in a multicenter, randomized study of 296 patients.

“Innovative telehealth delivery models that emphasize collaboration, quality, and efficiency can be transformative to improving patient-centered outcomes in chronic disease,” April W. Armstrong, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. The online model she tested fostered “increased patient engagement” and provided “comprehensive specialist support,” said Dr. Armstrong, director of the psoriasis program at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

To objectively assess whether online consultations are as effective as in-person examinations, Dr. Armstrong and her associates at three U.S. centers randomized adult psoriasis patients from across the disease spectrum to receive 1 year of dermatology care either in person or online. Patients enrolled in the online arm received training in taking digital images of their skin lesions and uploading the data for remote access by their dermatologist and primary care physician. The frequency of in-person and online consultations was left to the discretion of each patient and his or her physician.

Among the 148 patients randomized to each arm, 17 in the online group and 13 in the in-person group withdrew from the study or were lost to follow-up. The researchers analyzed the results on an intention-to-treat basis.

They assessed three parameters of treatment efficacy that they measured at baseline and then every 3 months out to 1 year: Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, body surface area score, and patient global self-assessment. A comparison of changes between the two treatment arms after 1 year for the first two measures met the study’s prespecified definition of equivalence, Dr. Armstrong reported. The third measure, a patient’s global self-assessment, showed lower patient-assessed disease severity after 1 year among the patients managed online, compared with those managed in person.

The incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events was similar in the two treatment arms.

Dr. Armstrong had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Source: Armstrong A et al. AAD 2018, abstract 6730..

SAN DIEGO – Online consultations between dermatologists, patients with psoriasis, and the patients’ primary care physicians were as effective as in-person consultations in successfully treating the disease in a multicenter, randomized study of 296 patients.

“Innovative telehealth delivery models that emphasize collaboration, quality, and efficiency can be transformative to improving patient-centered outcomes in chronic disease,” April W. Armstrong, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. The online model she tested fostered “increased patient engagement” and provided “comprehensive specialist support,” said Dr. Armstrong, director of the psoriasis program at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

To objectively assess whether online consultations are as effective as in-person examinations, Dr. Armstrong and her associates at three U.S. centers randomized adult psoriasis patients from across the disease spectrum to receive 1 year of dermatology care either in person or online. Patients enrolled in the online arm received training in taking digital images of their skin lesions and uploading the data for remote access by their dermatologist and primary care physician. The frequency of in-person and online consultations was left to the discretion of each patient and his or her physician.

Among the 148 patients randomized to each arm, 17 in the online group and 13 in the in-person group withdrew from the study or were lost to follow-up. The researchers analyzed the results on an intention-to-treat basis.

They assessed three parameters of treatment efficacy that they measured at baseline and then every 3 months out to 1 year: Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, body surface area score, and patient global self-assessment. A comparison of changes between the two treatment arms after 1 year for the first two measures met the study’s prespecified definition of equivalence, Dr. Armstrong reported. The third measure, a patient’s global self-assessment, showed lower patient-assessed disease severity after 1 year among the patients managed online, compared with those managed in person.

The incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events was similar in the two treatment arms.

Dr. Armstrong had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Source: Armstrong A et al. AAD 2018, abstract 6730..

SAN DIEGO – A new endeavor that aims to promote the concept of the combined clinic approach to caring for psoriatic patients is now underway.

PPACMAN (Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Clinics Multicenter Advancement Network) is made up of dermatologists and rheumatologists who play a key role in the management of psoriatic disease and are interested in combined clinics, with the mission “to nucleate psoriatic disease combined clinics and centers to advance a multilevel approach to psoriatic patients, increase disease awareness, and accelerate management,” according to Joseph Merola, MD, codirector of the center for skin and related musculoskeletal diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

There are now about 12 centers in North America with formal rheumatology-dermatology clinics for patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, including the one at Brigham and Women’s, where Dr. Merola and his colleagues have seen the “myriad benefits that come with having a combined clinic,” he said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. The idea behind starting PPACMAN was to help form new clinics at academic centers but, also, “to start to catalyze local-regional partnerships in the community so we could get dermatologists and rheumatologists in the community to start interacting, communicating, [and] sharing patients,” he explained.

“The group is really very much focused on this mission of getting combined ... treatment models out there,” added Dr. Merola, president and chair of the board of PPACMAN, which is a 501c3 nonprofit organization.

In the interview, he discusses other benefits of the combined clinic model and other elements of the PPACMAN mission, including education and the potential for shared EMR templates.

SAN DIEGO – A new endeavor that aims to promote the concept of the combined clinic approach to caring for psoriatic patients is now underway.

PPACMAN (Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Clinics Multicenter Advancement Network) is made up of dermatologists and rheumatologists who play a key role in the management of psoriatic disease and are interested in combined clinics, with the mission “to nucleate psoriatic disease combined clinics and centers to advance a multilevel approach to psoriatic patients, increase disease awareness, and accelerate management,” according to Joseph Merola, MD, codirector of the center for skin and related musculoskeletal diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

There are now about 12 centers in North America with formal rheumatology-dermatology clinics for patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, including the one at Brigham and Women’s, where Dr. Merola and his colleagues have seen the “myriad benefits that come with having a combined clinic,” he said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. The idea behind starting PPACMAN was to help form new clinics at academic centers but, also, “to start to catalyze local-regional partnerships in the community so we could get dermatologists and rheumatologists in the community to start interacting, communicating, [and] sharing patients,” he explained.

“The group is really very much focused on this mission of getting combined ... treatment models out there,” added Dr. Merola, president and chair of the board of PPACMAN, which is a 501c3 nonprofit organization.

In the interview, he discusses other benefits of the combined clinic model and other elements of the PPACMAN mission, including education and the potential for shared EMR templates.

SAN DIEGO – A new endeavor that aims to promote the concept of the combined clinic approach to caring for psoriatic patients is now underway.

PPACMAN (Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Clinics Multicenter Advancement Network) is made up of dermatologists and rheumatologists who play a key role in the management of psoriatic disease and are interested in combined clinics, with the mission “to nucleate psoriatic disease combined clinics and centers to advance a multilevel approach to psoriatic patients, increase disease awareness, and accelerate management,” according to Joseph Merola, MD, codirector of the center for skin and related musculoskeletal diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

There are now about 12 centers in North America with formal rheumatology-dermatology clinics for patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, including the one at Brigham and Women’s, where Dr. Merola and his colleagues have seen the “myriad benefits that come with having a combined clinic,” he said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. The idea behind starting PPACMAN was to help form new clinics at academic centers but, also, “to start to catalyze local-regional partnerships in the community so we could get dermatologists and rheumatologists in the community to start interacting, communicating, [and] sharing patients,” he explained.

“The group is really very much focused on this mission of getting combined ... treatment models out there,” added Dr. Merola, president and chair of the board of PPACMAN, which is a 501c3 nonprofit organization.

In the interview, he discusses other benefits of the combined clinic model and other elements of the PPACMAN mission, including education and the potential for shared EMR templates.

SAN DIEGO – Could some of the monoclonal antibodies posting striking results in psoriasis trials be doing more than quelling symptoms?

At least some researchers think so, as evidenced by a brief discussion during AAD 2018 of the durable responses some guselkumab-treated patients achieved in the VOYAGE 2 trial.

“Isn’t this amazing?” asked Kristian Reich, MD, after listening to several late-breaking, solidly positive trials of monoclonal antibodies for plaque psoriasis. “I think it’s fantastic that we now have drugs that clear 50% or more of a patient’s psoriasis. We should not be taking this for granted.”

Although PASI 90 responses were much better maintained in the guselkumab group that stayed on therapy, they did not fade quickly. The median time to loss of PASI 90 response was 15 weeks (23 weeks after last guselkumab dose) for patients randomized to the withdrawal group. And although 89% of the maintenance group maintained their PASI 90 response at 48 weeks, 37% of those in the withdrawal group had still maintained that 90% improvement over baseline by 48 weeks.

“Is this drug opening the door to disease modification? Is it doing something that allows disease control even if we stop the therapy? This is what we see happening when we stop the drug in PASI 90 responders. Yes, the disease is coming back, but the median time to recurrence is more than 3 months.”

The cytokine profiles of these patients appear to support this idea, Dr. Reich contended.

“In the first 28 weeks, when they were all receiving the drug, their IL-23, IL-17A, and IL-17F levels were all going down rapidly. But this is the interesting part. In some patients who maintained their PASI response after withdrawal, those cytokines continued to be suppressed. They rose in patients who lost response. We need to do more tests to understand what’s going on here, but I do think the door is opening to what I would call disease modification.”

SOURCE: Gordon K et al. AAD 2018 Abstract 6748.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Could some of the monoclonal antibodies posting striking results in psoriasis trials be doing more than quelling symptoms?

At least some researchers think so, as evidenced by a brief discussion during AAD 2018 of the durable responses some guselkumab-treated patients achieved in the VOYAGE 2 trial.

“Isn’t this amazing?” asked Kristian Reich, MD, after listening to several late-breaking, solidly positive trials of monoclonal antibodies for plaque psoriasis. “I think it’s fantastic that we now have drugs that clear 50% or more of a patient’s psoriasis. We should not be taking this for granted.”

Although PASI 90 responses were much better maintained in the guselkumab group that stayed on therapy, they did not fade quickly. The median time to loss of PASI 90 response was 15 weeks (23 weeks after last guselkumab dose) for patients randomized to the withdrawal group. And although 89% of the maintenance group maintained their PASI 90 response at 48 weeks, 37% of those in the withdrawal group had still maintained that 90% improvement over baseline by 48 weeks.

“Is this drug opening the door to disease modification? Is it doing something that allows disease control even if we stop the therapy? This is what we see happening when we stop the drug in PASI 90 responders. Yes, the disease is coming back, but the median time to recurrence is more than 3 months.”

The cytokine profiles of these patients appear to support this idea, Dr. Reich contended.

“In the first 28 weeks, when they were all receiving the drug, their IL-23, IL-17A, and IL-17F levels were all going down rapidly. But this is the interesting part. In some patients who maintained their PASI response after withdrawal, those cytokines continued to be suppressed. They rose in patients who lost response. We need to do more tests to understand what’s going on here, but I do think the door is opening to what I would call disease modification.”

SOURCE: Gordon K et al. AAD 2018 Abstract 6748.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Could some of the monoclonal antibodies posting striking results in psoriasis trials be doing more than quelling symptoms?

At least some researchers think so, as evidenced by a brief discussion during AAD 2018 of the durable responses some guselkumab-treated patients achieved in the VOYAGE 2 trial.

“Isn’t this amazing?” asked Kristian Reich, MD, after listening to several late-breaking, solidly positive trials of monoclonal antibodies for plaque psoriasis. “I think it’s fantastic that we now have drugs that clear 50% or more of a patient’s psoriasis. We should not be taking this for granted.”

Although PASI 90 responses were much better maintained in the guselkumab group that stayed on therapy, they did not fade quickly. The median time to loss of PASI 90 response was 15 weeks (23 weeks after last guselkumab dose) for patients randomized to the withdrawal group. And although 89% of the maintenance group maintained their PASI 90 response at 48 weeks, 37% of those in the withdrawal group had still maintained that 90% improvement over baseline by 48 weeks.

“Is this drug opening the door to disease modification? Is it doing something that allows disease control even if we stop the therapy? This is what we see happening when we stop the drug in PASI 90 responders. Yes, the disease is coming back, but the median time to recurrence is more than 3 months.”

The cytokine profiles of these patients appear to support this idea, Dr. Reich contended.

“In the first 28 weeks, when they were all receiving the drug, their IL-23, IL-17A, and IL-17F levels were all going down rapidly. But this is the interesting part. In some patients who maintained their PASI response after withdrawal, those cytokines continued to be suppressed. They rose in patients who lost response. We need to do more tests to understand what’s going on here, but I do think the door is opening to what I would call disease modification.”

SOURCE: Gordon K et al. AAD 2018 Abstract 6748.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – A 12-week course of ustekinumab significantly reduced inflammation in the aorta – an effect on par with the benefit of statins – in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

Whether or not the reduction in aortic inflammation will translate into a reduction in cardiovascular risk remains to be determined, but investigators are very encouraged by the results of the Vascular Inflammation in Psoriasis-Ustekinumab (VIP-U) study, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Unsurprisingly, ustekinumab was significantly more effective than placebo in treating the psoriasis. At week 12, 10% of the placebo patients had achieved a PASI 75, compared with 77% of the ustekinumab patients. A Physicians Global Assessment (PGA) score of clear or almost clear occurred in 10% of those taking placebo and 64% of those taking the biologic.

However, the drug was also highly effective in reducing total aortic inflammation, Dr. Gelfand said. “In just 12 weeks, we saw a 6.6% reduction in total aortic inflammation among those taking ustekinumab, but a 12.1% increase in inflammation among those taking placebo. When you compare the delta, you see a highly statistically significant improvement in aortic inflammation in ustekinumab-treated patients, with the effect size similar to statin therapy.”

The benefit may be a class-associated one. Two recent similar studies of adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor, failed to find any improvement in vascular inflammation, compared with placebo.

“We need more information about the longer-term effects of ustekinumab treatment, as well as cardiometabolic biomarkers, and these are currently underway,” Dr. Gelfand said. “We also need additional trials to determine if this effect is due to the inhibition of IL-12, IL-23, or a combination. Cardiovascular studies will be necessary to fully determine the clinical implications of our findings.”

To refer a patient into the VIP studies, call 215-662-SKIN or email [email protected].

The National Institutes of Health and University of Pennsylvania sponsored the study. Dr. Gelfand reported no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gelfand J et al. AAD 2018 Abstract 6645

SAN DIEGO – A 12-week course of ustekinumab significantly reduced inflammation in the aorta – an effect on par with the benefit of statins – in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

Whether or not the reduction in aortic inflammation will translate into a reduction in cardiovascular risk remains to be determined, but investigators are very encouraged by the results of the Vascular Inflammation in Psoriasis-Ustekinumab (VIP-U) study, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Unsurprisingly, ustekinumab was significantly more effective than placebo in treating the psoriasis. At week 12, 10% of the placebo patients had achieved a PASI 75, compared with 77% of the ustekinumab patients. A Physicians Global Assessment (PGA) score of clear or almost clear occurred in 10% of those taking placebo and 64% of those taking the biologic.

However, the drug was also highly effective in reducing total aortic inflammation, Dr. Gelfand said. “In just 12 weeks, we saw a 6.6% reduction in total aortic inflammation among those taking ustekinumab, but a 12.1% increase in inflammation among those taking placebo. When you compare the delta, you see a highly statistically significant improvement in aortic inflammation in ustekinumab-treated patients, with the effect size similar to statin therapy.”

The benefit may be a class-associated one. Two recent similar studies of adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor, failed to find any improvement in vascular inflammation, compared with placebo.

“We need more information about the longer-term effects of ustekinumab treatment, as well as cardiometabolic biomarkers, and these are currently underway,” Dr. Gelfand said. “We also need additional trials to determine if this effect is due to the inhibition of IL-12, IL-23, or a combination. Cardiovascular studies will be necessary to fully determine the clinical implications of our findings.”

To refer a patient into the VIP studies, call 215-662-SKIN or email [email protected].

The National Institutes of Health and University of Pennsylvania sponsored the study. Dr. Gelfand reported no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gelfand J et al. AAD 2018 Abstract 6645

SAN DIEGO – A 12-week course of ustekinumab significantly reduced inflammation in the aorta – an effect on par with the benefit of statins – in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

Whether or not the reduction in aortic inflammation will translate into a reduction in cardiovascular risk remains to be determined, but investigators are very encouraged by the results of the Vascular Inflammation in Psoriasis-Ustekinumab (VIP-U) study, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Unsurprisingly, ustekinumab was significantly more effective than placebo in treating the psoriasis. At week 12, 10% of the placebo patients had achieved a PASI 75, compared with 77% of the ustekinumab patients. A Physicians Global Assessment (PGA) score of clear or almost clear occurred in 10% of those taking placebo and 64% of those taking the biologic.

However, the drug was also highly effective in reducing total aortic inflammation, Dr. Gelfand said. “In just 12 weeks, we saw a 6.6% reduction in total aortic inflammation among those taking ustekinumab, but a 12.1% increase in inflammation among those taking placebo. When you compare the delta, you see a highly statistically significant improvement in aortic inflammation in ustekinumab-treated patients, with the effect size similar to statin therapy.”

The benefit may be a class-associated one. Two recent similar studies of adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor, failed to find any improvement in vascular inflammation, compared with placebo.

“We need more information about the longer-term effects of ustekinumab treatment, as well as cardiometabolic biomarkers, and these are currently underway,” Dr. Gelfand said. “We also need additional trials to determine if this effect is due to the inhibition of IL-12, IL-23, or a combination. Cardiovascular studies will be necessary to fully determine the clinical implications of our findings.”

To refer a patient into the VIP studies, call 215-662-SKIN or email [email protected].

The National Institutes of Health and University of Pennsylvania sponsored the study. Dr. Gelfand reported no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gelfand J et al. AAD 2018 Abstract 6645

SAN DIEGO – A long dry spell in the development of new atopic dermatitis (AD) medications came to an end in 2016 with the approval of a topical treatment, and last year brought the first biologic for AD to the market. With more targets and potential treatments being studied, “it’s the decade of eczema,” according to a leading researcher.

“This revolution in atopic dermatitis, or eczema, stems from our increased knowledge of the disease. We understand ... the immune molecules that are involved in the disease, and we are going after them. And I think we’ll have many more approvals in the next few years,” said Emma Guttman, MD, PhD, said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where she was presenting a talk on the translational revolution in atopic dermatitis.

In the interview, she also discussed research showing that children with AD don’t have the same distribution of lesions as adults, and a study of young children, which found that during an early stage of the disease, when compared with adults, they showed much higher increases in Th17 similar to that seen in psoriasis. It will be interesting to see if “some drugs that work for psoriasis may work in children,” said Dr. Guttman, professor of dermatology and director of the laboratory of inflammatory skin diseases at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dr. Guttman disclosed research support, consulting, or lecture fees from Regeneron, Sanofi, Pfizer, and other companies developing AD treatments.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – A long dry spell in the development of new atopic dermatitis (AD) medications came to an end in 2016 with the approval of a topical treatment, and last year brought the first biologic for AD to the market. With more targets and potential treatments being studied, “it’s the decade of eczema,” according to a leading researcher.

“This revolution in atopic dermatitis, or eczema, stems from our increased knowledge of the disease. We understand ... the immune molecules that are involved in the disease, and we are going after them. And I think we’ll have many more approvals in the next few years,” said Emma Guttman, MD, PhD, said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where she was presenting a talk on the translational revolution in atopic dermatitis.

In the interview, she also discussed research showing that children with AD don’t have the same distribution of lesions as adults, and a study of young children, which found that during an early stage of the disease, when compared with adults, they showed much higher increases in Th17 similar to that seen in psoriasis. It will be interesting to see if “some drugs that work for psoriasis may work in children,” said Dr. Guttman, professor of dermatology and director of the laboratory of inflammatory skin diseases at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dr. Guttman disclosed research support, consulting, or lecture fees from Regeneron, Sanofi, Pfizer, and other companies developing AD treatments.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – A long dry spell in the development of new atopic dermatitis (AD) medications came to an end in 2016 with the approval of a topical treatment, and last year brought the first biologic for AD to the market. With more targets and potential treatments being studied, “it’s the decade of eczema,” according to a leading researcher.

“This revolution in atopic dermatitis, or eczema, stems from our increased knowledge of the disease. We understand ... the immune molecules that are involved in the disease, and we are going after them. And I think we’ll have many more approvals in the next few years,” said Emma Guttman, MD, PhD, said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where she was presenting a talk on the translational revolution in atopic dermatitis.

In the interview, she also discussed research showing that children with AD don’t have the same distribution of lesions as adults, and a study of young children, which found that during an early stage of the disease, when compared with adults, they showed much higher increases in Th17 similar to that seen in psoriasis. It will be interesting to see if “some drugs that work for psoriasis may work in children,” said Dr. Guttman, professor of dermatology and director of the laboratory of inflammatory skin diseases at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dr. Guttman disclosed research support, consulting, or lecture fees from Regeneron, Sanofi, Pfizer, and other companies developing AD treatments.

[email protected]

The biologics ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, certolizumab pegol, and ustekinumab provide the best chances for achieving Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 when compared with placebo in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, according to Emilie Sbidian, MD, and her associates.

Dr. Sbidian of Henri Mondor Hospital, Créteil, France, and her colleagues conducted a network meta-analysis of 109 randomized, controlled trials that collectively had a total of 39,882 participants. The results showed that all of the interventions appeared superior to placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90.

Courtesy National Psoriasis Foundation

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sbidian E et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 22. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub2.

The biologics ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, certolizumab pegol, and ustekinumab provide the best chances for achieving Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 when compared with placebo in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, according to Emilie Sbidian, MD, and her associates.

Dr. Sbidian of Henri Mondor Hospital, Créteil, France, and her colleagues conducted a network meta-analysis of 109 randomized, controlled trials that collectively had a total of 39,882 participants. The results showed that all of the interventions appeared superior to placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90.

Courtesy National Psoriasis Foundation

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sbidian E et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 22. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub2.

The biologics ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, certolizumab pegol, and ustekinumab provide the best chances for achieving Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 when compared with placebo in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, according to Emilie Sbidian, MD, and her associates.

Dr. Sbidian of Henri Mondor Hospital, Créteil, France, and her colleagues conducted a network meta-analysis of 109 randomized, controlled trials that collectively had a total of 39,882 participants. The results showed that all of the interventions appeared superior to placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90.

Courtesy National Psoriasis Foundation

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sbidian E et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 22. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub2.