Psoriasis

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

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

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

Considerations for Physicians

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

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

• Carefully review patient and provider requirements for home phototherapy supplier

• Review patient history of treatment compliance

• Determine insurance coverage and consider exclusion criteria

• Review prior treatments

• Provide education on side effects

• Provide education on signs of adequate treatment response

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

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

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

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

Considerations for Patients

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

• Evaluate cost

• Carefully review patient and provider requirements for home phototherapy supplier

• Ensure a complete understanding of treatment schedule

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

• Avoid sharing phototherapy units with household members

• Disinfect and maintain units

• Maintain proper ventilation of spaces

• Maintain treatment log

• Attend follow-up

Treatment Alternatives

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

Final Thoughts

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

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

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

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

Considerations for Physicians

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

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

• Carefully review patient and provider requirements for home phototherapy supplier

• Review patient history of treatment compliance

• Determine insurance coverage and consider exclusion criteria

• Review prior treatments

• Provide education on side effects

• Provide education on signs of adequate treatment response

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

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

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

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

Considerations for Patients

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

• Evaluate cost

• Carefully review patient and provider requirements for home phototherapy supplier

• Ensure a complete understanding of treatment schedule

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

• Avoid sharing phototherapy units with household members

• Disinfect and maintain units

• Maintain proper ventilation of spaces

• Maintain treatment log

• Attend follow-up

Treatment Alternatives

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

Final Thoughts

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

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

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

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

Considerations for Physicians

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

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

• Carefully review patient and provider requirements for home phototherapy supplier

• Review patient history of treatment compliance

• Determine insurance coverage and consider exclusion criteria

• Review prior treatments

• Provide education on side effects

• Provide education on signs of adequate treatment response

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

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

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

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

Considerations for Patients

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

• Evaluate cost

• Carefully review patient and provider requirements for home phototherapy supplier

• Ensure a complete understanding of treatment schedule

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

• Avoid sharing phototherapy units with household members

• Disinfect and maintain units

• Maintain proper ventilation of spaces

• Maintain treatment log

• Attend follow-up

Treatment Alternatives

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

Final Thoughts

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

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

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

Selecting a Systemic Nonbiologic Agent

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

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

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

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

Patient Comorbidities

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

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

Drug Contraindications

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

Pretreatment Screening

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

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

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

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

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

Monitoring During Active Treatment

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

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

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

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

Combination Therapy

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

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

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

Final Thoughts

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

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

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

Selecting a Systemic Nonbiologic Agent

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

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

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

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

Patient Comorbidities

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

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

Drug Contraindications

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

Pretreatment Screening

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

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

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

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

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

Monitoring During Active Treatment

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

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

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

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

Combination Therapy

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

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

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

Final Thoughts

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

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

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

Selecting a Systemic Nonbiologic Agent

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

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

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

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

Patient Comorbidities

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

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

Drug Contraindications

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

Pretreatment Screening

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

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

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

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

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

Monitoring During Active Treatment

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

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

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

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

Combination Therapy

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

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

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

Final Thoughts

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

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

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

Case Report

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

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

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

Comment

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Case Report

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

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

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

Comment

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Case Report

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

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

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

Comment

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Case Report

An 80-year-old man with a history of hypertension and coronary artery disease presented to the dermatology clinic with a rash characterized by multiple asymptomatic plaques with overlying verrucous nodules on the left side of the abdomen, back, and leg (Figure 1). He reported that these “growths” appeared 20 years prior to presentation, shortly after coronary artery bypass surgery with a saphenous vein graft. The patient initially was given a diagnosis of verruca vulgaris and then biopsy-proven psoriasis later that year. At that time, he refused systemic treatment and was treated instead with triamcinolone acetonide ointment, with periodic surgical removal of bothersome lesions.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed many hyperkeratotic, yellow-gray, verrucous nodules overlying scaly, erythematous, sharply demarcated plaques, exclusively on the left side of the body, including the left side of the abdomen, back, and leg. The differential diagnosis included linear psoriasis and inflammatory linear verrucous epidermal nevus (ILVEN).

Skin biopsy showed irregular psoriasiform epidermal hyperplasia with acanthosis, hyperkeratosis, and papillomatosis, with convergence of the rete ridges, known as buttressing (Figure 2A). There were tortuous dilated blood vessels in the dermal papillae, epidermal neutrophils at the tip of the suprapapillary plates, and Munro microabscesses in the stratum corneum (Figure 2B). Koilocytes were absent, and periodic acid–Schiff staining was negative. Taken together, clinical and histologic features led to a diagnosis of unilateral verrucous psoriasis.

Comment

Presentation and Histology
Verrucous psoriasis is a variant of psoriasis that presents with wartlike clinical features and overlapping histologic features of verruca and psoriasis. It typically arises in patients with established psoriasis but can occur de novo.

Histologic features of verrucous psoriasis include epidermal hyperplasia with acanthosis, papillomatosis, and epidermal buttressing.¹ It has been hypothesized that notable hyperkeratosis observed in these lesions is induced by repeat trauma to the extremities in patients with established psoriasis or by anoxia from conditions that predispose to poor circulation, such as diabetes mellitus and pulmonary disease.^1,2

Pathogenesis
Most reported cases of verrucous psoriasis arose atop pre-existing psoriasis lesions.^3,4 The relevance of our patient’s verrucous psoriasis to his prior coronary artery bypass surgery with saphenous vein graft is unknown; however, the distribution of lesions, timing of psoriasis onset in relation to the surgical procedure, and recent data proposing a role for neuropeptide responses to nerve injury in the development of psoriasis, taken together, provide an argument for a role for surgical trauma in the development of our patient’s condition.

Treatment
Although verrucous psoriasis presents both diagnostic and therapeutic challenges, there are some reports of improvement with topical or intralesional corticosteroids in combination with keratolytics,³ coal tar,⁵ and oral methotrexate.⁶ In addition, there are rare reports of successful treatment with biologics. A case report showed successful resolution with adalimumab,⁴ and a case of erythrodermic verrucous psoriasis showed moderate improvement with ustekinumab after other failed treatments.⁷

Differential Diagnosis
Psoriasis typically presents in a symmetric distribution, with rare reported cases of unilateral distribution. Two cases of unilateral psoriasis arising after a surgical procedure have been reported, one after mastectomy and the other after neurosurgery.^8,9 Other cases of unilateral psoriasis are reported to have arisen in adolescents and young adults idiopathically.

A case of linear psoriasis arising in the distribution of the sciatic nerve in a patient with radiculopathy implicated tumor necrosis factor α, neuropeptides, and nerve growth factor released in response to compression as possible etiologic agents.¹⁰ However, none of the reported cases of linear psoriasis, or reported cases of unilateral psoriasis, exhibited verrucous features clinically or histologically. In our patient, distribution of the lesions appeared less typically blaschkoid than in linear psoriasis, and the presence of exophytic wartlike growths throughout the lesions was not characteristic of linear psoriasis.

Late-adulthood onset in this patient in addition to the absence of typical histologic features of ILVEN, including alternating orthokeratosis and parakeratosis,¹¹ make a diagnosis of ILVEN less likely; ILVEN can be distinguished from linear psoriasis based on later age of onset and responsiveness to antipsoriatic therapy of linear psoriasis.¹²

Conclusion

We describe a unique presentation of an already rare variant of psoriasis that can be difficult to diagnose clinically. The unilateral distribution of lesions in this patient can create further diagnostic confusion with other entities, such as ILVEN and linear psoriasis, though it can be distinguished from those diseases based on histologic features. Our aim is that this report improves recognition of this unusual presentation of verrucous psoriasis in clinical settings and decreases delays in diagnosis and treatment.

Case Report

An 80-year-old man with a history of hypertension and coronary artery disease presented to the dermatology clinic with a rash characterized by multiple asymptomatic plaques with overlying verrucous nodules on the left side of the abdomen, back, and leg (Figure 1). He reported that these “growths” appeared 20 years prior to presentation, shortly after coronary artery bypass surgery with a saphenous vein graft. The patient initially was given a diagnosis of verruca vulgaris and then biopsy-proven psoriasis later that year. At that time, he refused systemic treatment and was treated instead with triamcinolone acetonide ointment, with periodic surgical removal of bothersome lesions.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed many hyperkeratotic, yellow-gray, verrucous nodules overlying scaly, erythematous, sharply demarcated plaques, exclusively on the left side of the body, including the left side of the abdomen, back, and leg. The differential diagnosis included linear psoriasis and inflammatory linear verrucous epidermal nevus (ILVEN).

Skin biopsy showed irregular psoriasiform epidermal hyperplasia with acanthosis, hyperkeratosis, and papillomatosis, with convergence of the rete ridges, known as buttressing (Figure 2A). There were tortuous dilated blood vessels in the dermal papillae, epidermal neutrophils at the tip of the suprapapillary plates, and Munro microabscesses in the stratum corneum (Figure 2B). Koilocytes were absent, and periodic acid–Schiff staining was negative. Taken together, clinical and histologic features led to a diagnosis of unilateral verrucous psoriasis.

Comment

Presentation and Histology
Verrucous psoriasis is a variant of psoriasis that presents with wartlike clinical features and overlapping histologic features of verruca and psoriasis. It typically arises in patients with established psoriasis but can occur de novo.

Histologic features of verrucous psoriasis include epidermal hyperplasia with acanthosis, papillomatosis, and epidermal buttressing.¹ It has been hypothesized that notable hyperkeratosis observed in these lesions is induced by repeat trauma to the extremities in patients with established psoriasis or by anoxia from conditions that predispose to poor circulation, such as diabetes mellitus and pulmonary disease.^1,2

Pathogenesis
Most reported cases of verrucous psoriasis arose atop pre-existing psoriasis lesions.^3,4 The relevance of our patient’s verrucous psoriasis to his prior coronary artery bypass surgery with saphenous vein graft is unknown; however, the distribution of lesions, timing of psoriasis onset in relation to the surgical procedure, and recent data proposing a role for neuropeptide responses to nerve injury in the development of psoriasis, taken together, provide an argument for a role for surgical trauma in the development of our patient’s condition.

Treatment
Although verrucous psoriasis presents both diagnostic and therapeutic challenges, there are some reports of improvement with topical or intralesional corticosteroids in combination with keratolytics,³ coal tar,⁵ and oral methotrexate.⁶ In addition, there are rare reports of successful treatment with biologics. A case report showed successful resolution with adalimumab,⁴ and a case of erythrodermic verrucous psoriasis showed moderate improvement with ustekinumab after other failed treatments.⁷

Differential Diagnosis
Psoriasis typically presents in a symmetric distribution, with rare reported cases of unilateral distribution. Two cases of unilateral psoriasis arising after a surgical procedure have been reported, one after mastectomy and the other after neurosurgery.^8,9 Other cases of unilateral psoriasis are reported to have arisen in adolescents and young adults idiopathically.

A case of linear psoriasis arising in the distribution of the sciatic nerve in a patient with radiculopathy implicated tumor necrosis factor α, neuropeptides, and nerve growth factor released in response to compression as possible etiologic agents.¹⁰ However, none of the reported cases of linear psoriasis, or reported cases of unilateral psoriasis, exhibited verrucous features clinically or histologically. In our patient, distribution of the lesions appeared less typically blaschkoid than in linear psoriasis, and the presence of exophytic wartlike growths throughout the lesions was not characteristic of linear psoriasis.

Late-adulthood onset in this patient in addition to the absence of typical histologic features of ILVEN, including alternating orthokeratosis and parakeratosis,¹¹ make a diagnosis of ILVEN less likely; ILVEN can be distinguished from linear psoriasis based on later age of onset and responsiveness to antipsoriatic therapy of linear psoriasis.¹²

Conclusion

We describe a unique presentation of an already rare variant of psoriasis that can be difficult to diagnose clinically. The unilateral distribution of lesions in this patient can create further diagnostic confusion with other entities, such as ILVEN and linear psoriasis, though it can be distinguished from those diseases based on histologic features. Our aim is that this report improves recognition of this unusual presentation of verrucous psoriasis in clinical settings and decreases delays in diagnosis and treatment.

Case Report

An 80-year-old man with a history of hypertension and coronary artery disease presented to the dermatology clinic with a rash characterized by multiple asymptomatic plaques with overlying verrucous nodules on the left side of the abdomen, back, and leg (Figure 1). He reported that these “growths” appeared 20 years prior to presentation, shortly after coronary artery bypass surgery with a saphenous vein graft. The patient initially was given a diagnosis of verruca vulgaris and then biopsy-proven psoriasis later that year. At that time, he refused systemic treatment and was treated instead with triamcinolone acetonide ointment, with periodic surgical removal of bothersome lesions.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed many hyperkeratotic, yellow-gray, verrucous nodules overlying scaly, erythematous, sharply demarcated plaques, exclusively on the left side of the body, including the left side of the abdomen, back, and leg. The differential diagnosis included linear psoriasis and inflammatory linear verrucous epidermal nevus (ILVEN).

Skin biopsy showed irregular psoriasiform epidermal hyperplasia with acanthosis, hyperkeratosis, and papillomatosis, with convergence of the rete ridges, known as buttressing (Figure 2A). There were tortuous dilated blood vessels in the dermal papillae, epidermal neutrophils at the tip of the suprapapillary plates, and Munro microabscesses in the stratum corneum (Figure 2B). Koilocytes were absent, and periodic acid–Schiff staining was negative. Taken together, clinical and histologic features led to a diagnosis of unilateral verrucous psoriasis.

Comment

Presentation and Histology
Verrucous psoriasis is a variant of psoriasis that presents with wartlike clinical features and overlapping histologic features of verruca and psoriasis. It typically arises in patients with established psoriasis but can occur de novo.

Histologic features of verrucous psoriasis include epidermal hyperplasia with acanthosis, papillomatosis, and epidermal buttressing.¹ It has been hypothesized that notable hyperkeratosis observed in these lesions is induced by repeat trauma to the extremities in patients with established psoriasis or by anoxia from conditions that predispose to poor circulation, such as diabetes mellitus and pulmonary disease.^1,2

Pathogenesis
Most reported cases of verrucous psoriasis arose atop pre-existing psoriasis lesions.^3,4 The relevance of our patient’s verrucous psoriasis to his prior coronary artery bypass surgery with saphenous vein graft is unknown; however, the distribution of lesions, timing of psoriasis onset in relation to the surgical procedure, and recent data proposing a role for neuropeptide responses to nerve injury in the development of psoriasis, taken together, provide an argument for a role for surgical trauma in the development of our patient’s condition.

Treatment
Although verrucous psoriasis presents both diagnostic and therapeutic challenges, there are some reports of improvement with topical or intralesional corticosteroids in combination with keratolytics,³ coal tar,⁵ and oral methotrexate.⁶ In addition, there are rare reports of successful treatment with biologics. A case report showed successful resolution with adalimumab,⁴ and a case of erythrodermic verrucous psoriasis showed moderate improvement with ustekinumab after other failed treatments.⁷

Differential Diagnosis
Psoriasis typically presents in a symmetric distribution, with rare reported cases of unilateral distribution. Two cases of unilateral psoriasis arising after a surgical procedure have been reported, one after mastectomy and the other after neurosurgery.^8,9 Other cases of unilateral psoriasis are reported to have arisen in adolescents and young adults idiopathically.

A case of linear psoriasis arising in the distribution of the sciatic nerve in a patient with radiculopathy implicated tumor necrosis factor α, neuropeptides, and nerve growth factor released in response to compression as possible etiologic agents.¹⁰ However, none of the reported cases of linear psoriasis, or reported cases of unilateral psoriasis, exhibited verrucous features clinically or histologically. In our patient, distribution of the lesions appeared less typically blaschkoid than in linear psoriasis, and the presence of exophytic wartlike growths throughout the lesions was not characteristic of linear psoriasis.

Late-adulthood onset in this patient in addition to the absence of typical histologic features of ILVEN, including alternating orthokeratosis and parakeratosis,¹¹ make a diagnosis of ILVEN less likely; ILVEN can be distinguished from linear psoriasis based on later age of onset and responsiveness to antipsoriatic therapy of linear psoriasis.¹²

Conclusion

We describe a unique presentation of an already rare variant of psoriasis that can be difficult to diagnose clinically. The unilateral distribution of lesions in this patient can create further diagnostic confusion with other entities, such as ILVEN and linear psoriasis, though it can be distinguished from those diseases based on histologic features. Our aim is that this report improves recognition of this unusual presentation of verrucous psoriasis in clinical settings and decreases delays in diagnosis and treatment.

Fully half of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis who achieve complete clearance after their first four doses of guselkumab (Tremfya) continue to maintain a PASI 90 response nearly 6 months after withdrawal of the biologic, according to a post hoc analysis of the pivotal phase 3 VOYAGE 2 trial.

“That’s impressive maintenance of efficacy,” said Curdin Conrad, MD, who presented the data at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“These findings are reassuring when you have to interrupt guselkumab therapy: For example, due to acute infection, pregnancy, or surgery. But it might also help when considering in the future a flexible dosing interval, particularly for patients who had complete clearance,” added Dr. Conrad, professor of dermatology and head of the polyclinic and the Center of Excellence for Psoriasis at Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital.

The intriguing implication from VOYAGE 2 that guselkumab might lend itself to flexible dosing featuring lengthy drug-free intervals is being prospectively examined in the ongoing phase 3b GUIDE trial. This is a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial including 888 French and German patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and a study hypothesis that those who have a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score of 0 at weeks 20 and 28 in response to on-label dosing – the so-called ‘super responders’ – will maintain disease control until week 68 if their dosing is reduced to 100 mg of guselkumab every 16 weeks instead of the standard 8-week intervals.

Dr. Conrad reported that in VOYAGE 2, 106 patients on standard-dose guselkumab who had a PASI score of 0 at weeks 20 and 28 were randomized to discontinue the interleukin-23 inhibitor after receiving their fourth dose at week 20. It took 25 weeks for 50% of them to lose their PASI 90 response as defined by regression to a PASI score of 1 or greater. Using a less stringent definition of maintenance of efficacy, the super responders’ median time off guselkumab until reaching a PASI score of 3 or more was 30.7 weeks, with a median of 35.4 weeks to a PASI score of 5 or more.

In addition, 34 other VOYAGE 2 participants who were almost clear on guselkumab at weeks 20 and 28, with a PASI score of more than 0 but less than 1, were randomized to guselkumab withdrawal after their week-20 dose. Median time to loss of their PASI 90 response was shorter than that of the super responders – not surprising since their mean PASI score when the biologic was halted was 0.5, rather than 0 as for the super responders. But Dr. Conrad said the maintenance of response was still impressive: A median of 16.2 weeks to reach a PASI score of 1 or more, 27.2 weeks for a PASI 3, and 33.7 weeks for a PASI score of 5.

He reported receiving research funding from and serving as a scientific adviser to Janssen, the study sponsor, as well as to more than a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Fully half of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis who achieve complete clearance after their first four doses of guselkumab (Tremfya) continue to maintain a PASI 90 response nearly 6 months after withdrawal of the biologic, according to a post hoc analysis of the pivotal phase 3 VOYAGE 2 trial.

“That’s impressive maintenance of efficacy,” said Curdin Conrad, MD, who presented the data at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“These findings are reassuring when you have to interrupt guselkumab therapy: For example, due to acute infection, pregnancy, or surgery. But it might also help when considering in the future a flexible dosing interval, particularly for patients who had complete clearance,” added Dr. Conrad, professor of dermatology and head of the polyclinic and the Center of Excellence for Psoriasis at Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital.

The intriguing implication from VOYAGE 2 that guselkumab might lend itself to flexible dosing featuring lengthy drug-free intervals is being prospectively examined in the ongoing phase 3b GUIDE trial. This is a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial including 888 French and German patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and a study hypothesis that those who have a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score of 0 at weeks 20 and 28 in response to on-label dosing – the so-called ‘super responders’ – will maintain disease control until week 68 if their dosing is reduced to 100 mg of guselkumab every 16 weeks instead of the standard 8-week intervals.

Dr. Conrad reported that in VOYAGE 2, 106 patients on standard-dose guselkumab who had a PASI score of 0 at weeks 20 and 28 were randomized to discontinue the interleukin-23 inhibitor after receiving their fourth dose at week 20. It took 25 weeks for 50% of them to lose their PASI 90 response as defined by regression to a PASI score of 1 or greater. Using a less stringent definition of maintenance of efficacy, the super responders’ median time off guselkumab until reaching a PASI score of 3 or more was 30.7 weeks, with a median of 35.4 weeks to a PASI score of 5 or more.

In addition, 34 other VOYAGE 2 participants who were almost clear on guselkumab at weeks 20 and 28, with a PASI score of more than 0 but less than 1, were randomized to guselkumab withdrawal after their week-20 dose. Median time to loss of their PASI 90 response was shorter than that of the super responders – not surprising since their mean PASI score when the biologic was halted was 0.5, rather than 0 as for the super responders. But Dr. Conrad said the maintenance of response was still impressive: A median of 16.2 weeks to reach a PASI score of 1 or more, 27.2 weeks for a PASI 3, and 33.7 weeks for a PASI score of 5.

He reported receiving research funding from and serving as a scientific adviser to Janssen, the study sponsor, as well as to more than a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Fully half of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis who achieve complete clearance after their first four doses of guselkumab (Tremfya) continue to maintain a PASI 90 response nearly 6 months after withdrawal of the biologic, according to a post hoc analysis of the pivotal phase 3 VOYAGE 2 trial.

“That’s impressive maintenance of efficacy,” said Curdin Conrad, MD, who presented the data at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“These findings are reassuring when you have to interrupt guselkumab therapy: For example, due to acute infection, pregnancy, or surgery. But it might also help when considering in the future a flexible dosing interval, particularly for patients who had complete clearance,” added Dr. Conrad, professor of dermatology and head of the polyclinic and the Center of Excellence for Psoriasis at Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital.

The intriguing implication from VOYAGE 2 that guselkumab might lend itself to flexible dosing featuring lengthy drug-free intervals is being prospectively examined in the ongoing phase 3b GUIDE trial. This is a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial including 888 French and German patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and a study hypothesis that those who have a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score of 0 at weeks 20 and 28 in response to on-label dosing – the so-called ‘super responders’ – will maintain disease control until week 68 if their dosing is reduced to 100 mg of guselkumab every 16 weeks instead of the standard 8-week intervals.

Dr. Conrad reported that in VOYAGE 2, 106 patients on standard-dose guselkumab who had a PASI score of 0 at weeks 20 and 28 were randomized to discontinue the interleukin-23 inhibitor after receiving their fourth dose at week 20. It took 25 weeks for 50% of them to lose their PASI 90 response as defined by regression to a PASI score of 1 or greater. Using a less stringent definition of maintenance of efficacy, the super responders’ median time off guselkumab until reaching a PASI score of 3 or more was 30.7 weeks, with a median of 35.4 weeks to a PASI score of 5 or more.

In addition, 34 other VOYAGE 2 participants who were almost clear on guselkumab at weeks 20 and 28, with a PASI score of more than 0 but less than 1, were randomized to guselkumab withdrawal after their week-20 dose. Median time to loss of their PASI 90 response was shorter than that of the super responders – not surprising since their mean PASI score when the biologic was halted was 0.5, rather than 0 as for the super responders. But Dr. Conrad said the maintenance of response was still impressive: A median of 16.2 weeks to reach a PASI score of 1 or more, 27.2 weeks for a PASI 3, and 33.7 weeks for a PASI score of 5.

He reported receiving research funding from and serving as a scientific adviser to Janssen, the study sponsor, as well as to more than a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

In a recent international survey, dermatologists both in the United States and abroad acknowledged major gaps in their competence to provide high-quality care to reproductive-age women with psoriasis, Jenny Murase, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

©monkeybusinessimages/Thinkstock

“In Germany, the UK, and the United States, dermatologists face challenges in discussing pregnancy and child-bearing aspiration with women of reproductive age, in recommending compatible treatments during pregnancy, and engaging patients in the shared decision-making process. These challenges may exist due to suboptimal knowledge, skills, confidence, and attitude in respective areas of care,” said Dr. Murase, a dermatologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and coeditor-in-chief of the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.

• Forty-seven percent of respondents considered their knowledge of the impact of psoriasis on women’s reproductive health to be suboptimal. This knowledge gap was most common among American dermatologists, 59% of whom rated themselves as having suboptimal knowledge, and least common among German practitioners, only 27% of whom reported deficiencies in this area.

Fifty percent of dermatologists rated themselves as having suboptimal skills in discussing contraceptive methods with their psoriasis patients of childbearing potential.

• Forty-eight percent of respondents – and 59% of the American dermatologists – indicated they prefer to leave pregnancy-related discussions to ob.gyns.
• Fifty-five percent of dermatologists had only limited knowledge of the safety data and indications for prescribing biologic therapies before, during, and after pregnancy. Respondents gave themselves an average score of 58 out of 100 in terms of their confidence in prescribing biologics during pregnancy, compared to 74 out of 100 when prescribing before or after pregnancy.
• Forty-eight percent of participants indicated they had suboptimal skills in helping patients counter obstacles to treatment adherence.

Consideration of treatment of psoriasis in pregnancy requires balancing potential medication risks to the fetus versus the possible maternal and fetal harms of under- or nontreatment of their chronic inflammatory skin disease. It’s a matter that calls for shared decision-making between dermatologist and patient. But the survey showed that shared decision-making was often poorly integrated into clinical practice. Ninety-seven percent of the U.S. dermatologists were unaware of the existence of shared decision-making practice guidelines or models, as were 80% of UK respondents and 85% of the Germans. Of the relatively few dermatologists who were aware of such guidance, nearly half dismissed it as inapplicable to their clinical practice. More than one-third of respondents admitted having suboptimal skills in assessing their patients’ desired level of involvement in medical decisions. And one-third of the German dermatologists and roughly one-quarter of those from the United States and United Kingdom reported feeling pressure to make treatment decisions quickly and without patient input.

Dr. Murase added that the survey findings make a strong case for future interventions designed to help dermatologists appreciate the value of shared decision-making and develop the requisite patient-engagement skills. Dr. Murase reported serving as a paid consultant to UCB Pharma, which funded the survey via an educational grant.

[email protected]

In a recent international survey, dermatologists both in the United States and abroad acknowledged major gaps in their competence to provide high-quality care to reproductive-age women with psoriasis, Jenny Murase, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

©monkeybusinessimages/Thinkstock

“In Germany, the UK, and the United States, dermatologists face challenges in discussing pregnancy and child-bearing aspiration with women of reproductive age, in recommending compatible treatments during pregnancy, and engaging patients in the shared decision-making process. These challenges may exist due to suboptimal knowledge, skills, confidence, and attitude in respective areas of care,” said Dr. Murase, a dermatologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and coeditor-in-chief of the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.

• Forty-seven percent of respondents considered their knowledge of the impact of psoriasis on women’s reproductive health to be suboptimal. This knowledge gap was most common among American dermatologists, 59% of whom rated themselves as having suboptimal knowledge, and least common among German practitioners, only 27% of whom reported deficiencies in this area.

Fifty percent of dermatologists rated themselves as having suboptimal skills in discussing contraceptive methods with their psoriasis patients of childbearing potential.

• Forty-eight percent of respondents – and 59% of the American dermatologists – indicated they prefer to leave pregnancy-related discussions to ob.gyns.
• Fifty-five percent of dermatologists had only limited knowledge of the safety data and indications for prescribing biologic therapies before, during, and after pregnancy. Respondents gave themselves an average score of 58 out of 100 in terms of their confidence in prescribing biologics during pregnancy, compared to 74 out of 100 when prescribing before or after pregnancy.
• Forty-eight percent of participants indicated they had suboptimal skills in helping patients counter obstacles to treatment adherence.

Consideration of treatment of psoriasis in pregnancy requires balancing potential medication risks to the fetus versus the possible maternal and fetal harms of under- or nontreatment of their chronic inflammatory skin disease. It’s a matter that calls for shared decision-making between dermatologist and patient. But the survey showed that shared decision-making was often poorly integrated into clinical practice. Ninety-seven percent of the U.S. dermatologists were unaware of the existence of shared decision-making practice guidelines or models, as were 80% of UK respondents and 85% of the Germans. Of the relatively few dermatologists who were aware of such guidance, nearly half dismissed it as inapplicable to their clinical practice. More than one-third of respondents admitted having suboptimal skills in assessing their patients’ desired level of involvement in medical decisions. And one-third of the German dermatologists and roughly one-quarter of those from the United States and United Kingdom reported feeling pressure to make treatment decisions quickly and without patient input.

Dr. Murase added that the survey findings make a strong case for future interventions designed to help dermatologists appreciate the value of shared decision-making and develop the requisite patient-engagement skills. Dr. Murase reported serving as a paid consultant to UCB Pharma, which funded the survey via an educational grant.

[email protected]

In a recent international survey, dermatologists both in the United States and abroad acknowledged major gaps in their competence to provide high-quality care to reproductive-age women with psoriasis, Jenny Murase, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

©monkeybusinessimages/Thinkstock

“In Germany, the UK, and the United States, dermatologists face challenges in discussing pregnancy and child-bearing aspiration with women of reproductive age, in recommending compatible treatments during pregnancy, and engaging patients in the shared decision-making process. These challenges may exist due to suboptimal knowledge, skills, confidence, and attitude in respective areas of care,” said Dr. Murase, a dermatologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and coeditor-in-chief of the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.

• Forty-seven percent of respondents considered their knowledge of the impact of psoriasis on women’s reproductive health to be suboptimal. This knowledge gap was most common among American dermatologists, 59% of whom rated themselves as having suboptimal knowledge, and least common among German practitioners, only 27% of whom reported deficiencies in this area.

Fifty percent of dermatologists rated themselves as having suboptimal skills in discussing contraceptive methods with their psoriasis patients of childbearing potential.

• Forty-eight percent of respondents – and 59% of the American dermatologists – indicated they prefer to leave pregnancy-related discussions to ob.gyns.
• Fifty-five percent of dermatologists had only limited knowledge of the safety data and indications for prescribing biologic therapies before, during, and after pregnancy. Respondents gave themselves an average score of 58 out of 100 in terms of their confidence in prescribing biologics during pregnancy, compared to 74 out of 100 when prescribing before or after pregnancy.
• Forty-eight percent of participants indicated they had suboptimal skills in helping patients counter obstacles to treatment adherence.

Consideration of treatment of psoriasis in pregnancy requires balancing potential medication risks to the fetus versus the possible maternal and fetal harms of under- or nontreatment of their chronic inflammatory skin disease. It’s a matter that calls for shared decision-making between dermatologist and patient. But the survey showed that shared decision-making was often poorly integrated into clinical practice. Ninety-seven percent of the U.S. dermatologists were unaware of the existence of shared decision-making practice guidelines or models, as were 80% of UK respondents and 85% of the Germans. Of the relatively few dermatologists who were aware of such guidance, nearly half dismissed it as inapplicable to their clinical practice. More than one-third of respondents admitted having suboptimal skills in assessing their patients’ desired level of involvement in medical decisions. And one-third of the German dermatologists and roughly one-quarter of those from the United States and United Kingdom reported feeling pressure to make treatment decisions quickly and without patient input.

Dr. Murase added that the survey findings make a strong case for future interventions designed to help dermatologists appreciate the value of shared decision-making and develop the requisite patient-engagement skills. Dr. Murase reported serving as a paid consultant to UCB Pharma, which funded the survey via an educational grant.

[email protected]

Deucravacitinib, a first-in-class oral selective tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, shows considerable promise as a potential novel treatment for psoriasis and a range of other chronic inflammatory diseases, Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, said at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

Deucravacitinib solely blocks tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) signaling without touching Janus kinase (JAK) 1, 2, or 3. In so doing, it inhibits several cytokines important for inflammation: interleukin-12, IL-13, and interferon-alpha and -beta. Yet it doesn’t affect the numerous pathways mediated by JAKs 1-3, many of which relate to growth and development of cell lineages, including production of erythropoietin, thrombopoietin, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, prolactin, growth hormone, and leptin. These deucravacitinib characteristics should translate into fewer off-target side effects than with oral JAK inhibitors.

“The promise of TYK2 inhibition that’s brought to you by deucravacitinib is there will be no laboratory monitoring and the effects will be narrow in blocking inflammation,” said Dr. Strober, a dermatologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and in private practice in Cromwell, Conn.

He highlighted the positive results of a randomized, phase 2, dose-ranging study conducted in 267 patients with moderate or severe plaque psoriasis. Participants had an average baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score of 19, with a Dermatology Life Quality Index score of about 12. At the top dose of 12 mg once daily, 75% of patients achieved a PASI 75 response at week 12, and 44% reached a PASI 90, as did 69% and 44%, respectively, who were on deucravacitinib at 3 mg twice daily. Those are collective efficacy numbers similar to adalimumab (Humira) or ustekinumab (Stelara).

Deucravacitinib may provide efficacy “like one of our second-tier biological therapies, yet it will be oral,” Dr. Strober commented.

Importantly, no laboratory abnormalities were detected in this trial. Only mild side effects were documented, most prominently acne, which occurred in dose-dependent fashion in 2% of patients on 3 mg of deucravacitinib twice daily and 4% at 12 mg once daily.

“The treatment of the acne that is elicited by this drug is yet to be fully described, but I’m sure we’ll learn the best approaches, given that acne is in our wheel house,” the dermatologist added.

Bristol-Myers Squibb has announced positive results from the pivotal phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial. Deucravacitinib at 6 mg once daily met both of its coprimary efficacy endpoints in the study, which included 666 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. The TYK 2 inhibitor demonstrated superiority to both placebo and oral apremilast (Otezla) at week 16. The company said the safety profile was consistent with the phase 2 results, and that the full details of the phase 3 trial will be presented next year at a major medical meeting.

In addition, positive phase 2 results were reported for deucravacitinib in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis in a randomized trial presented at the fall 2020 meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Deucravacitinib is also under study for lupus and inflammatory bowel disease.

Dr. Strober, an active clinical trialist, reported serving as a consultant to more than two dozen pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Deucravacitinib, a first-in-class oral selective tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, shows considerable promise as a potential novel treatment for psoriasis and a range of other chronic inflammatory diseases, Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, said at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

Deucravacitinib solely blocks tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) signaling without touching Janus kinase (JAK) 1, 2, or 3. In so doing, it inhibits several cytokines important for inflammation: interleukin-12, IL-13, and interferon-alpha and -beta. Yet it doesn’t affect the numerous pathways mediated by JAKs 1-3, many of which relate to growth and development of cell lineages, including production of erythropoietin, thrombopoietin, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, prolactin, growth hormone, and leptin. These deucravacitinib characteristics should translate into fewer off-target side effects than with oral JAK inhibitors.

“The promise of TYK2 inhibition that’s brought to you by deucravacitinib is there will be no laboratory monitoring and the effects will be narrow in blocking inflammation,” said Dr. Strober, a dermatologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and in private practice in Cromwell, Conn.

He highlighted the positive results of a randomized, phase 2, dose-ranging study conducted in 267 patients with moderate or severe plaque psoriasis. Participants had an average baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score of 19, with a Dermatology Life Quality Index score of about 12. At the top dose of 12 mg once daily, 75% of patients achieved a PASI 75 response at week 12, and 44% reached a PASI 90, as did 69% and 44%, respectively, who were on deucravacitinib at 3 mg twice daily. Those are collective efficacy numbers similar to adalimumab (Humira) or ustekinumab (Stelara).

Deucravacitinib may provide efficacy “like one of our second-tier biological therapies, yet it will be oral,” Dr. Strober commented.

Importantly, no laboratory abnormalities were detected in this trial. Only mild side effects were documented, most prominently acne, which occurred in dose-dependent fashion in 2% of patients on 3 mg of deucravacitinib twice daily and 4% at 12 mg once daily.

“The treatment of the acne that is elicited by this drug is yet to be fully described, but I’m sure we’ll learn the best approaches, given that acne is in our wheel house,” the dermatologist added.

Bristol-Myers Squibb has announced positive results from the pivotal phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial. Deucravacitinib at 6 mg once daily met both of its coprimary efficacy endpoints in the study, which included 666 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. The TYK 2 inhibitor demonstrated superiority to both placebo and oral apremilast (Otezla) at week 16. The company said the safety profile was consistent with the phase 2 results, and that the full details of the phase 3 trial will be presented next year at a major medical meeting.

In addition, positive phase 2 results were reported for deucravacitinib in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis in a randomized trial presented at the fall 2020 meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Deucravacitinib is also under study for lupus and inflammatory bowel disease.

Dr. Strober, an active clinical trialist, reported serving as a consultant to more than two dozen pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Deucravacitinib, a first-in-class oral selective tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, shows considerable promise as a potential novel treatment for psoriasis and a range of other chronic inflammatory diseases, Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, said at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

Deucravacitinib solely blocks tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) signaling without touching Janus kinase (JAK) 1, 2, or 3. In so doing, it inhibits several cytokines important for inflammation: interleukin-12, IL-13, and interferon-alpha and -beta. Yet it doesn’t affect the numerous pathways mediated by JAKs 1-3, many of which relate to growth and development of cell lineages, including production of erythropoietin, thrombopoietin, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, prolactin, growth hormone, and leptin. These deucravacitinib characteristics should translate into fewer off-target side effects than with oral JAK inhibitors.

“The promise of TYK2 inhibition that’s brought to you by deucravacitinib is there will be no laboratory monitoring and the effects will be narrow in blocking inflammation,” said Dr. Strober, a dermatologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and in private practice in Cromwell, Conn.

He highlighted the positive results of a randomized, phase 2, dose-ranging study conducted in 267 patients with moderate or severe plaque psoriasis. Participants had an average baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score of 19, with a Dermatology Life Quality Index score of about 12. At the top dose of 12 mg once daily, 75% of patients achieved a PASI 75 response at week 12, and 44% reached a PASI 90, as did 69% and 44%, respectively, who were on deucravacitinib at 3 mg twice daily. Those are collective efficacy numbers similar to adalimumab (Humira) or ustekinumab (Stelara).

Deucravacitinib may provide efficacy “like one of our second-tier biological therapies, yet it will be oral,” Dr. Strober commented.

Importantly, no laboratory abnormalities were detected in this trial. Only mild side effects were documented, most prominently acne, which occurred in dose-dependent fashion in 2% of patients on 3 mg of deucravacitinib twice daily and 4% at 12 mg once daily.

“The treatment of the acne that is elicited by this drug is yet to be fully described, but I’m sure we’ll learn the best approaches, given that acne is in our wheel house,” the dermatologist added.

Bristol-Myers Squibb has announced positive results from the pivotal phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial. Deucravacitinib at 6 mg once daily met both of its coprimary efficacy endpoints in the study, which included 666 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. The TYK 2 inhibitor demonstrated superiority to both placebo and oral apremilast (Otezla) at week 16. The company said the safety profile was consistent with the phase 2 results, and that the full details of the phase 3 trial will be presented next year at a major medical meeting.

In addition, positive phase 2 results were reported for deucravacitinib in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis in a randomized trial presented at the fall 2020 meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Deucravacitinib is also under study for lupus and inflammatory bowel disease.

Dr. Strober, an active clinical trialist, reported serving as a consultant to more than two dozen pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Home narrow-band UVB has arguably become the best way to deliver phototherapy for psoriasis, Kenneth B. Gordon, MD, asserted at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

“In my practice, I’m using more and more home UVB, and there are a number of reasons for that. It’s more convenient and easier for the patient, as it’s getting more difficult for patients to give up time from work to come to the office. And I might add that, in this time of COVID-19, people don’t want to come to the office. It’s generally less expensive for patients because of copays, which increase the cost of UVB. And believe it or not, I believe it’s easier for the clinician as well. I write a prescription, the patient gets a number of treatments, and I don’t lose any sleep because I think it’s very difficult for patients to get into trouble with narrow-band UVB at home,” explained Dr. Gordon, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“There’s all sorts of insurance company silliness in getting this paid for, but if you do get it paid for, I think it’s a really effective way to treat psoriasis,” the dermatologist added.

A Dutch multicenter randomized trial demonstrated that home UVB phototherapy for psoriasis was equally safe and effective as outpatient UVB phototherapy, and with greater patient satisfaction.

Surveys show most dermatologists consider phototherapy their preferred treatment for patients with extensive psoriasis because its side effect profile is so benign, compared with that of systemic therapies, be they biologic agents or older drugs such as methotrexate or acitretin. Phototherapy is particularly popular for use in women of childbearing potential, since it’s a nonsystemic therapy.

And speaking of side effects, Dr. Gordon declared, “The risks of narrow-band UVB are sometimes, I believe, exaggerated.” Indeed, he considers the No. 1 side effect of office-based phototherapy to be the loss of productive time.

“Simply put, phototherapy in the office is very easy for me. I write a prescription, the tech takes care of it, and if there’s a problem I’m handy to see the patient. But for the patient, it’s very difficult. Whereas it might take only a few minutes to get the treatment in-office, it takes a lot of time to get to the office, and many patients don’t have transportation. So I think the loss of productive time with phototherapy has to be considered a side effect,” Dr. Gordon said.

Turning to the therapy’s other side effects, he said that although there is some degree of photoaging associated with narrow-band UVB – which is far and away the most commonly used form of phototherapy in the United States – it’s nothing close to the photoaging caused by PUVA.

“I don’t believe that PUVA, with all the destruction of the skin that you see with it, is a significant part of our treatment modalities today,” Dr. Gordon said.

Sunburn is a risk with narrow-band UVB, especially if the dose is ramped up too quickly. Reactivation of herpes simplex virus infection is a frequent problem, and one patients find especially concerning when it manifests as eruptions of cold sores on the face.

The side effect of narrow-band UVB of greatest interest to most patients and physicians is skin cancer. “This is an extremely controversial area,” the dermatologist observed.

Unlike with PUVA, there has never been a convincing study to show that narrow-band UVB is associated with significantly increased risks of keratinocyte carcinomas or melanoma. A large Scottish study found no significantly increased risk, but a modestly increased trend for more squamous cell carcinomas. How modest? The investigators calculated that it would require 50,000 psoriasis patients with a minimum of 100 narrow-band UVB treatments to be followed for 5 years in order to demonstrate a twofold increased risk of the malignancy.

“In other words, it takes an incredible number of patients to be able to see a difference in a skin cancer that we can relatively easily treat. That’s why when I see patients, I don’t emphasize the risk of skin cancer,” Dr. Gordon said.

Similarly reassuring was a Swedish study, which showed the skin cancer rate in UVB-treated psoriasis patients was no different than in the general population.

Guideline recommendations regarding UVB phototherapy and skin cancer risk are all over the map. French guidelines advise a maximum of 230 narrow-band UVB treatments. British guidelines recommend reducing narrow-band UVB exposure to skin areas with significant sun exposure. American guidelines leave the topic untouched, Dr. Gordon noted.

He reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation, as neither he, the Medical College of Wisconsin, or its department of dermatology receive any payment for phototherapy services he prescribes. Those payments go to the hospital system where he works. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Home narrow-band UVB has arguably become the best way to deliver phototherapy for psoriasis, Kenneth B. Gordon, MD, asserted at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

“In my practice, I’m using more and more home UVB, and there are a number of reasons for that. It’s more convenient and easier for the patient, as it’s getting more difficult for patients to give up time from work to come to the office. And I might add that, in this time of COVID-19, people don’t want to come to the office. It’s generally less expensive for patients because of copays, which increase the cost of UVB. And believe it or not, I believe it’s easier for the clinician as well. I write a prescription, the patient gets a number of treatments, and I don’t lose any sleep because I think it’s very difficult for patients to get into trouble with narrow-band UVB at home,” explained Dr. Gordon, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“There’s all sorts of insurance company silliness in getting this paid for, but if you do get it paid for, I think it’s a really effective way to treat psoriasis,” the dermatologist added.

A Dutch multicenter randomized trial demonstrated that home UVB phototherapy for psoriasis was equally safe and effective as outpatient UVB phototherapy, and with greater patient satisfaction.

Surveys show most dermatologists consider phototherapy their preferred treatment for patients with extensive psoriasis because its side effect profile is so benign, compared with that of systemic therapies, be they biologic agents or older drugs such as methotrexate or acitretin. Phototherapy is particularly popular for use in women of childbearing potential, since it’s a nonsystemic therapy.

And speaking of side effects, Dr. Gordon declared, “The risks of narrow-band UVB are sometimes, I believe, exaggerated.” Indeed, he considers the No. 1 side effect of office-based phototherapy to be the loss of productive time.

“Simply put, phototherapy in the office is very easy for me. I write a prescription, the tech takes care of it, and if there’s a problem I’m handy to see the patient. But for the patient, it’s very difficult. Whereas it might take only a few minutes to get the treatment in-office, it takes a lot of time to get to the office, and many patients don’t have transportation. So I think the loss of productive time with phototherapy has to be considered a side effect,” Dr. Gordon said.

Turning to the therapy’s other side effects, he said that although there is some degree of photoaging associated with narrow-band UVB – which is far and away the most commonly used form of phototherapy in the United States – it’s nothing close to the photoaging caused by PUVA.

“I don’t believe that PUVA, with all the destruction of the skin that you see with it, is a significant part of our treatment modalities today,” Dr. Gordon said.

Sunburn is a risk with narrow-band UVB, especially if the dose is ramped up too quickly. Reactivation of herpes simplex virus infection is a frequent problem, and one patients find especially concerning when it manifests as eruptions of cold sores on the face.

The side effect of narrow-band UVB of greatest interest to most patients and physicians is skin cancer. “This is an extremely controversial area,” the dermatologist observed.

Unlike with PUVA, there has never been a convincing study to show that narrow-band UVB is associated with significantly increased risks of keratinocyte carcinomas or melanoma. A large Scottish study found no significantly increased risk, but a modestly increased trend for more squamous cell carcinomas. How modest? The investigators calculated that it would require 50,000 psoriasis patients with a minimum of 100 narrow-band UVB treatments to be followed for 5 years in order to demonstrate a twofold increased risk of the malignancy.

“In other words, it takes an incredible number of patients to be able to see a difference in a skin cancer that we can relatively easily treat. That’s why when I see patients, I don’t emphasize the risk of skin cancer,” Dr. Gordon said.

Similarly reassuring was a Swedish study, which showed the skin cancer rate in UVB-treated psoriasis patients was no different than in the general population.

Guideline recommendations regarding UVB phototherapy and skin cancer risk are all over the map. French guidelines advise a maximum of 230 narrow-band UVB treatments. British guidelines recommend reducing narrow-band UVB exposure to skin areas with significant sun exposure. American guidelines leave the topic untouched, Dr. Gordon noted.

He reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation, as neither he, the Medical College of Wisconsin, or its department of dermatology receive any payment for phototherapy services he prescribes. Those payments go to the hospital system where he works. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Home narrow-band UVB has arguably become the best way to deliver phototherapy for psoriasis, Kenneth B. Gordon, MD, asserted at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

“In my practice, I’m using more and more home UVB, and there are a number of reasons for that. It’s more convenient and easier for the patient, as it’s getting more difficult for patients to give up time from work to come to the office. And I might add that, in this time of COVID-19, people don’t want to come to the office. It’s generally less expensive for patients because of copays, which increase the cost of UVB. And believe it or not, I believe it’s easier for the clinician as well. I write a prescription, the patient gets a number of treatments, and I don’t lose any sleep because I think it’s very difficult for patients to get into trouble with narrow-band UVB at home,” explained Dr. Gordon, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“There’s all sorts of insurance company silliness in getting this paid for, but if you do get it paid for, I think it’s a really effective way to treat psoriasis,” the dermatologist added.

A Dutch multicenter randomized trial demonstrated that home UVB phototherapy for psoriasis was equally safe and effective as outpatient UVB phototherapy, and with greater patient satisfaction.

Surveys show most dermatologists consider phototherapy their preferred treatment for patients with extensive psoriasis because its side effect profile is so benign, compared with that of systemic therapies, be they biologic agents or older drugs such as methotrexate or acitretin. Phototherapy is particularly popular for use in women of childbearing potential, since it’s a nonsystemic therapy.

And speaking of side effects, Dr. Gordon declared, “The risks of narrow-band UVB are sometimes, I believe, exaggerated.” Indeed, he considers the No. 1 side effect of office-based phototherapy to be the loss of productive time.

“Simply put, phototherapy in the office is very easy for me. I write a prescription, the tech takes care of it, and if there’s a problem I’m handy to see the patient. But for the patient, it’s very difficult. Whereas it might take only a few minutes to get the treatment in-office, it takes a lot of time to get to the office, and many patients don’t have transportation. So I think the loss of productive time with phototherapy has to be considered a side effect,” Dr. Gordon said.

Turning to the therapy’s other side effects, he said that although there is some degree of photoaging associated with narrow-band UVB – which is far and away the most commonly used form of phototherapy in the United States – it’s nothing close to the photoaging caused by PUVA.

“I don’t believe that PUVA, with all the destruction of the skin that you see with it, is a significant part of our treatment modalities today,” Dr. Gordon said.

Sunburn is a risk with narrow-band UVB, especially if the dose is ramped up too quickly. Reactivation of herpes simplex virus infection is a frequent problem, and one patients find especially concerning when it manifests as eruptions of cold sores on the face.

The side effect of narrow-band UVB of greatest interest to most patients and physicians is skin cancer. “This is an extremely controversial area,” the dermatologist observed.

Unlike with PUVA, there has never been a convincing study to show that narrow-band UVB is associated with significantly increased risks of keratinocyte carcinomas or melanoma. A large Scottish study found no significantly increased risk, but a modestly increased trend for more squamous cell carcinomas. How modest? The investigators calculated that it would require 50,000 psoriasis patients with a minimum of 100 narrow-band UVB treatments to be followed for 5 years in order to demonstrate a twofold increased risk of the malignancy.

“In other words, it takes an incredible number of patients to be able to see a difference in a skin cancer that we can relatively easily treat. That’s why when I see patients, I don’t emphasize the risk of skin cancer,” Dr. Gordon said.

Similarly reassuring was a Swedish study, which showed the skin cancer rate in UVB-treated psoriasis patients was no different than in the general population.

Guideline recommendations regarding UVB phototherapy and skin cancer risk are all over the map. French guidelines advise a maximum of 230 narrow-band UVB treatments. British guidelines recommend reducing narrow-band UVB exposure to skin areas with significant sun exposure. American guidelines leave the topic untouched, Dr. Gordon noted.

He reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation, as neither he, the Medical College of Wisconsin, or its department of dermatology receive any payment for phototherapy services he prescribes. Those payments go to the hospital system where he works. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Coronavirus vaccines have become a reality, as they are now being approved and authorized for use in a growing number of countries including the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just issued emergency authorization for the use of the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech. Close behind is the vaccine developed by Moderna, which has also applied to the FDA for emergency authorization.

scyther5/thinkstock

The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, and the FDA has said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3%-97.6%. But as with many initial clinical trials, whether for drugs or vaccines, not all populations were represented in the trial cohort, including individuals who are immunocompromised. At the current time, it is largely unknown how safe or effective the vaccine may be in this large population, many of whom are at high risk for serious COVID-19 complications.

At a special session held during the recent annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, said that individuals with compromised immune systems, whether because of chemotherapy or a bone marrow transplant, should plan to be vaccinated when the opportunity arises.

In response to a question from ASH President Stephanie J. Lee, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Dr. Fauci emphasized that, despite being excluded from clinical trials, this population should get vaccinated. “I think we should recommend that they get vaccinated,” he said. “I mean, it is clear that, if you are on immunosuppressive agents, history tells us that you’re not going to have as robust a response as if you had an intact immune system that was not being compromised. But some degree of immunity is better than no degree of immunity.”

That does seem to be the consensus among experts who spoke in interviews: that as long as these are not live attenuated vaccines, they hold no specific risk to an immunocompromised patient, other than any factors specific to the individual that could be a contraindication.

“Patients, family members, friends, and work contacts should be encouraged to receive the vaccine,” said William Stohl, MD, PhD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Clinicians should advise patients to obtain the vaccine sooner rather than later.”
 

Kevin C. Wang, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed. “I am 100% with Dr. Fauci. Everyone should get the vaccine, even if it may not be as effective,” he said. “I would treat it exactly like the flu vaccines that we recommend folks get every year.”

Dr. Wang noted that he couldn’t think of any contraindications unless the immunosuppressed patients have a history of severe allergic reactions to prior vaccinations. “But I would even say patients with history of cancer, upon recommendation of their oncologists, are likely to be suitable candidates for the vaccine,” he added. “I would say clinicians should approach counseling the same way they counsel patients for the flu vaccine, and as far as I know, there are no concerns for systemic drugs commonly used in dermatology patients.”

However, guidance has not yet been issued from either the FDA or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regarding the use of the vaccine in immunocompromised individuals. Given the lack of data, the FDA has said that “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis,” and that individuals should consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has said that clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies. The CDC itself has not yet released its formal guidance on vaccine use.


 

COVID-19 vaccines

Vaccines typically require years of research and testing before reaching the clinic, but this year researchers embarked on a global effort to develop safe and effective coronavirus vaccines in record time. Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines have only a few months of phase 3 clinical trial data, so much remains unknown about them, including their duration of effect and any long-term safety signals. In addition to excluding immunocompromised individuals, the clinical trials did not include children or pregnant women, so data are lacking for several population subgroups.

But these will not be the only vaccines available, as the pipeline is already becoming crowded. U.S. clinical trial data from a vaccine jointly being developed by Oxford-AstraZeneca, could potentially be ready, along with a request for FDA emergency use authorization, by late January 2021.

In addition, China and Russia have released vaccines, and there are currently 61 vaccines being investigated in clinical trials and at least 85 preclinical products under active investigation.

The vaccine candidates are using both conventional and novel mechanisms of action to elicit an immune response in patients. Conventional methods include attenuated inactivated (killed) virus and recombinant viral protein vaccines to develop immunity. Novel approaches include replication-deficient, adenovirus vector-based vaccines that contain the viral protein, and mRNA-based vaccines, such as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, that encode for a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

“The special vaccine concern for immunocompromised individuals is introduction of a live virus,” Dr. Stohl said. “Neither the Moderna nor Pfizer vaccines are live viruses, so there should be no special contraindication for such individuals.”

Live vaccine should be avoided in immunocompromised patients, and currently, live SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are only being developed in India and Turkey.

It is not unusual for vaccine trials to begin with cohorts that exclude participants with various health conditions, including those who are immunocompromised. These groups are generally then evaluated in phase 4 trials, or postmarketing surveillance. While the precise number of immunosuppressed adults in the United States is not known, the numbers are believed to be rising because of increased life expectancy among immunosuppressed adults as a result of advances in treatment and new and wider indications for therapies that can affect the immune system.

According to data from the 2013 National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 2.7% of U.S. adults are immunosuppressed. This population covers a broad array of health conditions and medical specialties; people living with inflammatory or autoimmune conditions, such as inflammatory rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, lupus); inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis); psoriasis; multiple sclerosis; organ transplant recipients; patients undergoing chemotherapy; and life-long immunosuppression attributable to HIV infection.

As the vaccines begin to roll out and become available, how should clinicians advise their patients, in the absence of any clinical trial data?


 

Risk vs. benefit

Gilaad Kaplan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted that the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community has dealt with tremendous anxiety during the pandemic because many are immunocompromised because of the medications they use to treat their disease.

“For example, many patients with IBD are on biologics like anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapies, which are also used in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. “Understandably, individuals with IBD on immunosuppressive medications are concerned about the risk of severe complications due to COVID-19.”

The entire IBD community, along with the world, celebrated the announcement that multiple vaccines are protective against SARS-CoV-2, he noted. “Vaccines offer the potential to reduce the spread of COVID-19, allowing society to revert back to normalcy,” Dr. Kaplan said. “Moreover, for vulnerable populations, including those who are immunocompromised, vaccines offer the potential to directly protect them from the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.”

That said, even though the news of vaccines are extremely promising, some cautions must be raised regarding their use in immunocompromised populations, such as persons with IBD. “The current trials, to my knowledge, did not include immunocompromised individuals and thus, we can only extrapolate from what we know from other trials of different vaccines,” he explained. “We know from prior vaccines studies that the immune response following vaccination is less robust in those who are immunocompromised as compared to a healthy control population.”

Dr. Kaplan also pointed to recent reports of allergic reactions that have been reported in healthy individuals. “We don’t know whether side effects, like allergic reactions, may be different in unstudied populations,” he said. “Thus, the medical and scientific community should prioritize clinical studies of safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations.”

So, what does this mean for an individual with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease like Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who is immunocompromised? Dr. Kaplan explained that it is a balance between the potential harm of being infected with COVID-19 and the uncertainty of receiving a vaccine in an understudied population. For those who are highly susceptible to dying from COVID-19, such as an older adult with IBD, or someone who faces high exposure, such as a health care worker, the potential protection of the vaccine greatly outweighs the uncertainty.

“However, for individuals who are at otherwise lower risk – for example, young and able to work from home – then waiting a few extra months for postmarketing surveillance studies in immunocompromised populations may be a reasonable approach, as long as these individuals are taking great care to avoid infection,” he said.
 

No waiting needed

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, feels that the newly approved vaccine should be safe for most of his patients.

“Patients with psoriatic disease should get the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible based on eligibility as determined by the CDC and local public health officials,” he said. “It is not a live vaccine, and therefore patients on biologics or other immune-modulating or immune-suppressing treatment can receive it.”

However, the impact of psoriasis treatment on immune response to the mRNA-based vaccines is not known. Dr. Gelfand noted that, extrapolating from the vaccine literature, there is some evidence that methotrexate reduces response to the influenza vaccine. “However, the clinical significance of this finding is not clear,” he said. “Since the mRNA vaccine needs to be taken twice, a few weeks apart, I do not recommend interrupting or delaying treatment for psoriatic disease while undergoing vaccination for COVID-19.”

Given the reports of allergic reactions, he added that it is advisable for patients with a history of life-threatening allergic reactions such as anaphylaxis or who have been advised to carry an epinephrine autoinjector, to talk with their health care provider to determine if COVID-19 vaccination is medically appropriate.

The National Psoriasis Foundation has issued guidance on COVID-19, explained Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and social sciences & health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., who is also a member of the committee that is working on those guidelines and keeping them up to date. “We are in the process of updating the guidelines with information on COVID vaccines,” he said.

He agreed that there are no contraindications for psoriasis patients to receive the vaccine, regardless of whether they are on immunosuppressive treatment, even though definitive data are lacking. “Fortunately, there’s a lot of good data coming out of Italy that patients with psoriasis on biologics do not appear to be at increased risk of getting COVID or of having worse outcomes from COVID,” he said.

Patients are going to ask about the vaccines, and when counseling them, clinicians should discuss the available data, the residual uncertainty, and patients’ concerns should be considered, Dr. Feldman explained. “There may be some concern that steroids and cyclosporine would reduce the effectiveness of vaccines, but there is no concern that any of the drugs would cause increased risk from nonlive vaccines.”

He added that there is evidence that “patients on biologics who receive nonlive vaccines do develop antibody responses and are immunized.”


 

Boosting efficacy

Even prior to making their announcement, the American College of Rheumatology had said that they would endorse the vaccine for all patients, explained rheumatologist Brett Smith, DO, from Blount Memorial Physicians Group and East Tennessee Children’s Hospital, Alcoa. “The vaccine is safe for all patients, but the problem may be that it’s not as effective,” he said. “But we don’t know that because it hasn’t been tested.”

With other vaccines, biologic medicines are held for 2 weeks before and afterwards, to get the best response. “But some patients don’t want to stop the medication,” Dr. Smith said. “They are afraid that their symptoms will return.”

As for counseling patients as to whether they should receive this vaccine, he explained that he typically doesn’t try to sway patients one way or another until they are really high risk. “When I counsel, it really depends on the individual situation. And for this vaccine, we have to be open to the fact that many people have already made up their mind.”

There are a lot of questions regarding the vaccine. One is the short time frame of development. “Vaccines typically take 6-10 years to come on the market, and this one is now available after a 3-month study,” Dr. Smith said. “Some have already decided that it’s too new for them.”

The process is also new, and patients need to understand that it doesn’t contain an active virus and “you can’t catch coronavirus from it.”

Dr. Smith also explained that, because the vaccine may be less effective in a person using biologic therapies, there is currently no information available on repeat vaccination. “These are all unanswered questions,” he said. “If the antibodies wane in a short time, can we be revaccinated and in what time frame? We just don’t know that yet.”

Marcelo Bonomi, MD, a medical oncologist from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, explained that one way to ensure a more optimal response to the vaccine would be to wait until the patient has finished chemotherapy.* “The vaccine can be offered at that time, and in the meantime, they can take other steps to avoid infection,” he said. “If they are very immunosuppressed, it isn’t worth trying to give the vaccine.”

Cancer patients should be encouraged to stay as healthy as possible, and to wear masks and social distance. “It’s a comprehensive approach. Eat healthy, avoid alcohol and tobacco, and exercise. [These things] will help boost the immune system,” Dr. Bonomi said. “Family members should be encouraged to get vaccinated, which will help them avoid infection and exposing the patient.”

Jim Boonyaratanakornkit, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist who cares for cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, agreed. “Giving a vaccine right after a transplant is a futile endeavor,” he said. “We need to wait 6 months to have an immune response.”

He pointed out there may be a continuing higher number of cases, with high levels peaking in Washington in February and March. “Close friends and family should be vaccinated if possible,” he said, “which will help interrupt transmission.”

The vaccines are using new platforms that are totally different, and there is no clear data as to how long the antibodies will persist. “We know that they last for at least 4 months,” said Dr. Boonyaratanakornkit. “We don’t know what level of antibody will protect them from COVID-19 infection. Current studies are being conducted, but we don’t have that information for anyone yet.”
 

*Correction, 1/7/21: An earlier version of this article misattributed quotes from Dr. Marcelo Bonomi.

Coronavirus vaccines have become a reality, as they are now being approved and authorized for use in a growing number of countries including the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just issued emergency authorization for the use of the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech. Close behind is the vaccine developed by Moderna, which has also applied to the FDA for emergency authorization.

scyther5/thinkstock

The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, and the FDA has said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3%-97.6%. But as with many initial clinical trials, whether for drugs or vaccines, not all populations were represented in the trial cohort, including individuals who are immunocompromised. At the current time, it is largely unknown how safe or effective the vaccine may be in this large population, many of whom are at high risk for serious COVID-19 complications.

At a special session held during the recent annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, said that individuals with compromised immune systems, whether because of chemotherapy or a bone marrow transplant, should plan to be vaccinated when the opportunity arises.

In response to a question from ASH President Stephanie J. Lee, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Dr. Fauci emphasized that, despite being excluded from clinical trials, this population should get vaccinated. “I think we should recommend that they get vaccinated,” he said. “I mean, it is clear that, if you are on immunosuppressive agents, history tells us that you’re not going to have as robust a response as if you had an intact immune system that was not being compromised. But some degree of immunity is better than no degree of immunity.”

That does seem to be the consensus among experts who spoke in interviews: that as long as these are not live attenuated vaccines, they hold no specific risk to an immunocompromised patient, other than any factors specific to the individual that could be a contraindication.

“Patients, family members, friends, and work contacts should be encouraged to receive the vaccine,” said William Stohl, MD, PhD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Clinicians should advise patients to obtain the vaccine sooner rather than later.”
 

Kevin C. Wang, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed. “I am 100% with Dr. Fauci. Everyone should get the vaccine, even if it may not be as effective,” he said. “I would treat it exactly like the flu vaccines that we recommend folks get every year.”

Dr. Wang noted that he couldn’t think of any contraindications unless the immunosuppressed patients have a history of severe allergic reactions to prior vaccinations. “But I would even say patients with history of cancer, upon recommendation of their oncologists, are likely to be suitable candidates for the vaccine,” he added. “I would say clinicians should approach counseling the same way they counsel patients for the flu vaccine, and as far as I know, there are no concerns for systemic drugs commonly used in dermatology patients.”

However, guidance has not yet been issued from either the FDA or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regarding the use of the vaccine in immunocompromised individuals. Given the lack of data, the FDA has said that “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis,” and that individuals should consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has said that clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies. The CDC itself has not yet released its formal guidance on vaccine use.


 

COVID-19 vaccines

Vaccines typically require years of research and testing before reaching the clinic, but this year researchers embarked on a global effort to develop safe and effective coronavirus vaccines in record time. Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines have only a few months of phase 3 clinical trial data, so much remains unknown about them, including their duration of effect and any long-term safety signals. In addition to excluding immunocompromised individuals, the clinical trials did not include children or pregnant women, so data are lacking for several population subgroups.

But these will not be the only vaccines available, as the pipeline is already becoming crowded. U.S. clinical trial data from a vaccine jointly being developed by Oxford-AstraZeneca, could potentially be ready, along with a request for FDA emergency use authorization, by late January 2021.

In addition, China and Russia have released vaccines, and there are currently 61 vaccines being investigated in clinical trials and at least 85 preclinical products under active investigation.

The vaccine candidates are using both conventional and novel mechanisms of action to elicit an immune response in patients. Conventional methods include attenuated inactivated (killed) virus and recombinant viral protein vaccines to develop immunity. Novel approaches include replication-deficient, adenovirus vector-based vaccines that contain the viral protein, and mRNA-based vaccines, such as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, that encode for a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

“The special vaccine concern for immunocompromised individuals is introduction of a live virus,” Dr. Stohl said. “Neither the Moderna nor Pfizer vaccines are live viruses, so there should be no special contraindication for such individuals.”

Live vaccine should be avoided in immunocompromised patients, and currently, live SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are only being developed in India and Turkey.

It is not unusual for vaccine trials to begin with cohorts that exclude participants with various health conditions, including those who are immunocompromised. These groups are generally then evaluated in phase 4 trials, or postmarketing surveillance. While the precise number of immunosuppressed adults in the United States is not known, the numbers are believed to be rising because of increased life expectancy among immunosuppressed adults as a result of advances in treatment and new and wider indications for therapies that can affect the immune system.

According to data from the 2013 National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 2.7% of U.S. adults are immunosuppressed. This population covers a broad array of health conditions and medical specialties; people living with inflammatory or autoimmune conditions, such as inflammatory rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, lupus); inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis); psoriasis; multiple sclerosis; organ transplant recipients; patients undergoing chemotherapy; and life-long immunosuppression attributable to HIV infection.

As the vaccines begin to roll out and become available, how should clinicians advise their patients, in the absence of any clinical trial data?


 

Risk vs. benefit

Gilaad Kaplan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted that the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community has dealt with tremendous anxiety during the pandemic because many are immunocompromised because of the medications they use to treat their disease.

“For example, many patients with IBD are on biologics like anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapies, which are also used in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. “Understandably, individuals with IBD on immunosuppressive medications are concerned about the risk of severe complications due to COVID-19.”

The entire IBD community, along with the world, celebrated the announcement that multiple vaccines are protective against SARS-CoV-2, he noted. “Vaccines offer the potential to reduce the spread of COVID-19, allowing society to revert back to normalcy,” Dr. Kaplan said. “Moreover, for vulnerable populations, including those who are immunocompromised, vaccines offer the potential to directly protect them from the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.”

That said, even though the news of vaccines are extremely promising, some cautions must be raised regarding their use in immunocompromised populations, such as persons with IBD. “The current trials, to my knowledge, did not include immunocompromised individuals and thus, we can only extrapolate from what we know from other trials of different vaccines,” he explained. “We know from prior vaccines studies that the immune response following vaccination is less robust in those who are immunocompromised as compared to a healthy control population.”

Dr. Kaplan also pointed to recent reports of allergic reactions that have been reported in healthy individuals. “We don’t know whether side effects, like allergic reactions, may be different in unstudied populations,” he said. “Thus, the medical and scientific community should prioritize clinical studies of safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations.”

So, what does this mean for an individual with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease like Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who is immunocompromised? Dr. Kaplan explained that it is a balance between the potential harm of being infected with COVID-19 and the uncertainty of receiving a vaccine in an understudied population. For those who are highly susceptible to dying from COVID-19, such as an older adult with IBD, or someone who faces high exposure, such as a health care worker, the potential protection of the vaccine greatly outweighs the uncertainty.

“However, for individuals who are at otherwise lower risk – for example, young and able to work from home – then waiting a few extra months for postmarketing surveillance studies in immunocompromised populations may be a reasonable approach, as long as these individuals are taking great care to avoid infection,” he said.
 

No waiting needed

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, feels that the newly approved vaccine should be safe for most of his patients.

“Patients with psoriatic disease should get the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible based on eligibility as determined by the CDC and local public health officials,” he said. “It is not a live vaccine, and therefore patients on biologics or other immune-modulating or immune-suppressing treatment can receive it.”

However, the impact of psoriasis treatment on immune response to the mRNA-based vaccines is not known. Dr. Gelfand noted that, extrapolating from the vaccine literature, there is some evidence that methotrexate reduces response to the influenza vaccine. “However, the clinical significance of this finding is not clear,” he said. “Since the mRNA vaccine needs to be taken twice, a few weeks apart, I do not recommend interrupting or delaying treatment for psoriatic disease while undergoing vaccination for COVID-19.”

Given the reports of allergic reactions, he added that it is advisable for patients with a history of life-threatening allergic reactions such as anaphylaxis or who have been advised to carry an epinephrine autoinjector, to talk with their health care provider to determine if COVID-19 vaccination is medically appropriate.

The National Psoriasis Foundation has issued guidance on COVID-19, explained Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and social sciences & health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., who is also a member of the committee that is working on those guidelines and keeping them up to date. “We are in the process of updating the guidelines with information on COVID vaccines,” he said.

He agreed that there are no contraindications for psoriasis patients to receive the vaccine, regardless of whether they are on immunosuppressive treatment, even though definitive data are lacking. “Fortunately, there’s a lot of good data coming out of Italy that patients with psoriasis on biologics do not appear to be at increased risk of getting COVID or of having worse outcomes from COVID,” he said.

Patients are going to ask about the vaccines, and when counseling them, clinicians should discuss the available data, the residual uncertainty, and patients’ concerns should be considered, Dr. Feldman explained. “There may be some concern that steroids and cyclosporine would reduce the effectiveness of vaccines, but there is no concern that any of the drugs would cause increased risk from nonlive vaccines.”

He added that there is evidence that “patients on biologics who receive nonlive vaccines do develop antibody responses and are immunized.”


 

Boosting efficacy

Even prior to making their announcement, the American College of Rheumatology had said that they would endorse the vaccine for all patients, explained rheumatologist Brett Smith, DO, from Blount Memorial Physicians Group and East Tennessee Children’s Hospital, Alcoa. “The vaccine is safe for all patients, but the problem may be that it’s not as effective,” he said. “But we don’t know that because it hasn’t been tested.”

With other vaccines, biologic medicines are held for 2 weeks before and afterwards, to get the best response. “But some patients don’t want to stop the medication,” Dr. Smith said. “They are afraid that their symptoms will return.”

As for counseling patients as to whether they should receive this vaccine, he explained that he typically doesn’t try to sway patients one way or another until they are really high risk. “When I counsel, it really depends on the individual situation. And for this vaccine, we have to be open to the fact that many people have already made up their mind.”

There are a lot of questions regarding the vaccine. One is the short time frame of development. “Vaccines typically take 6-10 years to come on the market, and this one is now available after a 3-month study,” Dr. Smith said. “Some have already decided that it’s too new for them.”

The process is also new, and patients need to understand that it doesn’t contain an active virus and “you can’t catch coronavirus from it.”

Dr. Smith also explained that, because the vaccine may be less effective in a person using biologic therapies, there is currently no information available on repeat vaccination. “These are all unanswered questions,” he said. “If the antibodies wane in a short time, can we be revaccinated and in what time frame? We just don’t know that yet.”

Marcelo Bonomi, MD, a medical oncologist from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, explained that one way to ensure a more optimal response to the vaccine would be to wait until the patient has finished chemotherapy.* “The vaccine can be offered at that time, and in the meantime, they can take other steps to avoid infection,” he said. “If they are very immunosuppressed, it isn’t worth trying to give the vaccine.”

Cancer patients should be encouraged to stay as healthy as possible, and to wear masks and social distance. “It’s a comprehensive approach. Eat healthy, avoid alcohol and tobacco, and exercise. [These things] will help boost the immune system,” Dr. Bonomi said. “Family members should be encouraged to get vaccinated, which will help them avoid infection and exposing the patient.”

Jim Boonyaratanakornkit, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist who cares for cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, agreed. “Giving a vaccine right after a transplant is a futile endeavor,” he said. “We need to wait 6 months to have an immune response.”

He pointed out there may be a continuing higher number of cases, with high levels peaking in Washington in February and March. “Close friends and family should be vaccinated if possible,” he said, “which will help interrupt transmission.”

The vaccines are using new platforms that are totally different, and there is no clear data as to how long the antibodies will persist. “We know that they last for at least 4 months,” said Dr. Boonyaratanakornkit. “We don’t know what level of antibody will protect them from COVID-19 infection. Current studies are being conducted, but we don’t have that information for anyone yet.”
 

*Correction, 1/7/21: An earlier version of this article misattributed quotes from Dr. Marcelo Bonomi.

Coronavirus vaccines have become a reality, as they are now being approved and authorized for use in a growing number of countries including the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just issued emergency authorization for the use of the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech. Close behind is the vaccine developed by Moderna, which has also applied to the FDA for emergency authorization.

scyther5/thinkstock

The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, and the FDA has said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3%-97.6%. But as with many initial clinical trials, whether for drugs or vaccines, not all populations were represented in the trial cohort, including individuals who are immunocompromised. At the current time, it is largely unknown how safe or effective the vaccine may be in this large population, many of whom are at high risk for serious COVID-19 complications.

At a special session held during the recent annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, said that individuals with compromised immune systems, whether because of chemotherapy or a bone marrow transplant, should plan to be vaccinated when the opportunity arises.

In response to a question from ASH President Stephanie J. Lee, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Dr. Fauci emphasized that, despite being excluded from clinical trials, this population should get vaccinated. “I think we should recommend that they get vaccinated,” he said. “I mean, it is clear that, if you are on immunosuppressive agents, history tells us that you’re not going to have as robust a response as if you had an intact immune system that was not being compromised. But some degree of immunity is better than no degree of immunity.”

That does seem to be the consensus among experts who spoke in interviews: that as long as these are not live attenuated vaccines, they hold no specific risk to an immunocompromised patient, other than any factors specific to the individual that could be a contraindication.

“Patients, family members, friends, and work contacts should be encouraged to receive the vaccine,” said William Stohl, MD, PhD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Clinicians should advise patients to obtain the vaccine sooner rather than later.”
 

Kevin C. Wang, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed. “I am 100% with Dr. Fauci. Everyone should get the vaccine, even if it may not be as effective,” he said. “I would treat it exactly like the flu vaccines that we recommend folks get every year.”

Dr. Wang noted that he couldn’t think of any contraindications unless the immunosuppressed patients have a history of severe allergic reactions to prior vaccinations. “But I would even say patients with history of cancer, upon recommendation of their oncologists, are likely to be suitable candidates for the vaccine,” he added. “I would say clinicians should approach counseling the same way they counsel patients for the flu vaccine, and as far as I know, there are no concerns for systemic drugs commonly used in dermatology patients.”

However, guidance has not yet been issued from either the FDA or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regarding the use of the vaccine in immunocompromised individuals. Given the lack of data, the FDA has said that “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis,” and that individuals should consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has said that clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies. The CDC itself has not yet released its formal guidance on vaccine use.


 

COVID-19 vaccines

Vaccines typically require years of research and testing before reaching the clinic, but this year researchers embarked on a global effort to develop safe and effective coronavirus vaccines in record time. Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines have only a few months of phase 3 clinical trial data, so much remains unknown about them, including their duration of effect and any long-term safety signals. In addition to excluding immunocompromised individuals, the clinical trials did not include children or pregnant women, so data are lacking for several population subgroups.

But these will not be the only vaccines available, as the pipeline is already becoming crowded. U.S. clinical trial data from a vaccine jointly being developed by Oxford-AstraZeneca, could potentially be ready, along with a request for FDA emergency use authorization, by late January 2021.

In addition, China and Russia have released vaccines, and there are currently 61 vaccines being investigated in clinical trials and at least 85 preclinical products under active investigation.

The vaccine candidates are using both conventional and novel mechanisms of action to elicit an immune response in patients. Conventional methods include attenuated inactivated (killed) virus and recombinant viral protein vaccines to develop immunity. Novel approaches include replication-deficient, adenovirus vector-based vaccines that contain the viral protein, and mRNA-based vaccines, such as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, that encode for a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

“The special vaccine concern for immunocompromised individuals is introduction of a live virus,” Dr. Stohl said. “Neither the Moderna nor Pfizer vaccines are live viruses, so there should be no special contraindication for such individuals.”

Live vaccine should be avoided in immunocompromised patients, and currently, live SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are only being developed in India and Turkey.

It is not unusual for vaccine trials to begin with cohorts that exclude participants with various health conditions, including those who are immunocompromised. These groups are generally then evaluated in phase 4 trials, or postmarketing surveillance. While the precise number of immunosuppressed adults in the United States is not known, the numbers are believed to be rising because of increased life expectancy among immunosuppressed adults as a result of advances in treatment and new and wider indications for therapies that can affect the immune system.

According to data from the 2013 National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 2.7% of U.S. adults are immunosuppressed. This population covers a broad array of health conditions and medical specialties; people living with inflammatory or autoimmune conditions, such as inflammatory rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, lupus); inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis); psoriasis; multiple sclerosis; organ transplant recipients; patients undergoing chemotherapy; and life-long immunosuppression attributable to HIV infection.

As the vaccines begin to roll out and become available, how should clinicians advise their patients, in the absence of any clinical trial data?


 

Risk vs. benefit

Gilaad Kaplan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted that the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community has dealt with tremendous anxiety during the pandemic because many are immunocompromised because of the medications they use to treat their disease.

“For example, many patients with IBD are on biologics like anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapies, which are also used in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. “Understandably, individuals with IBD on immunosuppressive medications are concerned about the risk of severe complications due to COVID-19.”

The entire IBD community, along with the world, celebrated the announcement that multiple vaccines are protective against SARS-CoV-2, he noted. “Vaccines offer the potential to reduce the spread of COVID-19, allowing society to revert back to normalcy,” Dr. Kaplan said. “Moreover, for vulnerable populations, including those who are immunocompromised, vaccines offer the potential to directly protect them from the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.”

That said, even though the news of vaccines are extremely promising, some cautions must be raised regarding their use in immunocompromised populations, such as persons with IBD. “The current trials, to my knowledge, did not include immunocompromised individuals and thus, we can only extrapolate from what we know from other trials of different vaccines,” he explained. “We know from prior vaccines studies that the immune response following vaccination is less robust in those who are immunocompromised as compared to a healthy control population.”

Dr. Kaplan also pointed to recent reports of allergic reactions that have been reported in healthy individuals. “We don’t know whether side effects, like allergic reactions, may be different in unstudied populations,” he said. “Thus, the medical and scientific community should prioritize clinical studies of safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations.”

So, what does this mean for an individual with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease like Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who is immunocompromised? Dr. Kaplan explained that it is a balance between the potential harm of being infected with COVID-19 and the uncertainty of receiving a vaccine in an understudied population. For those who are highly susceptible to dying from COVID-19, such as an older adult with IBD, or someone who faces high exposure, such as a health care worker, the potential protection of the vaccine greatly outweighs the uncertainty.

“However, for individuals who are at otherwise lower risk – for example, young and able to work from home – then waiting a few extra months for postmarketing surveillance studies in immunocompromised populations may be a reasonable approach, as long as these individuals are taking great care to avoid infection,” he said.
 

No waiting needed

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, feels that the newly approved vaccine should be safe for most of his patients.

“Patients with psoriatic disease should get the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible based on eligibility as determined by the CDC and local public health officials,” he said. “It is not a live vaccine, and therefore patients on biologics or other immune-modulating or immune-suppressing treatment can receive it.”

However, the impact of psoriasis treatment on immune response to the mRNA-based vaccines is not known. Dr. Gelfand noted that, extrapolating from the vaccine literature, there is some evidence that methotrexate reduces response to the influenza vaccine. “However, the clinical significance of this finding is not clear,” he said. “Since the mRNA vaccine needs to be taken twice, a few weeks apart, I do not recommend interrupting or delaying treatment for psoriatic disease while undergoing vaccination for COVID-19.”

Given the reports of allergic reactions, he added that it is advisable for patients with a history of life-threatening allergic reactions such as anaphylaxis or who have been advised to carry an epinephrine autoinjector, to talk with their health care provider to determine if COVID-19 vaccination is medically appropriate.

The National Psoriasis Foundation has issued guidance on COVID-19, explained Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and social sciences & health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., who is also a member of the committee that is working on those guidelines and keeping them up to date. “We are in the process of updating the guidelines with information on COVID vaccines,” he said.

He agreed that there are no contraindications for psoriasis patients to receive the vaccine, regardless of whether they are on immunosuppressive treatment, even though definitive data are lacking. “Fortunately, there’s a lot of good data coming out of Italy that patients with psoriasis on biologics do not appear to be at increased risk of getting COVID or of having worse outcomes from COVID,” he said.

Patients are going to ask about the vaccines, and when counseling them, clinicians should discuss the available data, the residual uncertainty, and patients’ concerns should be considered, Dr. Feldman explained. “There may be some concern that steroids and cyclosporine would reduce the effectiveness of vaccines, but there is no concern that any of the drugs would cause increased risk from nonlive vaccines.”

He added that there is evidence that “patients on biologics who receive nonlive vaccines do develop antibody responses and are immunized.”


 

Boosting efficacy

Even prior to making their announcement, the American College of Rheumatology had said that they would endorse the vaccine for all patients, explained rheumatologist Brett Smith, DO, from Blount Memorial Physicians Group and East Tennessee Children’s Hospital, Alcoa. “The vaccine is safe for all patients, but the problem may be that it’s not as effective,” he said. “But we don’t know that because it hasn’t been tested.”

With other vaccines, biologic medicines are held for 2 weeks before and afterwards, to get the best response. “But some patients don’t want to stop the medication,” Dr. Smith said. “They are afraid that their symptoms will return.”

As for counseling patients as to whether they should receive this vaccine, he explained that he typically doesn’t try to sway patients one way or another until they are really high risk. “When I counsel, it really depends on the individual situation. And for this vaccine, we have to be open to the fact that many people have already made up their mind.”

There are a lot of questions regarding the vaccine. One is the short time frame of development. “Vaccines typically take 6-10 years to come on the market, and this one is now available after a 3-month study,” Dr. Smith said. “Some have already decided that it’s too new for them.”

The process is also new, and patients need to understand that it doesn’t contain an active virus and “you can’t catch coronavirus from it.”

Dr. Smith also explained that, because the vaccine may be less effective in a person using biologic therapies, there is currently no information available on repeat vaccination. “These are all unanswered questions,” he said. “If the antibodies wane in a short time, can we be revaccinated and in what time frame? We just don’t know that yet.”

Marcelo Bonomi, MD, a medical oncologist from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, explained that one way to ensure a more optimal response to the vaccine would be to wait until the patient has finished chemotherapy.* “The vaccine can be offered at that time, and in the meantime, they can take other steps to avoid infection,” he said. “If they are very immunosuppressed, it isn’t worth trying to give the vaccine.”

Cancer patients should be encouraged to stay as healthy as possible, and to wear masks and social distance. “It’s a comprehensive approach. Eat healthy, avoid alcohol and tobacco, and exercise. [These things] will help boost the immune system,” Dr. Bonomi said. “Family members should be encouraged to get vaccinated, which will help them avoid infection and exposing the patient.”

Jim Boonyaratanakornkit, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist who cares for cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, agreed. “Giving a vaccine right after a transplant is a futile endeavor,” he said. “We need to wait 6 months to have an immune response.”

He pointed out there may be a continuing higher number of cases, with high levels peaking in Washington in February and March. “Close friends and family should be vaccinated if possible,” he said, “which will help interrupt transmission.”

The vaccines are using new platforms that are totally different, and there is no clear data as to how long the antibodies will persist. “We know that they last for at least 4 months,” said Dr. Boonyaratanakornkit. “We don’t know what level of antibody will protect them from COVID-19 infection. Current studies are being conducted, but we don’t have that information for anyone yet.”
 

*Correction, 1/7/21: An earlier version of this article misattributed quotes from Dr. Marcelo Bonomi.

Dermatologists frequently learn about skin conditions that are directly linked to diet. For example, we know that nutritional deficiencies can impact the hair, skin, and nails, and that celiac disease manifests with dermatitis herpetiformis of the skin. Patients commonly ask their dermatologists about the impact of diet on their skin. There are many outdated myths, but research on the subject is increasingly demonstrating important associations. Dermatologists must become familiar with the data on this topic so that we can provide informed counseling for our patients. This article reviews the current literature on associations between diet and 3 common cutaneous conditions—acne, psoriasis, and atopic dermatitis [AD]—and provides tips on how to best address our patients’ questions on this topic.

Acne

Studies increasingly support an association between a high glycemic diet (foods that lead to a spike in serum glucose) and acne; Bowe et al1 provided an excellent summary of the topic in 2010. This year, a large prospective cohort study of more than 24,000 participants demonstrated an association between adult acne and a diet high in milk, sugary beverages and foods, and fatty foods.2 In prospective cohort studies of more than 6000 adolescent girls and 4000 adolescent boys, Adebamowo et al3^,4 demonstrated a correlation between skim milk consumption and acne. Whey protein supplementation also has been implicated in acne flares.^5,6 The biological mechanism of the impact of high glycemic index foods and acne is believed to be mainly via activation of the insulinlike growth factor 1 (IGF-1) pathway, which promotes androgen synthesis and increases androgen bioavailability via decreased synthesis of sex hormone binding globulin.^1,2 Insulinlike growth factor 1 also stimulates its downstream target, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), leading to activation of antiapoptotic and proliferation signaling, ultimately resulting in oxidative stress and inflammation causing acne.² Penso et al² noted that patients with IGF-1 deficiency (Laron syndrome) never develop acne unless treated with exogenous IGF-1, further supporting its role in acne formation.⁷ There currently is a paucity of randomized controlled trials assessing the impact of diet on acne.

Psoriasis 

The literature consistently shows that obesity is a predisposing factor for psoriasis. Additionally, weight gain may cause flares of existing psoriasis.⁸ Promotion of a healthy diet is an important factor in the management of obesity, alongside physical activity and, in some cases, medication and bariatric surgery.⁹ Patients with psoriasis who are overweight have been shown to experience improvement in their psoriasis after weight loss secondary to diet and exercise.^8,10 The joint American Academy of Dermatology and National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines recommend that dermatologists advise patients to practice a healthy lifestyle including a healthy diet and communicate with a patient’s primary care provider so they can be appropriately evaluated and treated for comorbidities including metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia.¹¹ In the NutriNet-Santé cohort study, investigators found an inverse correlation between psoriasis severity and adherence to a Mediterranean diet, which the authors conclude supports the hypothesis that this may slow the progression of psoriasis.¹² In a single meta-analysis, it was reported that patients with psoriasis have a 3-fold increased risk for celiac disease compared to the general population.1³ It remains unknown if these data are generalizable to the US population. Dermatologists should consider screening patients with psoriasis for celiac disease based on reported symptoms. When suspected, it is necessary to order appropriate serologies and consider referral to gastroenterology prior to recommending a gluten-free diet, as elimination of gluten prior to testing may lead to false-negative results.

Atopic Dermatitis

Patients and parents/guardians of children with AD often ask about the impact of diet on the condition. A small minority of patients may experience flares of AD due to ongoing, non–IgE-mediated allergen exposure.¹⁴ Diet as a trigger for flares should be suspected in children with persistent, moderate to severe AD. In these patients, allergen avoidance may lead to improvement but not resolution of AD. Allergens ordered from most common to least common are the following: eggs, milk, peanuts/tree nuts, shellfish, soy, and wheat.¹⁵ Additionally, it is important to note that children with AD are at higher risk for developing life-threatening, IgE-mediated food allergies compared to the general population (37% vs 6.8%).^16,17 The LEAP (Learning Early about Peanut Allergy) study led to a paradigm shift in prevention of peanut allergies in high-risk children (ie, those with severe AD and/or egg allergy), providing data to support the idea that early introduction of allergenic foods such as peanuts may prevent severe allergies.¹⁸ Further studies are necessary to clarify the population in which allergen testing and recommendations on food avoidance are warranted vs early introduction.¹⁹

Conclusion

Early data support the relationship between diet and many common dermatologic conditions, including acne, psoriasis, and AD. Dermatologists should be familiar with the evidence supporting the relationship between diet and various skin conditions to best answer patients’ questions and counsel as appropriate. It is important for dermatologists to continue to stay up-to-date on the literature on this subject as new data emerge. Knowledge about the relationship between diet and skin allows dermatologists to not only support our patients’ skin health but their overall health as well.

Dermatologists frequently learn about skin conditions that are directly linked to diet. For example, we know that nutritional deficiencies can impact the hair, skin, and nails, and that celiac disease manifests with dermatitis herpetiformis of the skin. Patients commonly ask their dermatologists about the impact of diet on their skin. There are many outdated myths, but research on the subject is increasingly demonstrating important associations. Dermatologists must become familiar with the data on this topic so that we can provide informed counseling for our patients. This article reviews the current literature on associations between diet and 3 common cutaneous conditions—acne, psoriasis, and atopic dermatitis [AD]—and provides tips on how to best address our patients’ questions on this topic.

Acne

Studies increasingly support an association between a high glycemic diet (foods that lead to a spike in serum glucose) and acne; Bowe et al1 provided an excellent summary of the topic in 2010. This year, a large prospective cohort study of more than 24,000 participants demonstrated an association between adult acne and a diet high in milk, sugary beverages and foods, and fatty foods.2 In prospective cohort studies of more than 6000 adolescent girls and 4000 adolescent boys, Adebamowo et al3^,4 demonstrated a correlation between skim milk consumption and acne. Whey protein supplementation also has been implicated in acne flares.^5,6 The biological mechanism of the impact of high glycemic index foods and acne is believed to be mainly via activation of the insulinlike growth factor 1 (IGF-1) pathway, which promotes androgen synthesis and increases androgen bioavailability via decreased synthesis of sex hormone binding globulin.^1,2 Insulinlike growth factor 1 also stimulates its downstream target, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), leading to activation of antiapoptotic and proliferation signaling, ultimately resulting in oxidative stress and inflammation causing acne.² Penso et al² noted that patients with IGF-1 deficiency (Laron syndrome) never develop acne unless treated with exogenous IGF-1, further supporting its role in acne formation.⁷ There currently is a paucity of randomized controlled trials assessing the impact of diet on acne.

Psoriasis 

The literature consistently shows that obesity is a predisposing factor for psoriasis. Additionally, weight gain may cause flares of existing psoriasis.⁸ Promotion of a healthy diet is an important factor in the management of obesity, alongside physical activity and, in some cases, medication and bariatric surgery.⁹ Patients with psoriasis who are overweight have been shown to experience improvement in their psoriasis after weight loss secondary to diet and exercise.^8,10 The joint American Academy of Dermatology and National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines recommend that dermatologists advise patients to practice a healthy lifestyle including a healthy diet and communicate with a patient’s primary care provider so they can be appropriately evaluated and treated for comorbidities including metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia.¹¹ In the NutriNet-Santé cohort study, investigators found an inverse correlation between psoriasis severity and adherence to a Mediterranean diet, which the authors conclude supports the hypothesis that this may slow the progression of psoriasis.¹² In a single meta-analysis, it was reported that patients with psoriasis have a 3-fold increased risk for celiac disease compared to the general population.1³ It remains unknown if these data are generalizable to the US population. Dermatologists should consider screening patients with psoriasis for celiac disease based on reported symptoms. When suspected, it is necessary to order appropriate serologies and consider referral to gastroenterology prior to recommending a gluten-free diet, as elimination of gluten prior to testing may lead to false-negative results.

Atopic Dermatitis

Patients and parents/guardians of children with AD often ask about the impact of diet on the condition. A small minority of patients may experience flares of AD due to ongoing, non–IgE-mediated allergen exposure.¹⁴ Diet as a trigger for flares should be suspected in children with persistent, moderate to severe AD. In these patients, allergen avoidance may lead to improvement but not resolution of AD. Allergens ordered from most common to least common are the following: eggs, milk, peanuts/tree nuts, shellfish, soy, and wheat.¹⁵ Additionally, it is important to note that children with AD are at higher risk for developing life-threatening, IgE-mediated food allergies compared to the general population (37% vs 6.8%).^16,17 The LEAP (Learning Early about Peanut Allergy) study led to a paradigm shift in prevention of peanut allergies in high-risk children (ie, those with severe AD and/or egg allergy), providing data to support the idea that early introduction of allergenic foods such as peanuts may prevent severe allergies.¹⁸ Further studies are necessary to clarify the population in which allergen testing and recommendations on food avoidance are warranted vs early introduction.¹⁹

Conclusion

Early data support the relationship between diet and many common dermatologic conditions, including acne, psoriasis, and AD. Dermatologists should be familiar with the evidence supporting the relationship between diet and various skin conditions to best answer patients’ questions and counsel as appropriate. It is important for dermatologists to continue to stay up-to-date on the literature on this subject as new data emerge. Knowledge about the relationship between diet and skin allows dermatologists to not only support our patients’ skin health but their overall health as well.

Dermatologists frequently learn about skin conditions that are directly linked to diet. For example, we know that nutritional deficiencies can impact the hair, skin, and nails, and that celiac disease manifests with dermatitis herpetiformis of the skin. Patients commonly ask their dermatologists about the impact of diet on their skin. There are many outdated myths, but research on the subject is increasingly demonstrating important associations. Dermatologists must become familiar with the data on this topic so that we can provide informed counseling for our patients. This article reviews the current literature on associations between diet and 3 common cutaneous conditions—acne, psoriasis, and atopic dermatitis [AD]—and provides tips on how to best address our patients’ questions on this topic.

Acne

Studies increasingly support an association between a high glycemic diet (foods that lead to a spike in serum glucose) and acne; Bowe et al1 provided an excellent summary of the topic in 2010. This year, a large prospective cohort study of more than 24,000 participants demonstrated an association between adult acne and a diet high in milk, sugary beverages and foods, and fatty foods.2 In prospective cohort studies of more than 6000 adolescent girls and 4000 adolescent boys, Adebamowo et al3^,4 demonstrated a correlation between skim milk consumption and acne. Whey protein supplementation also has been implicated in acne flares.^5,6 The biological mechanism of the impact of high glycemic index foods and acne is believed to be mainly via activation of the insulinlike growth factor 1 (IGF-1) pathway, which promotes androgen synthesis and increases androgen bioavailability via decreased synthesis of sex hormone binding globulin.^1,2 Insulinlike growth factor 1 also stimulates its downstream target, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), leading to activation of antiapoptotic and proliferation signaling, ultimately resulting in oxidative stress and inflammation causing acne.² Penso et al² noted that patients with IGF-1 deficiency (Laron syndrome) never develop acne unless treated with exogenous IGF-1, further supporting its role in acne formation.⁷ There currently is a paucity of randomized controlled trials assessing the impact of diet on acne.

Psoriasis 

The literature consistently shows that obesity is a predisposing factor for psoriasis. Additionally, weight gain may cause flares of existing psoriasis.⁸ Promotion of a healthy diet is an important factor in the management of obesity, alongside physical activity and, in some cases, medication and bariatric surgery.⁹ Patients with psoriasis who are overweight have been shown to experience improvement in their psoriasis after weight loss secondary to diet and exercise.^8,10 The joint American Academy of Dermatology and National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines recommend that dermatologists advise patients to practice a healthy lifestyle including a healthy diet and communicate with a patient’s primary care provider so they can be appropriately evaluated and treated for comorbidities including metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia.¹¹ In the NutriNet-Santé cohort study, investigators found an inverse correlation between psoriasis severity and adherence to a Mediterranean diet, which the authors conclude supports the hypothesis that this may slow the progression of psoriasis.¹² In a single meta-analysis, it was reported that patients with psoriasis have a 3-fold increased risk for celiac disease compared to the general population.1³ It remains unknown if these data are generalizable to the US population. Dermatologists should consider screening patients with psoriasis for celiac disease based on reported symptoms. When suspected, it is necessary to order appropriate serologies and consider referral to gastroenterology prior to recommending a gluten-free diet, as elimination of gluten prior to testing may lead to false-negative results.

Atopic Dermatitis

Patients and parents/guardians of children with AD often ask about the impact of diet on the condition. A small minority of patients may experience flares of AD due to ongoing, non–IgE-mediated allergen exposure.¹⁴ Diet as a trigger for flares should be suspected in children with persistent, moderate to severe AD. In these patients, allergen avoidance may lead to improvement but not resolution of AD. Allergens ordered from most common to least common are the following: eggs, milk, peanuts/tree nuts, shellfish, soy, and wheat.¹⁵ Additionally, it is important to note that children with AD are at higher risk for developing life-threatening, IgE-mediated food allergies compared to the general population (37% vs 6.8%).^16,17 The LEAP (Learning Early about Peanut Allergy) study led to a paradigm shift in prevention of peanut allergies in high-risk children (ie, those with severe AD and/or egg allergy), providing data to support the idea that early introduction of allergenic foods such as peanuts may prevent severe allergies.¹⁸ Further studies are necessary to clarify the population in which allergen testing and recommendations on food avoidance are warranted vs early introduction.¹⁹

Conclusion

Early data support the relationship between diet and many common dermatologic conditions, including acne, psoriasis, and AD. Dermatologists should be familiar with the evidence supporting the relationship between diet and various skin conditions to best answer patients’ questions and counsel as appropriate. It is important for dermatologists to continue to stay up-to-date on the literature on this subject as new data emerge. Knowledge about the relationship between diet and skin allows dermatologists to not only support our patients’ skin health but their overall health as well.