Psoriasis

MILAN – A novel topical nonsteroidal treatment for psoriasis showed sufficient efficacy in phase 2b clinical trials to proceed to phase 3 studies, with improvements in severity, pain, and burning in adults with mild to moderate psoriasis.

At the end of 12 weeks of treatment, 29% of patients receiving the medication – which targets nerve pathways – experienced a decrease of at least 2 grades on the 5-point Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) scale, compared with 13% of those receiving the topical vehicle only (P = .036). A similar proportion of patients achieved 75% improvement on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-75)compared with those on vehicle alone (27% versus 13%; P = .045).

These findings were seen only with the less concentrated formulation of pegcantratinib, known as SNA-120 in the clinical trial program, said Paul F. Lizzul, MD, PhD, presenting the findings during a late-breaking abstract session at the World Congress of Dermatology.

Pruritus severity also dropped by about 60%, but the decrease did not differ significantly from the change seen with vehicle alone, said Dr. Lizzul, chief medical officer for Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Westlake Village, Calif., which funded the study. He and his coinvestigators found this “interesting, surprising, and different from what we had seen previously,” he said. “We think a few things happened here,” including intensive querying on itch by means of daily diaries, a different approach than had been taken in the investigator’s earlier SNA-120 trials. “We think in this way we probably biased patients’ expectations, altering reporting on this subjective measure,” he added.

“There’s been really a lack of innovation in the topical world in developing nonsteroidal therapies for the majority of patients who are treated with topicals, said Dr. Lizzul. Keratinocytes within psoriatic plaques are known to have elevated levels of nerve growth factor (NGF), he explained. Together with tropomyosin receptor kinase A (TrkA), NGF is implicated in the pathogenesis of psoriasis; it stimulates keratinocyte hyperproliferation, is a factor in neurogenic inflammation, and contributes to pruritus. Upregulation of TrkA expression is seen in nerve fibers within pruritic psoriasis plaques as well, said Dr. Lizzul, senior author of the study. (The first author was Kristina Callis Duffin, MD, cochair of the dermatology department at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.)

In fact, the pruritus that plagues many psoriasis patients, said Dr. Lizzul, may “serve as a clinical biomarker for elevated NGF/TrkA expression.” And certain clinical phenomena observed in psoriasis, such as the Koebner phenomenon and plaque resolution along the path of damaged nerves, provide other clues. “Clearly, astute clinicians going back many, many years have recognized the very important role that nerves and neuropeptides play in psoriasis,” he added.

SNA-120 targets NGF TrKA activity, and “achieves high local drug concentration in the skin, with low systemic availability,” he said.

The randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled study enrolled 208 adults with mild to moderate psoriasis (scores of 2 or 3 on the IGA), with pruritus of at least moderate intensity (5 or higher on a 10-point itch numeric rating scale, or I-NRS). The mean age of the patients was 50 years, and about half were male. Most (84%-90% across study arms) were white. At baseline, the mean I-NRS was 7.3-7.4, and the mean PASI score at baseline ranged from 5.9 to 6.5.


Patients were randomized to receive SNA-120 twice daily at either 0.05% (70 patients) or 0.5% (69 patients) in an ointment formulation, or vehicle alone twice daily (69 patients). Efficacy was tracked by measuring decrease in IGA by one or two grades, the number of patients achieving PASI-50 and PASI-75, reduction in itch, and a composite of a decrease of at least 2 grades on the IGA and having clear or almost clear skin.

The investigators also tracked reduction in burning and pain as measured on a 10-point numeric rating scale. Though itch scores didn’t differ significantly from reductions seen with the topical vehicle alone, pain and burning were both reduced significantly compared with vehicle by week 12 of the study (P = .033 for pain; P = .043 for burning).

All improvements were seen only with the lower dose, not the 0.5% dose of SNA-120, noted Dr. Lizzul, adding: “This is not necessarily surprising in the world of kinase inhibitors, where you can see these J-shaped or inverse dose-response curves.”

In addition to recording adverse events, the researchers assessed safety by obtaining laboratory values and electrocardiograms. Plasma SNA-120 levels at study weeks 2, 4, and 8 were obtained for pharmacokinetic analysis. Systemic uptake was virtually nil, and the safety profile overall was good, said Dr. Lizzul.

Next steps are phase 3 clinical trials that will evaluate global improvement as well as pain, burning, and itch in psoriasis, he noted.

Dr. Lizzul is an employee of Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, which is developing SNA-120.

[email protected]

MILAN – A novel topical nonsteroidal treatment for psoriasis showed sufficient efficacy in phase 2b clinical trials to proceed to phase 3 studies, with improvements in severity, pain, and burning in adults with mild to moderate psoriasis.

At the end of 12 weeks of treatment, 29% of patients receiving the medication – which targets nerve pathways – experienced a decrease of at least 2 grades on the 5-point Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) scale, compared with 13% of those receiving the topical vehicle only (P = .036). A similar proportion of patients achieved 75% improvement on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-75)compared with those on vehicle alone (27% versus 13%; P = .045).

These findings were seen only with the less concentrated formulation of pegcantratinib, known as SNA-120 in the clinical trial program, said Paul F. Lizzul, MD, PhD, presenting the findings during a late-breaking abstract session at the World Congress of Dermatology.

Pruritus severity also dropped by about 60%, but the decrease did not differ significantly from the change seen with vehicle alone, said Dr. Lizzul, chief medical officer for Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Westlake Village, Calif., which funded the study. He and his coinvestigators found this “interesting, surprising, and different from what we had seen previously,” he said. “We think a few things happened here,” including intensive querying on itch by means of daily diaries, a different approach than had been taken in the investigator’s earlier SNA-120 trials. “We think in this way we probably biased patients’ expectations, altering reporting on this subjective measure,” he added.

“There’s been really a lack of innovation in the topical world in developing nonsteroidal therapies for the majority of patients who are treated with topicals, said Dr. Lizzul. Keratinocytes within psoriatic plaques are known to have elevated levels of nerve growth factor (NGF), he explained. Together with tropomyosin receptor kinase A (TrkA), NGF is implicated in the pathogenesis of psoriasis; it stimulates keratinocyte hyperproliferation, is a factor in neurogenic inflammation, and contributes to pruritus. Upregulation of TrkA expression is seen in nerve fibers within pruritic psoriasis plaques as well, said Dr. Lizzul, senior author of the study. (The first author was Kristina Callis Duffin, MD, cochair of the dermatology department at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.)

In fact, the pruritus that plagues many psoriasis patients, said Dr. Lizzul, may “serve as a clinical biomarker for elevated NGF/TrkA expression.” And certain clinical phenomena observed in psoriasis, such as the Koebner phenomenon and plaque resolution along the path of damaged nerves, provide other clues. “Clearly, astute clinicians going back many, many years have recognized the very important role that nerves and neuropeptides play in psoriasis,” he added.

SNA-120 targets NGF TrKA activity, and “achieves high local drug concentration in the skin, with low systemic availability,” he said.

The randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled study enrolled 208 adults with mild to moderate psoriasis (scores of 2 or 3 on the IGA), with pruritus of at least moderate intensity (5 or higher on a 10-point itch numeric rating scale, or I-NRS). The mean age of the patients was 50 years, and about half were male. Most (84%-90% across study arms) were white. At baseline, the mean I-NRS was 7.3-7.4, and the mean PASI score at baseline ranged from 5.9 to 6.5.


Patients were randomized to receive SNA-120 twice daily at either 0.05% (70 patients) or 0.5% (69 patients) in an ointment formulation, or vehicle alone twice daily (69 patients). Efficacy was tracked by measuring decrease in IGA by one or two grades, the number of patients achieving PASI-50 and PASI-75, reduction in itch, and a composite of a decrease of at least 2 grades on the IGA and having clear or almost clear skin.

The investigators also tracked reduction in burning and pain as measured on a 10-point numeric rating scale. Though itch scores didn’t differ significantly from reductions seen with the topical vehicle alone, pain and burning were both reduced significantly compared with vehicle by week 12 of the study (P = .033 for pain; P = .043 for burning).

All improvements were seen only with the lower dose, not the 0.5% dose of SNA-120, noted Dr. Lizzul, adding: “This is not necessarily surprising in the world of kinase inhibitors, where you can see these J-shaped or inverse dose-response curves.”

In addition to recording adverse events, the researchers assessed safety by obtaining laboratory values and electrocardiograms. Plasma SNA-120 levels at study weeks 2, 4, and 8 were obtained for pharmacokinetic analysis. Systemic uptake was virtually nil, and the safety profile overall was good, said Dr. Lizzul.

Next steps are phase 3 clinical trials that will evaluate global improvement as well as pain, burning, and itch in psoriasis, he noted.

Dr. Lizzul is an employee of Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, which is developing SNA-120.

[email protected]

MILAN – A novel topical nonsteroidal treatment for psoriasis showed sufficient efficacy in phase 2b clinical trials to proceed to phase 3 studies, with improvements in severity, pain, and burning in adults with mild to moderate psoriasis.

At the end of 12 weeks of treatment, 29% of patients receiving the medication – which targets nerve pathways – experienced a decrease of at least 2 grades on the 5-point Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) scale, compared with 13% of those receiving the topical vehicle only (P = .036). A similar proportion of patients achieved 75% improvement on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-75)compared with those on vehicle alone (27% versus 13%; P = .045).

These findings were seen only with the less concentrated formulation of pegcantratinib, known as SNA-120 in the clinical trial program, said Paul F. Lizzul, MD, PhD, presenting the findings during a late-breaking abstract session at the World Congress of Dermatology.

Pruritus severity also dropped by about 60%, but the decrease did not differ significantly from the change seen with vehicle alone, said Dr. Lizzul, chief medical officer for Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Westlake Village, Calif., which funded the study. He and his coinvestigators found this “interesting, surprising, and different from what we had seen previously,” he said. “We think a few things happened here,” including intensive querying on itch by means of daily diaries, a different approach than had been taken in the investigator’s earlier SNA-120 trials. “We think in this way we probably biased patients’ expectations, altering reporting on this subjective measure,” he added.

“There’s been really a lack of innovation in the topical world in developing nonsteroidal therapies for the majority of patients who are treated with topicals, said Dr. Lizzul. Keratinocytes within psoriatic plaques are known to have elevated levels of nerve growth factor (NGF), he explained. Together with tropomyosin receptor kinase A (TrkA), NGF is implicated in the pathogenesis of psoriasis; it stimulates keratinocyte hyperproliferation, is a factor in neurogenic inflammation, and contributes to pruritus. Upregulation of TrkA expression is seen in nerve fibers within pruritic psoriasis plaques as well, said Dr. Lizzul, senior author of the study. (The first author was Kristina Callis Duffin, MD, cochair of the dermatology department at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.)

In fact, the pruritus that plagues many psoriasis patients, said Dr. Lizzul, may “serve as a clinical biomarker for elevated NGF/TrkA expression.” And certain clinical phenomena observed in psoriasis, such as the Koebner phenomenon and plaque resolution along the path of damaged nerves, provide other clues. “Clearly, astute clinicians going back many, many years have recognized the very important role that nerves and neuropeptides play in psoriasis,” he added.

SNA-120 targets NGF TrKA activity, and “achieves high local drug concentration in the skin, with low systemic availability,” he said.

The randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled study enrolled 208 adults with mild to moderate psoriasis (scores of 2 or 3 on the IGA), with pruritus of at least moderate intensity (5 or higher on a 10-point itch numeric rating scale, or I-NRS). The mean age of the patients was 50 years, and about half were male. Most (84%-90% across study arms) were white. At baseline, the mean I-NRS was 7.3-7.4, and the mean PASI score at baseline ranged from 5.9 to 6.5.


Patients were randomized to receive SNA-120 twice daily at either 0.05% (70 patients) or 0.5% (69 patients) in an ointment formulation, or vehicle alone twice daily (69 patients). Efficacy was tracked by measuring decrease in IGA by one or two grades, the number of patients achieving PASI-50 and PASI-75, reduction in itch, and a composite of a decrease of at least 2 grades on the IGA and having clear or almost clear skin.

The investigators also tracked reduction in burning and pain as measured on a 10-point numeric rating scale. Though itch scores didn’t differ significantly from reductions seen with the topical vehicle alone, pain and burning were both reduced significantly compared with vehicle by week 12 of the study (P = .033 for pain; P = .043 for burning).

All improvements were seen only with the lower dose, not the 0.5% dose of SNA-120, noted Dr. Lizzul, adding: “This is not necessarily surprising in the world of kinase inhibitors, where you can see these J-shaped or inverse dose-response curves.”

In addition to recording adverse events, the researchers assessed safety by obtaining laboratory values and electrocardiograms. Plasma SNA-120 levels at study weeks 2, 4, and 8 were obtained for pharmacokinetic analysis. Systemic uptake was virtually nil, and the safety profile overall was good, said Dr. Lizzul.

Next steps are phase 3 clinical trials that will evaluate global improvement as well as pain, burning, and itch in psoriasis, he noted.

Dr. Lizzul is an employee of Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, which is developing SNA-120.

[email protected]

MILAN – Health-related quality of life improved for patients with moderate to severe genital psoriasis while they received ixekizumab, according to data presented at the World Congress of Dermatology.

After 12 weeks of ixekizumab administration, nearly half of patients who received ixekizumab in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial achieved a Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of 0 or 1, compared with fewer than 5% of those receiving placebo. At the end of one year, 46.7% of the original ixekizumab group and 50.8% of those who transitioned to ixekizumab from placebo via an open-label extension arm achieved a DLQI of 0 or 1. A DLQI score of 0 or 1 on a 30-point scale indicated that psoriasis had no effect on health-related quality of life.

Among patients with plaque psoriasis, genital involvement is common – present in over 60% at some point during the disease course, Lyn Guenther, MD, of Guenther Dermatology Research Centre, London, Ont., and her colleagues wrote in the poster accompanying the presentation. Sexual health and overall quality of life can be negatively affected by genital psoriasis, they added.

In the study, adult patients were included if they had chronic plaque psoriasis present in genital and nongenital areas. For overall psoriasis and genital involvement, the Static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) was 3 or greater, and total body surface area involvement was at least 1%. Also, patients had to have failed or been intolerant to at least one topical therapy for genital psoriasis.

Patients were excluded if they had genital pustules or vesicles, significant uncontrolled medical or psychiatric comorbidities, recent infection, or prior interleukin-17 antagonist treatment.

In all, patients received ixekizumab 160 mg (75 patients) or placebo (74) subcutaneously every 2 weeks during the initial 12-week study period. For the open-label extension arm, 74 patients in the active arm and 65 patients in the placebo arm went on to receive 80 mg of ixekizumab every 4 weeks, with a step-up option to every other week dosing depending on clinical response.

Patients were given the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) at baseline and at week 12 and week 52; investigators recorded the mean change for baseline for both the physical and mental component.

Participants also completed the DLQI, which was administered nine times over the 52-week study period.

From baseline, SF-36 scores climbed in both the physical and mental domains for those on ixekizumab, wrote Dr. Guenther and her coinvestigators, with “improvements in all SF-36 domains” for those on ixekizumab at 12 weeks, which continued through week 52. For patients who transitioned to ixekizumab from placebo, “improvements in all SF-36 domains were achieved at week 52,” they wrote.

The mean change from baseline on the SF-36 for the ixekizumab population was 3.5 on the physical domain and 4.8 on the mental component. For the placebo-ixekizumab group, scores improved by a mean 4.5 on the physical domain and 4.9 on the mental domain. Those who stayed on ixekizumab saw some decline in SF-36 scores, with a physical component improvement of 2.5 and mental component improvement of 3.6 at 52 weeks.

Ixekizumab (Taltz), a monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-17A, is approved for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and active psoriatic arthritis..

“Ixekizumab provided clinically meaningful and persistent improvements in HRQoL in patients with moderate to severe genital psoriasis,” wrote Dr. Guenther and her colleagues.

Dr. Guenther and two coauthors reported receiving remuneration from several pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly, which funded the study. Four coauthors are employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly.

[email protected]

MILAN – Health-related quality of life improved for patients with moderate to severe genital psoriasis while they received ixekizumab, according to data presented at the World Congress of Dermatology.

After 12 weeks of ixekizumab administration, nearly half of patients who received ixekizumab in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial achieved a Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of 0 or 1, compared with fewer than 5% of those receiving placebo. At the end of one year, 46.7% of the original ixekizumab group and 50.8% of those who transitioned to ixekizumab from placebo via an open-label extension arm achieved a DLQI of 0 or 1. A DLQI score of 0 or 1 on a 30-point scale indicated that psoriasis had no effect on health-related quality of life.

Among patients with plaque psoriasis, genital involvement is common – present in over 60% at some point during the disease course, Lyn Guenther, MD, of Guenther Dermatology Research Centre, London, Ont., and her colleagues wrote in the poster accompanying the presentation. Sexual health and overall quality of life can be negatively affected by genital psoriasis, they added.

In the study, adult patients were included if they had chronic plaque psoriasis present in genital and nongenital areas. For overall psoriasis and genital involvement, the Static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) was 3 or greater, and total body surface area involvement was at least 1%. Also, patients had to have failed or been intolerant to at least one topical therapy for genital psoriasis.

Patients were excluded if they had genital pustules or vesicles, significant uncontrolled medical or psychiatric comorbidities, recent infection, or prior interleukin-17 antagonist treatment.

In all, patients received ixekizumab 160 mg (75 patients) or placebo (74) subcutaneously every 2 weeks during the initial 12-week study period. For the open-label extension arm, 74 patients in the active arm and 65 patients in the placebo arm went on to receive 80 mg of ixekizumab every 4 weeks, with a step-up option to every other week dosing depending on clinical response.

Patients were given the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) at baseline and at week 12 and week 52; investigators recorded the mean change for baseline for both the physical and mental component.

Participants also completed the DLQI, which was administered nine times over the 52-week study period.

From baseline, SF-36 scores climbed in both the physical and mental domains for those on ixekizumab, wrote Dr. Guenther and her coinvestigators, with “improvements in all SF-36 domains” for those on ixekizumab at 12 weeks, which continued through week 52. For patients who transitioned to ixekizumab from placebo, “improvements in all SF-36 domains were achieved at week 52,” they wrote.

The mean change from baseline on the SF-36 for the ixekizumab population was 3.5 on the physical domain and 4.8 on the mental component. For the placebo-ixekizumab group, scores improved by a mean 4.5 on the physical domain and 4.9 on the mental domain. Those who stayed on ixekizumab saw some decline in SF-36 scores, with a physical component improvement of 2.5 and mental component improvement of 3.6 at 52 weeks.

Ixekizumab (Taltz), a monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-17A, is approved for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and active psoriatic arthritis..

“Ixekizumab provided clinically meaningful and persistent improvements in HRQoL in patients with moderate to severe genital psoriasis,” wrote Dr. Guenther and her colleagues.

Dr. Guenther and two coauthors reported receiving remuneration from several pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly, which funded the study. Four coauthors are employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly.

[email protected]

MILAN – Health-related quality of life improved for patients with moderate to severe genital psoriasis while they received ixekizumab, according to data presented at the World Congress of Dermatology.

After 12 weeks of ixekizumab administration, nearly half of patients who received ixekizumab in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial achieved a Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of 0 or 1, compared with fewer than 5% of those receiving placebo. At the end of one year, 46.7% of the original ixekizumab group and 50.8% of those who transitioned to ixekizumab from placebo via an open-label extension arm achieved a DLQI of 0 or 1. A DLQI score of 0 or 1 on a 30-point scale indicated that psoriasis had no effect on health-related quality of life.

Among patients with plaque psoriasis, genital involvement is common – present in over 60% at some point during the disease course, Lyn Guenther, MD, of Guenther Dermatology Research Centre, London, Ont., and her colleagues wrote in the poster accompanying the presentation. Sexual health and overall quality of life can be negatively affected by genital psoriasis, they added.

In the study, adult patients were included if they had chronic plaque psoriasis present in genital and nongenital areas. For overall psoriasis and genital involvement, the Static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) was 3 or greater, and total body surface area involvement was at least 1%. Also, patients had to have failed or been intolerant to at least one topical therapy for genital psoriasis.

Patients were excluded if they had genital pustules or vesicles, significant uncontrolled medical or psychiatric comorbidities, recent infection, or prior interleukin-17 antagonist treatment.

In all, patients received ixekizumab 160 mg (75 patients) or placebo (74) subcutaneously every 2 weeks during the initial 12-week study period. For the open-label extension arm, 74 patients in the active arm and 65 patients in the placebo arm went on to receive 80 mg of ixekizumab every 4 weeks, with a step-up option to every other week dosing depending on clinical response.

Patients were given the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) at baseline and at week 12 and week 52; investigators recorded the mean change for baseline for both the physical and mental component.

Participants also completed the DLQI, which was administered nine times over the 52-week study period.

From baseline, SF-36 scores climbed in both the physical and mental domains for those on ixekizumab, wrote Dr. Guenther and her coinvestigators, with “improvements in all SF-36 domains” for those on ixekizumab at 12 weeks, which continued through week 52. For patients who transitioned to ixekizumab from placebo, “improvements in all SF-36 domains were achieved at week 52,” they wrote.

The mean change from baseline on the SF-36 for the ixekizumab population was 3.5 on the physical domain and 4.8 on the mental component. For the placebo-ixekizumab group, scores improved by a mean 4.5 on the physical domain and 4.9 on the mental domain. Those who stayed on ixekizumab saw some decline in SF-36 scores, with a physical component improvement of 2.5 and mental component improvement of 3.6 at 52 weeks.

Ixekizumab (Taltz), a monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-17A, is approved for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and active psoriatic arthritis..

“Ixekizumab provided clinically meaningful and persistent improvements in HRQoL in patients with moderate to severe genital psoriasis,” wrote Dr. Guenther and her colleagues.

Dr. Guenther and two coauthors reported receiving remuneration from several pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly, which funded the study. Four coauthors are employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly.

[email protected]

Management of psoriasis as a systemic disease: What is the evidence?

Korman NJ. Br J Dermatol. 2019 Jun 21.

This narrative review explores the pathophysiological relationship between psoriasis and its common comorbidities and discusses the need for new treatment paradigms that include strategies to reduce systemic inflammation in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

Managing Psoriasis in Patients with HBV or HCV Infection: Practical Considerations.

Piaserico S, Messina F, Russo FP. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2019 Jun 20.

It has been estimated that two billion individuals are infected with HBV worldwide and approximately 240 million have chronic HBV infection. Moreover, there are approximately 71 million individuals with chronic HCV infection worldwide, with a high percentage of them unaware of being infected. As patients with HBV and HCV infections are excluded from controlled clinical trials investigating new drugs, data regarding their safety in patients with psoriasis are based almost exclusively on case reports and small retrospective cohort studies and need to be constantly updated.

Effects of Online Care on Functional and Psychological Outcomes in Patients with Psoriasis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Young PM, Chen AY, Ford AR, Cheng MY, Lane CJ, Armstrong AW. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Jun 5.

The impact of online care on patients' functional and psychological outcomes is critical to determine yet still unknown. This 12-month randomized controlled equivalency trial evaluated how a novel online health model that facilitates physician-patient collaboration compares with in-person care for improving psoriasis patients' functional status and mental health.

Feasibility and Utility of the Psoriasis Symptom Inventory (PSI) in Clinical Care Settings: A Study from the International Psoriasis Council.

Strober B, van de Kerkhof PCM, Callis Duffin K, et al.  Am J Clin Dermatol. 2019 Jun 21.

The Psoriasis Symptom Inventory (PSI) is a patient-reported outcome measure designed to assess psoriasis signs and symptoms. The aim of the study was to assess the usefulness of the PSI in enhancing patient care in the clinical setting. Eight dermatology clinics in six countries enrolled adults representing the full spectrum of psoriasis severity who regularly received care at the clinic. Key benefits of PSI discussions included the following: new information regarding symptom location and severity for physicians; prompting of quality-of-life discussions; better understanding of patient treatment priorities; change in treatment regimens to target specific symptoms or areas; and improvement of patient-physician relationship.

Socioeconomic Costs and Health Inequalities from Psoriasis: A Cohort Study.

Thomsen SF, Skov L, Dodge R, Hedegaard MS, Kjellberg J. Dermatology. 2019 Jun 25:1-8.  

Incentives for health care management based on patient-related outcomes and value (IMPROVE) in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis is a project aimed at assisting movement from activity-based to outcome-based health care management. One of the key objectives in IMPROVE is to describe the disease-associated socioeconomic burden of psoriasis. The IMPROVE study was a retrospective analysis of patients with a hospital diagnosis of psoriasis identified from the Danish National Patient Registry.

Management of psoriasis as a systemic disease: What is the evidence?

Korman NJ. Br J Dermatol. 2019 Jun 21.

This narrative review explores the pathophysiological relationship between psoriasis and its common comorbidities and discusses the need for new treatment paradigms that include strategies to reduce systemic inflammation in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

Managing Psoriasis in Patients with HBV or HCV Infection: Practical Considerations.

Piaserico S, Messina F, Russo FP. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2019 Jun 20.

It has been estimated that two billion individuals are infected with HBV worldwide and approximately 240 million have chronic HBV infection. Moreover, there are approximately 71 million individuals with chronic HCV infection worldwide, with a high percentage of them unaware of being infected. As patients with HBV and HCV infections are excluded from controlled clinical trials investigating new drugs, data regarding their safety in patients with psoriasis are based almost exclusively on case reports and small retrospective cohort studies and need to be constantly updated.

Effects of Online Care on Functional and Psychological Outcomes in Patients with Psoriasis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Young PM, Chen AY, Ford AR, Cheng MY, Lane CJ, Armstrong AW. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Jun 5.

The impact of online care on patients' functional and psychological outcomes is critical to determine yet still unknown. This 12-month randomized controlled equivalency trial evaluated how a novel online health model that facilitates physician-patient collaboration compares with in-person care for improving psoriasis patients' functional status and mental health.

Feasibility and Utility of the Psoriasis Symptom Inventory (PSI) in Clinical Care Settings: A Study from the International Psoriasis Council.

Strober B, van de Kerkhof PCM, Callis Duffin K, et al.  Am J Clin Dermatol. 2019 Jun 21.

The Psoriasis Symptom Inventory (PSI) is a patient-reported outcome measure designed to assess psoriasis signs and symptoms. The aim of the study was to assess the usefulness of the PSI in enhancing patient care in the clinical setting. Eight dermatology clinics in six countries enrolled adults representing the full spectrum of psoriasis severity who regularly received care at the clinic. Key benefits of PSI discussions included the following: new information regarding symptom location and severity for physicians; prompting of quality-of-life discussions; better understanding of patient treatment priorities; change in treatment regimens to target specific symptoms or areas; and improvement of patient-physician relationship.

Socioeconomic Costs and Health Inequalities from Psoriasis: A Cohort Study.

Thomsen SF, Skov L, Dodge R, Hedegaard MS, Kjellberg J. Dermatology. 2019 Jun 25:1-8.  

Incentives for health care management based on patient-related outcomes and value (IMPROVE) in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis is a project aimed at assisting movement from activity-based to outcome-based health care management. One of the key objectives in IMPROVE is to describe the disease-associated socioeconomic burden of psoriasis. The IMPROVE study was a retrospective analysis of patients with a hospital diagnosis of psoriasis identified from the Danish National Patient Registry.

Management of psoriasis as a systemic disease: What is the evidence?

Korman NJ. Br J Dermatol. 2019 Jun 21.

This narrative review explores the pathophysiological relationship between psoriasis and its common comorbidities and discusses the need for new treatment paradigms that include strategies to reduce systemic inflammation in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

Managing Psoriasis in Patients with HBV or HCV Infection: Practical Considerations.

Piaserico S, Messina F, Russo FP. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2019 Jun 20.

It has been estimated that two billion individuals are infected with HBV worldwide and approximately 240 million have chronic HBV infection. Moreover, there are approximately 71 million individuals with chronic HCV infection worldwide, with a high percentage of them unaware of being infected. As patients with HBV and HCV infections are excluded from controlled clinical trials investigating new drugs, data regarding their safety in patients with psoriasis are based almost exclusively on case reports and small retrospective cohort studies and need to be constantly updated.

Effects of Online Care on Functional and Psychological Outcomes in Patients with Psoriasis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Young PM, Chen AY, Ford AR, Cheng MY, Lane CJ, Armstrong AW. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Jun 5.

The impact of online care on patients' functional and psychological outcomes is critical to determine yet still unknown. This 12-month randomized controlled equivalency trial evaluated how a novel online health model that facilitates physician-patient collaboration compares with in-person care for improving psoriasis patients' functional status and mental health.

Feasibility and Utility of the Psoriasis Symptom Inventory (PSI) in Clinical Care Settings: A Study from the International Psoriasis Council.

Strober B, van de Kerkhof PCM, Callis Duffin K, et al.  Am J Clin Dermatol. 2019 Jun 21.

The Psoriasis Symptom Inventory (PSI) is a patient-reported outcome measure designed to assess psoriasis signs and symptoms. The aim of the study was to assess the usefulness of the PSI in enhancing patient care in the clinical setting. Eight dermatology clinics in six countries enrolled adults representing the full spectrum of psoriasis severity who regularly received care at the clinic. Key benefits of PSI discussions included the following: new information regarding symptom location and severity for physicians; prompting of quality-of-life discussions; better understanding of patient treatment priorities; change in treatment regimens to target specific symptoms or areas; and improvement of patient-physician relationship.

Socioeconomic Costs and Health Inequalities from Psoriasis: A Cohort Study.

Thomsen SF, Skov L, Dodge R, Hedegaard MS, Kjellberg J. Dermatology. 2019 Jun 25:1-8.  

Incentives for health care management based on patient-related outcomes and value (IMPROVE) in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis is a project aimed at assisting movement from activity-based to outcome-based health care management. One of the key objectives in IMPROVE is to describe the disease-associated socioeconomic burden of psoriasis. The IMPROVE study was a retrospective analysis of patients with a hospital diagnosis of psoriasis identified from the Danish National Patient Registry.

To the Editor:

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction against antigens to which the skin’s immune system was previously sensitized. The initial sensitization requires penetration of the antigen through the stratum corneum. Thus, the ability of a particle to cause ACD is related to its molecular structure and size, lipophilicity, and protein-binding affinity, as well as the dose and duration of exposure.¹ Psoriasis typically presents as well-demarcated areas of skin that may be erythematous, indurated, and scaly to variable degrees. Histologically, psoriasis plaques are characterized by epidermal hyperplasia in the presence of a T-cell infiltrate and neutrophilic microabscesses. We report a case of a patient with plaque-type psoriasis who experienced ACD with sparing of exposed psoriatic plaques.

A 45-year-old man with a 5-year history of generalized moderate to severe psoriasis undergoing therapy with ustekinumab 45 mg subcutaneously once every 12 weeks presented to the emergency department with intensely erythematous, pruritic, vesicular lesions on the trunk, arms, and legs within 24 hours of exposure to poison oak while hiking. The patient reported pruritus, pain, and swelling of the affected areas. On physical examination, he was afebrile. Widespread erythematous vesicular lesions were noted on the face, trunk, arms, and legs, sparing the well-demarcated scaly psoriatic plaques on the arms and legs (Figure). The patient was given intravenous fluids and intravenous diphenhydramine. After responding to initial treatment, the patient was discharged with ibuprofen and a tapering dose of oral prednisone from 60 mg 5 times daily, to 40 mg 5 times daily, to 20 mg 5 times daily over 15 days.

Plaque psoriasis is a chronic, immune-mediated, inflammatory disease that presents clinically as erythematous well-demarcated plaques with a micaceous scale. The immunologic environment of psoriasis plaques is characterized by infiltration of CD4⁺ T_H17 cells and elevated levels of IL-17, IL-23, tumor necrosis factor α, and IL-1β, which induce keratinocyte hyperproliferation through a complex mechanism resulting in hyperkeratosis composed of orthokeratosis and parakeratosis, a neutrophilic infiltrate, and Munro microabscesses.⁵

The predominant effector cells and the final effects on keratinocyte survival are divergent in psoriasis and ACD. The possibly antagonistic relationship between these immunologic processes is further supported by epidemiologic studies demonstrating a decreased incidence of ACD in patients with psoriasis.^6,7

Our patient demonstrated a typical ACD reaction in response to exposure to urushiol, the allergen present in poison oak, in areas unaffected by psoriasis plaques. Interestingly, the patient displayed this response even while undergoing therapy with ustekinumab, a fully humanized antibody that binds IL-12 and IL-23 and ultimately downregulates T_H17 cell-mediated release of IL-17 in the treatment of psoriasis. Although IL-17 also has been implicated in ACD, the lack of inhibition of ACD with ustekinumab treatment was previously demonstrated in a small retrospective study, indicating a potentially different source of IL-17 in ACD.⁸

Our patient did not demonstrate a typical ACD response in areas of active psoriasis plaques. This phenomenon was of great interest to us. It is possible that the presence of hyperkeratosis, manifested clinically as scaling, served as a mechanical barrier preventing the diffusion and exposure of cutaneous immune cells to urushiol. On the other hand, it is possible that the immunologic environment of the active psoriasis plaque was altered in such a way that it did not demonstrate the typical response to allergen exposure.

We hypothesize that the lack of a typical ACD response at sites of psoriatic plaques in our patient may be attributed to the intensity and duration of exposure to the allergen. Quaranta et al⁹ reported a typical ACD clinical response and a mixed immunohistologic response to nickel patch testing at sites of active plaques in nickel-sensitized psoriasis patients. Patch testing involves 48 hours of direct contact with an allergen, while our patient experienced an estimated 8 to 10 hours of exposure to the allergen prior to removal via washing. Supporting this line of reasoning, a proportion of patients who are responsive to nickel patch testing do not exhibit clinical symptoms in response to casual nickel exposure.¹⁰ Although a physical barrier effect due to hyperkeratosis may have contributed to the lack of ACD response in sites of psoriasis plaques in our patient, it remains possible that a more limited duration of exposure to the allergen is not sufficient to overcome the native immunologic milieu of the psoriasis plaque and induce the immunologic cascade resulting in ACD. Further research into the potentially antagonistic relationship of psoriasis and ACD should be performed to elucidate the interaction between these two common conditions.

To the Editor:

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction against antigens to which the skin’s immune system was previously sensitized. The initial sensitization requires penetration of the antigen through the stratum corneum. Thus, the ability of a particle to cause ACD is related to its molecular structure and size, lipophilicity, and protein-binding affinity, as well as the dose and duration of exposure.¹ Psoriasis typically presents as well-demarcated areas of skin that may be erythematous, indurated, and scaly to variable degrees. Histologically, psoriasis plaques are characterized by epidermal hyperplasia in the presence of a T-cell infiltrate and neutrophilic microabscesses. We report a case of a patient with plaque-type psoriasis who experienced ACD with sparing of exposed psoriatic plaques.

A 45-year-old man with a 5-year history of generalized moderate to severe psoriasis undergoing therapy with ustekinumab 45 mg subcutaneously once every 12 weeks presented to the emergency department with intensely erythematous, pruritic, vesicular lesions on the trunk, arms, and legs within 24 hours of exposure to poison oak while hiking. The patient reported pruritus, pain, and swelling of the affected areas. On physical examination, he was afebrile. Widespread erythematous vesicular lesions were noted on the face, trunk, arms, and legs, sparing the well-demarcated scaly psoriatic plaques on the arms and legs (Figure). The patient was given intravenous fluids and intravenous diphenhydramine. After responding to initial treatment, the patient was discharged with ibuprofen and a tapering dose of oral prednisone from 60 mg 5 times daily, to 40 mg 5 times daily, to 20 mg 5 times daily over 15 days.

Plaque psoriasis is a chronic, immune-mediated, inflammatory disease that presents clinically as erythematous well-demarcated plaques with a micaceous scale. The immunologic environment of psoriasis plaques is characterized by infiltration of CD4⁺ T_H17 cells and elevated levels of IL-17, IL-23, tumor necrosis factor α, and IL-1β, which induce keratinocyte hyperproliferation through a complex mechanism resulting in hyperkeratosis composed of orthokeratosis and parakeratosis, a neutrophilic infiltrate, and Munro microabscesses.⁵

The predominant effector cells and the final effects on keratinocyte survival are divergent in psoriasis and ACD. The possibly antagonistic relationship between these immunologic processes is further supported by epidemiologic studies demonstrating a decreased incidence of ACD in patients with psoriasis.^6,7

Our patient demonstrated a typical ACD reaction in response to exposure to urushiol, the allergen present in poison oak, in areas unaffected by psoriasis plaques. Interestingly, the patient displayed this response even while undergoing therapy with ustekinumab, a fully humanized antibody that binds IL-12 and IL-23 and ultimately downregulates T_H17 cell-mediated release of IL-17 in the treatment of psoriasis. Although IL-17 also has been implicated in ACD, the lack of inhibition of ACD with ustekinumab treatment was previously demonstrated in a small retrospective study, indicating a potentially different source of IL-17 in ACD.⁸

Our patient did not demonstrate a typical ACD response in areas of active psoriasis plaques. This phenomenon was of great interest to us. It is possible that the presence of hyperkeratosis, manifested clinically as scaling, served as a mechanical barrier preventing the diffusion and exposure of cutaneous immune cells to urushiol. On the other hand, it is possible that the immunologic environment of the active psoriasis plaque was altered in such a way that it did not demonstrate the typical response to allergen exposure.

We hypothesize that the lack of a typical ACD response at sites of psoriatic plaques in our patient may be attributed to the intensity and duration of exposure to the allergen. Quaranta et al⁹ reported a typical ACD clinical response and a mixed immunohistologic response to nickel patch testing at sites of active plaques in nickel-sensitized psoriasis patients. Patch testing involves 48 hours of direct contact with an allergen, while our patient experienced an estimated 8 to 10 hours of exposure to the allergen prior to removal via washing. Supporting this line of reasoning, a proportion of patients who are responsive to nickel patch testing do not exhibit clinical symptoms in response to casual nickel exposure.¹⁰ Although a physical barrier effect due to hyperkeratosis may have contributed to the lack of ACD response in sites of psoriasis plaques in our patient, it remains possible that a more limited duration of exposure to the allergen is not sufficient to overcome the native immunologic milieu of the psoriasis plaque and induce the immunologic cascade resulting in ACD. Further research into the potentially antagonistic relationship of psoriasis and ACD should be performed to elucidate the interaction between these two common conditions.

To the Editor:

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction against antigens to which the skin’s immune system was previously sensitized. The initial sensitization requires penetration of the antigen through the stratum corneum. Thus, the ability of a particle to cause ACD is related to its molecular structure and size, lipophilicity, and protein-binding affinity, as well as the dose and duration of exposure.¹ Psoriasis typically presents as well-demarcated areas of skin that may be erythematous, indurated, and scaly to variable degrees. Histologically, psoriasis plaques are characterized by epidermal hyperplasia in the presence of a T-cell infiltrate and neutrophilic microabscesses. We report a case of a patient with plaque-type psoriasis who experienced ACD with sparing of exposed psoriatic plaques.

A 45-year-old man with a 5-year history of generalized moderate to severe psoriasis undergoing therapy with ustekinumab 45 mg subcutaneously once every 12 weeks presented to the emergency department with intensely erythematous, pruritic, vesicular lesions on the trunk, arms, and legs within 24 hours of exposure to poison oak while hiking. The patient reported pruritus, pain, and swelling of the affected areas. On physical examination, he was afebrile. Widespread erythematous vesicular lesions were noted on the face, trunk, arms, and legs, sparing the well-demarcated scaly psoriatic plaques on the arms and legs (Figure). The patient was given intravenous fluids and intravenous diphenhydramine. After responding to initial treatment, the patient was discharged with ibuprofen and a tapering dose of oral prednisone from 60 mg 5 times daily, to 40 mg 5 times daily, to 20 mg 5 times daily over 15 days.

Plaque psoriasis is a chronic, immune-mediated, inflammatory disease that presents clinically as erythematous well-demarcated plaques with a micaceous scale. The immunologic environment of psoriasis plaques is characterized by infiltration of CD4⁺ T_H17 cells and elevated levels of IL-17, IL-23, tumor necrosis factor α, and IL-1β, which induce keratinocyte hyperproliferation through a complex mechanism resulting in hyperkeratosis composed of orthokeratosis and parakeratosis, a neutrophilic infiltrate, and Munro microabscesses.⁵

The predominant effector cells and the final effects on keratinocyte survival are divergent in psoriasis and ACD. The possibly antagonistic relationship between these immunologic processes is further supported by epidemiologic studies demonstrating a decreased incidence of ACD in patients with psoriasis.^6,7

Our patient demonstrated a typical ACD reaction in response to exposure to urushiol, the allergen present in poison oak, in areas unaffected by psoriasis plaques. Interestingly, the patient displayed this response even while undergoing therapy with ustekinumab, a fully humanized antibody that binds IL-12 and IL-23 and ultimately downregulates T_H17 cell-mediated release of IL-17 in the treatment of psoriasis. Although IL-17 also has been implicated in ACD, the lack of inhibition of ACD with ustekinumab treatment was previously demonstrated in a small retrospective study, indicating a potentially different source of IL-17 in ACD.⁸

Our patient did not demonstrate a typical ACD response in areas of active psoriasis plaques. This phenomenon was of great interest to us. It is possible that the presence of hyperkeratosis, manifested clinically as scaling, served as a mechanical barrier preventing the diffusion and exposure of cutaneous immune cells to urushiol. On the other hand, it is possible that the immunologic environment of the active psoriasis plaque was altered in such a way that it did not demonstrate the typical response to allergen exposure.

We hypothesize that the lack of a typical ACD response at sites of psoriatic plaques in our patient may be attributed to the intensity and duration of exposure to the allergen. Quaranta et al⁹ reported a typical ACD clinical response and a mixed immunohistologic response to nickel patch testing at sites of active plaques in nickel-sensitized psoriasis patients. Patch testing involves 48 hours of direct contact with an allergen, while our patient experienced an estimated 8 to 10 hours of exposure to the allergen prior to removal via washing. Supporting this line of reasoning, a proportion of patients who are responsive to nickel patch testing do not exhibit clinical symptoms in response to casual nickel exposure.¹⁰ Although a physical barrier effect due to hyperkeratosis may have contributed to the lack of ACD response in sites of psoriasis plaques in our patient, it remains possible that a more limited duration of exposure to the allergen is not sufficient to overcome the native immunologic milieu of the psoriasis plaque and induce the immunologic cascade resulting in ACD. Further research into the potentially antagonistic relationship of psoriasis and ACD should be performed to elucidate the interaction between these two common conditions.

MILAN – Biologics are underprescribed in the elderly, despite evidence that efficacy of biologics is comparable among older and younger patients over time, an analysis of German and Swiss registry data shows.

There was an “imbalance” in the types of medications prescribed for older and younger patients in the registry, with biologics used more frequently in younger patients, according to investigator Matthias Augustin, MD, director of the Institute For Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing in Hamburg, Germany.

However, the efficacy of systemic treatments, including nonbiologic therapies, was comparable between older and younger patients, other than a few differences in response rates early in treatment that disappeared with longer follow-up, Dr. Augustin said at the World Congress of Dermatology. Coupled with evidence from the medical literature, results of this registry data analysis suggest there are “very few reasons” to avoid use of systemic drugs in elderly patients.

“I think we should create awareness and discuss possible reasons that deter dermatologists from prescribing systemic antipsoriatics in elderly patients,” he said.

Concerns about safety and drug interactions in the elderly may be one barrier to prescribing systemic therapy in this patient population: More data on this issue are needed, since the elderly are taking more medications than younger patients and have more contraindications, Dr. Augustin said. “I think this is a job for all registries for the future.”

Older individuals have typically been excluded from psoriasis clinical trials, making it difficult to extrapolate existing safety and efficacy data to those patients, he pointed out.

Accordingly, Dr. Augustin and coinvestigators evaluated prospectively collected data for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis who were included in either the German Psoriasis registry (PsoBest) or the Swiss Dermatology Network for Targeted Therapies (SDNTT). They split the cohort into a control group of those younger than 65 years (about 4,600 individuals) and those 65 years or older (about 740 individuals).

A few systemic drugs were used more frequently in the elderly, including apremilast and methotrexate, while most other drugs, including biologics, were used more frequently in younger patients, Dr. Augustin and colleagues found in their analysis. There were a few differences between the elderly and controls related to weight, smoking, and other factors, but not so pronounced that they would explain differences in the use of the systemic therapy.

Response rates to systemic therapies were generally comparable between the elderly and controls, as measured by Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 75 responses, PASI scores of 3 or less, and Dermatology Life Quality Index scores of one or less, he added.

One exception was methotrexate, which was more effective in the elderly after 3 and 6 months of treatment, but that difference was no longer apparent after 12 months of treatment, he said. Likewise, cyclosporine showed a higher response rate in younger patients at 3 months, but not at 6 or 12 months.

Based on the findings, “overall, we observed comparable responses between the controls and the elderly,” Dr. Augustin concluded.

The PsoBest registry is sponsored by CVderm, DDG, and BVDD, and “has been established and is operated in close cooperation with the involved pharmaceutical companies whose statutory pharmacovigilance requirements are taken into account,” according to a statement on the PsoBest website. The Swiss registry is supported by Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Celgene, Lilly, and Novartis. The investigators did not report any disclosures.

MILAN – Biologics are underprescribed in the elderly, despite evidence that efficacy of biologics is comparable among older and younger patients over time, an analysis of German and Swiss registry data shows.

There was an “imbalance” in the types of medications prescribed for older and younger patients in the registry, with biologics used more frequently in younger patients, according to investigator Matthias Augustin, MD, director of the Institute For Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing in Hamburg, Germany.

However, the efficacy of systemic treatments, including nonbiologic therapies, was comparable between older and younger patients, other than a few differences in response rates early in treatment that disappeared with longer follow-up, Dr. Augustin said at the World Congress of Dermatology. Coupled with evidence from the medical literature, results of this registry data analysis suggest there are “very few reasons” to avoid use of systemic drugs in elderly patients.

“I think we should create awareness and discuss possible reasons that deter dermatologists from prescribing systemic antipsoriatics in elderly patients,” he said.

Concerns about safety and drug interactions in the elderly may be one barrier to prescribing systemic therapy in this patient population: More data on this issue are needed, since the elderly are taking more medications than younger patients and have more contraindications, Dr. Augustin said. “I think this is a job for all registries for the future.”

Older individuals have typically been excluded from psoriasis clinical trials, making it difficult to extrapolate existing safety and efficacy data to those patients, he pointed out.

Accordingly, Dr. Augustin and coinvestigators evaluated prospectively collected data for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis who were included in either the German Psoriasis registry (PsoBest) or the Swiss Dermatology Network for Targeted Therapies (SDNTT). They split the cohort into a control group of those younger than 65 years (about 4,600 individuals) and those 65 years or older (about 740 individuals).

A few systemic drugs were used more frequently in the elderly, including apremilast and methotrexate, while most other drugs, including biologics, were used more frequently in younger patients, Dr. Augustin and colleagues found in their analysis. There were a few differences between the elderly and controls related to weight, smoking, and other factors, but not so pronounced that they would explain differences in the use of the systemic therapy.

Response rates to systemic therapies were generally comparable between the elderly and controls, as measured by Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 75 responses, PASI scores of 3 or less, and Dermatology Life Quality Index scores of one or less, he added.

One exception was methotrexate, which was more effective in the elderly after 3 and 6 months of treatment, but that difference was no longer apparent after 12 months of treatment, he said. Likewise, cyclosporine showed a higher response rate in younger patients at 3 months, but not at 6 or 12 months.

Based on the findings, “overall, we observed comparable responses between the controls and the elderly,” Dr. Augustin concluded.

The PsoBest registry is sponsored by CVderm, DDG, and BVDD, and “has been established and is operated in close cooperation with the involved pharmaceutical companies whose statutory pharmacovigilance requirements are taken into account,” according to a statement on the PsoBest website. The Swiss registry is supported by Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Celgene, Lilly, and Novartis. The investigators did not report any disclosures.

MILAN – Biologics are underprescribed in the elderly, despite evidence that efficacy of biologics is comparable among older and younger patients over time, an analysis of German and Swiss registry data shows.

There was an “imbalance” in the types of medications prescribed for older and younger patients in the registry, with biologics used more frequently in younger patients, according to investigator Matthias Augustin, MD, director of the Institute For Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing in Hamburg, Germany.

However, the efficacy of systemic treatments, including nonbiologic therapies, was comparable between older and younger patients, other than a few differences in response rates early in treatment that disappeared with longer follow-up, Dr. Augustin said at the World Congress of Dermatology. Coupled with evidence from the medical literature, results of this registry data analysis suggest there are “very few reasons” to avoid use of systemic drugs in elderly patients.

“I think we should create awareness and discuss possible reasons that deter dermatologists from prescribing systemic antipsoriatics in elderly patients,” he said.

Concerns about safety and drug interactions in the elderly may be one barrier to prescribing systemic therapy in this patient population: More data on this issue are needed, since the elderly are taking more medications than younger patients and have more contraindications, Dr. Augustin said. “I think this is a job for all registries for the future.”

Older individuals have typically been excluded from psoriasis clinical trials, making it difficult to extrapolate existing safety and efficacy data to those patients, he pointed out.

Accordingly, Dr. Augustin and coinvestigators evaluated prospectively collected data for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis who were included in either the German Psoriasis registry (PsoBest) or the Swiss Dermatology Network for Targeted Therapies (SDNTT). They split the cohort into a control group of those younger than 65 years (about 4,600 individuals) and those 65 years or older (about 740 individuals).

A few systemic drugs were used more frequently in the elderly, including apremilast and methotrexate, while most other drugs, including biologics, were used more frequently in younger patients, Dr. Augustin and colleagues found in their analysis. There were a few differences between the elderly and controls related to weight, smoking, and other factors, but not so pronounced that they would explain differences in the use of the systemic therapy.

Response rates to systemic therapies were generally comparable between the elderly and controls, as measured by Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 75 responses, PASI scores of 3 or less, and Dermatology Life Quality Index scores of one or less, he added.

One exception was methotrexate, which was more effective in the elderly after 3 and 6 months of treatment, but that difference was no longer apparent after 12 months of treatment, he said. Likewise, cyclosporine showed a higher response rate in younger patients at 3 months, but not at 6 or 12 months.

Based on the findings, “overall, we observed comparable responses between the controls and the elderly,” Dr. Augustin concluded.

The PsoBest registry is sponsored by CVderm, DDG, and BVDD, and “has been established and is operated in close cooperation with the involved pharmaceutical companies whose statutory pharmacovigilance requirements are taken into account,” according to a statement on the PsoBest website. The Swiss registry is supported by Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Celgene, Lilly, and Novartis. The investigators did not report any disclosures.

Phototherapy has been used to treat skin diseases for millennia. From the Incas to the ancient Greeks and Egyptians, nearly every major civilization has attempted to harness the sun, with some even worshipping it for its healing powers.¹ Today, phototherapy remains as important as ever. Despite the technological advances that have brought about biologic medications, small molecule inhibitors, and elegant vehicle delivery systems, phototherapy continues to be a valuable tool in the dermatologist’s armamentarium.

Patient Access to Phototherapy

An important step in successfully managing any disease is access to treatment. In today’s health care landscape, therapeutic decisions frequently are dictated by a patient’s financial situation as well as by the discretion of payers. Costly medications such as biologics often are not accessible to patients on government insurance who fall into the Medicare “donut hole” and may be denied by insurance companies for a myriad of reasons. Luckily, phototherapy typically is well covered and is even a first-line treatment option for some conditions, such as mycosis fungoides.

Nevertheless, phototherapy also has its own unique accessibility hurdles. The time-consuming nature of office-based phototherapy treatment is the main barrier, and many patients find it difficult to incorporate treatments into their daily lives. Additionally, office-based phototherapy units often are clustered in major cities, making access more difficult for rural patients. Because light-responsive conditions often are chronic and may require a lifetime of treatment, home phototherapy units are now being recognized as cost-effective treatment options and are increasingly covered by insurance. In fact, one study comparing psoriasis patients treated with home narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) vs outpatient NB-UVB found that in-home treatment was equally as effective as office-based treatment at a similar cost.² Because studies comparing the effectiveness of office-based vs home-based phototherapy treatment are underway for various other diseases, hopefully more patients will be able to receive home units, thus increasing access to safe and effective treatment.

Wide Range of Treatment Indications

Another merit of phototherapy is its ability to be used in almost all patient populations. It is one of the few modalities whose indications span the entire length of the human lifetime—from pediatric atopic dermatitis to chronic pruritus in elderly patients. Phototherapy also is one of the few treatment options that is safe to use in patients with an active malignancy or in patients who have multiple other medical conditions. Comorbidities including congestive heart failure, chronic infections, and demyelinating disorders often prevent the use of oral and injectable medications for immune-mediated disorders such as psoriasis or atopic dermatitis. In patients with multiple comorbidities whose disease remains uncontrolled despite an adequate topical regimen, phototherapy is one of the few effective treatment options that remain. Additionally, there is a considerable number of patients who prefer external treatments for cutaneous diseases. For these patients, phototherapy offers the opportunity to control skin conditions without the use of an internal medication.

Favorable Safety Profile

Phototherapy is a largely benign intervention with an excellent safety profile. Its main potential adverse events include erythema, pruritus, xerosis, recurrence of herpes simplex virus infection, and premature skin aging. The effects of phototherapy on skin carcinogenesis have long been controversial; however, data suggest a clear distinction in risk between treatment with NB-UVB and psoralen plus UVA (PUVA). A systematic review of psoriasis patients treated with phototherapy found no evidence to suggest an increased risk of melanoma or nonmelanoma skin cancer with NB-UVB treatment.³ The same cannot be said for psoriasis patients treated with PUVA, who were noted to have a higher incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer than the general population. This increased risk was more substantial in American cohorts than in European cohorts, likely due to multiple factors including variable skin types and treatment regimens. Increased rates of melanoma also were noted in American PUVA cohorts, with no similar increase seen in their European counterparts.³

Broad vs Targeted Therapies

Targeted therapies have dominated the health care landscape over the last few years, with the majority of new medications being highly focused and only efficacious in a few conditions. One of phototherapy’s greatest strengths is its lack of specificity. Because the field of dermatology is filled with rare, overlapping, and often poorly understood diseases, nonspecific treatment options are needed to fill the gaps. Many generalized skin conditions may lack treatment options indicated by the US Food and Drug Administration. Phototherapy is the ultimate untargeted intervention and may be broadly used for a wide range of cutaneous conditions. Although classically utilized for atopic dermatitis and psoriasis, NB-UVB also can effectively treat generalized pruritus, vitiligo, urticaria, and seborrheic dermatitis.⁴ Not to be outdone, PUVA has shown success in treating more than 50 different dermatologic conditions including lichen planus, alopecia areata, and mycosis fungoides.⁵ Although highly specific and targeted medications will continue to dominate the innovative dermatology treatment landscape, broadly effective treatments such as phototherapy will remain effective when disease states stray from their textbook pathophysiology.

Final Thoughts

Phototherapy is a safe, accessible, and widely applicable treatment for a range of cutaneous disorders. Although more precisely engineered internal therapies have begun to replace UV light in psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, phototherapy likely will always remain an ideal treatment for a wide cohort of patients. Between increased access to home units and the continued validation of its excellent safety record, the future of phototherapy is looking bright.

Phototherapy has been used to treat skin diseases for millennia. From the Incas to the ancient Greeks and Egyptians, nearly every major civilization has attempted to harness the sun, with some even worshipping it for its healing powers.¹ Today, phototherapy remains as important as ever. Despite the technological advances that have brought about biologic medications, small molecule inhibitors, and elegant vehicle delivery systems, phototherapy continues to be a valuable tool in the dermatologist’s armamentarium.

Patient Access to Phototherapy

An important step in successfully managing any disease is access to treatment. In today’s health care landscape, therapeutic decisions frequently are dictated by a patient’s financial situation as well as by the discretion of payers. Costly medications such as biologics often are not accessible to patients on government insurance who fall into the Medicare “donut hole” and may be denied by insurance companies for a myriad of reasons. Luckily, phototherapy typically is well covered and is even a first-line treatment option for some conditions, such as mycosis fungoides.

Nevertheless, phototherapy also has its own unique accessibility hurdles. The time-consuming nature of office-based phototherapy treatment is the main barrier, and many patients find it difficult to incorporate treatments into their daily lives. Additionally, office-based phototherapy units often are clustered in major cities, making access more difficult for rural patients. Because light-responsive conditions often are chronic and may require a lifetime of treatment, home phototherapy units are now being recognized as cost-effective treatment options and are increasingly covered by insurance. In fact, one study comparing psoriasis patients treated with home narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) vs outpatient NB-UVB found that in-home treatment was equally as effective as office-based treatment at a similar cost.² Because studies comparing the effectiveness of office-based vs home-based phototherapy treatment are underway for various other diseases, hopefully more patients will be able to receive home units, thus increasing access to safe and effective treatment.

Wide Range of Treatment Indications

Another merit of phototherapy is its ability to be used in almost all patient populations. It is one of the few modalities whose indications span the entire length of the human lifetime—from pediatric atopic dermatitis to chronic pruritus in elderly patients. Phototherapy also is one of the few treatment options that is safe to use in patients with an active malignancy or in patients who have multiple other medical conditions. Comorbidities including congestive heart failure, chronic infections, and demyelinating disorders often prevent the use of oral and injectable medications for immune-mediated disorders such as psoriasis or atopic dermatitis. In patients with multiple comorbidities whose disease remains uncontrolled despite an adequate topical regimen, phototherapy is one of the few effective treatment options that remain. Additionally, there is a considerable number of patients who prefer external treatments for cutaneous diseases. For these patients, phototherapy offers the opportunity to control skin conditions without the use of an internal medication.

Favorable Safety Profile

Phototherapy is a largely benign intervention with an excellent safety profile. Its main potential adverse events include erythema, pruritus, xerosis, recurrence of herpes simplex virus infection, and premature skin aging. The effects of phototherapy on skin carcinogenesis have long been controversial; however, data suggest a clear distinction in risk between treatment with NB-UVB and psoralen plus UVA (PUVA). A systematic review of psoriasis patients treated with phototherapy found no evidence to suggest an increased risk of melanoma or nonmelanoma skin cancer with NB-UVB treatment.³ The same cannot be said for psoriasis patients treated with PUVA, who were noted to have a higher incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer than the general population. This increased risk was more substantial in American cohorts than in European cohorts, likely due to multiple factors including variable skin types and treatment regimens. Increased rates of melanoma also were noted in American PUVA cohorts, with no similar increase seen in their European counterparts.³

Broad vs Targeted Therapies

Targeted therapies have dominated the health care landscape over the last few years, with the majority of new medications being highly focused and only efficacious in a few conditions. One of phototherapy’s greatest strengths is its lack of specificity. Because the field of dermatology is filled with rare, overlapping, and often poorly understood diseases, nonspecific treatment options are needed to fill the gaps. Many generalized skin conditions may lack treatment options indicated by the US Food and Drug Administration. Phototherapy is the ultimate untargeted intervention and may be broadly used for a wide range of cutaneous conditions. Although classically utilized for atopic dermatitis and psoriasis, NB-UVB also can effectively treat generalized pruritus, vitiligo, urticaria, and seborrheic dermatitis.⁴ Not to be outdone, PUVA has shown success in treating more than 50 different dermatologic conditions including lichen planus, alopecia areata, and mycosis fungoides.⁵ Although highly specific and targeted medications will continue to dominate the innovative dermatology treatment landscape, broadly effective treatments such as phototherapy will remain effective when disease states stray from their textbook pathophysiology.

Final Thoughts

Phototherapy is a safe, accessible, and widely applicable treatment for a range of cutaneous disorders. Although more precisely engineered internal therapies have begun to replace UV light in psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, phototherapy likely will always remain an ideal treatment for a wide cohort of patients. Between increased access to home units and the continued validation of its excellent safety record, the future of phototherapy is looking bright.

Phototherapy has been used to treat skin diseases for millennia. From the Incas to the ancient Greeks and Egyptians, nearly every major civilization has attempted to harness the sun, with some even worshipping it for its healing powers.¹ Today, phototherapy remains as important as ever. Despite the technological advances that have brought about biologic medications, small molecule inhibitors, and elegant vehicle delivery systems, phototherapy continues to be a valuable tool in the dermatologist’s armamentarium.

Patient Access to Phototherapy

An important step in successfully managing any disease is access to treatment. In today’s health care landscape, therapeutic decisions frequently are dictated by a patient’s financial situation as well as by the discretion of payers. Costly medications such as biologics often are not accessible to patients on government insurance who fall into the Medicare “donut hole” and may be denied by insurance companies for a myriad of reasons. Luckily, phototherapy typically is well covered and is even a first-line treatment option for some conditions, such as mycosis fungoides.

Nevertheless, phototherapy also has its own unique accessibility hurdles. The time-consuming nature of office-based phototherapy treatment is the main barrier, and many patients find it difficult to incorporate treatments into their daily lives. Additionally, office-based phototherapy units often are clustered in major cities, making access more difficult for rural patients. Because light-responsive conditions often are chronic and may require a lifetime of treatment, home phototherapy units are now being recognized as cost-effective treatment options and are increasingly covered by insurance. In fact, one study comparing psoriasis patients treated with home narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) vs outpatient NB-UVB found that in-home treatment was equally as effective as office-based treatment at a similar cost.² Because studies comparing the effectiveness of office-based vs home-based phototherapy treatment are underway for various other diseases, hopefully more patients will be able to receive home units, thus increasing access to safe and effective treatment.

Wide Range of Treatment Indications

Another merit of phototherapy is its ability to be used in almost all patient populations. It is one of the few modalities whose indications span the entire length of the human lifetime—from pediatric atopic dermatitis to chronic pruritus in elderly patients. Phototherapy also is one of the few treatment options that is safe to use in patients with an active malignancy or in patients who have multiple other medical conditions. Comorbidities including congestive heart failure, chronic infections, and demyelinating disorders often prevent the use of oral and injectable medications for immune-mediated disorders such as psoriasis or atopic dermatitis. In patients with multiple comorbidities whose disease remains uncontrolled despite an adequate topical regimen, phototherapy is one of the few effective treatment options that remain. Additionally, there is a considerable number of patients who prefer external treatments for cutaneous diseases. For these patients, phototherapy offers the opportunity to control skin conditions without the use of an internal medication.

Favorable Safety Profile

Phototherapy is a largely benign intervention with an excellent safety profile. Its main potential adverse events include erythema, pruritus, xerosis, recurrence of herpes simplex virus infection, and premature skin aging. The effects of phototherapy on skin carcinogenesis have long been controversial; however, data suggest a clear distinction in risk between treatment with NB-UVB and psoralen plus UVA (PUVA). A systematic review of psoriasis patients treated with phototherapy found no evidence to suggest an increased risk of melanoma or nonmelanoma skin cancer with NB-UVB treatment.³ The same cannot be said for psoriasis patients treated with PUVA, who were noted to have a higher incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer than the general population. This increased risk was more substantial in American cohorts than in European cohorts, likely due to multiple factors including variable skin types and treatment regimens. Increased rates of melanoma also were noted in American PUVA cohorts, with no similar increase seen in their European counterparts.³

Broad vs Targeted Therapies

Targeted therapies have dominated the health care landscape over the last few years, with the majority of new medications being highly focused and only efficacious in a few conditions. One of phototherapy’s greatest strengths is its lack of specificity. Because the field of dermatology is filled with rare, overlapping, and often poorly understood diseases, nonspecific treatment options are needed to fill the gaps. Many generalized skin conditions may lack treatment options indicated by the US Food and Drug Administration. Phototherapy is the ultimate untargeted intervention and may be broadly used for a wide range of cutaneous conditions. Although classically utilized for atopic dermatitis and psoriasis, NB-UVB also can effectively treat generalized pruritus, vitiligo, urticaria, and seborrheic dermatitis.⁴ Not to be outdone, PUVA has shown success in treating more than 50 different dermatologic conditions including lichen planus, alopecia areata, and mycosis fungoides.⁵ Although highly specific and targeted medications will continue to dominate the innovative dermatology treatment landscape, broadly effective treatments such as phototherapy will remain effective when disease states stray from their textbook pathophysiology.

Final Thoughts

Phototherapy is a safe, accessible, and widely applicable treatment for a range of cutaneous disorders. Although more precisely engineered internal therapies have begun to replace UV light in psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, phototherapy likely will always remain an ideal treatment for a wide cohort of patients. Between increased access to home units and the continued validation of its excellent safety record, the future of phototherapy is looking bright.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017¹ has changed military medicine, including substantial reduction in military medical personnel as positions are converted to combat functions. As a result, there will be fewer military dermatologists, which means many US soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines will seek medical care outside of military treatment facilities. This article highlights some unique treatment considerations in this patient population for our civilian dermatology colleagues.

Medical Readiness

In 2015, General Joseph F. Dunford Jr, 19th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made readiness his top priority for the US Armed Forces.² Readiness refers to service members’ ability to deploy to locations across the globe and perform their military duties with little advanced notice, which requires personnel to be medically prepared at all times to leave home and perform their duties in locations with limited medical support.

Medical readiness is maintaining a unit that is medically able to perform its military function both at home and in a deployed environment. Military members’ medical readiness status is carefully tracked and determined via annual physical, dental, hearing, and vision examinations, as well as human immunodeficiency virus status and immunizations. The readiness status of the unit (ie, the number of troops ready to deploy at any given time) is available to commanders at all levels at any time. Each military branch has tracking systems that allow commanders to know when a member is past due for an examination or if a member’s medical status has changed, making them nondeployable. When a member is nondeployable, it affects the unit’s ability to perform its mission and degrades its readiness. If readiness is suboptimal, the military cannot deploy and complete its missions, which is why readiness is a top priority. The primary function of military medicine is to support the medical readiness of the force.

Deployment Eligibility

A unique aspect of military medicine that can be foreign to civilian physicians is the unit commanders’ authority to request and receive information on military members’ medical conditions as they relate to readiness. Under most circumstances, an individual’s medical information is his/her private information; however, that is not always the case in the military. If a member’s medical status changes and he/she becomes nondeployable, by regulation the commander can be privy to pertinent aspects of that member’s medical condition as it affects unit readiness, including the diagnosis, treatment plan, and prognosis. Commanders need this information to aid in the member’s recovery, ensure training does not impact his/her care, and identify possible need of replacement.

Published accession guidelines are used to determine medical eligibility for service.³ These instructions are organized by major organ systems and broad disease categories. They provide guidance on medically disqualifying conditions. The Table outlines those conditions that apply to the skin.³ Individual military branches may have additional regulations with guidance on medically disqualifying conditions that are job specific. Additional regulations also are available based on an area of military operation that can be more restrictive and specific to those locations.⁴

Readiness and Patient Care

Importantly, readiness should not be seen as a roadblock to appropriate patient care. Patients should receive treatment that is appropriate for their medical condition. Much of the difficulty within military medicine is understanding and communicating how the natural disease history, prognosis, and treatment of their respective medical conditions will impact members’ service.

In some cases, the condition and/or treatment is incompatible with military service. Consider the following scenario: A 23-year-old active-duty soldier with a history of psoriasis developed widespread disease of 1 year’s duration and was referred to a civilian dermatologist due to nonavailability of a military dermatologist. After topical and light-based therapies failed, he was started on ustekinumab, which cleared the psoriasis. He wanted to continue on ustekinumab due to its good efficacy, but his unit was set to deploy in the coming year, and the drug made him medically nondeployable due to its immunosuppressive nature.

This real-life example was a difficult case to disposition. The service member was unsure if he could perform his military duties and deploy without continuing treatment with ustekinumab. His prior dermatology notes were requested to better assess the severity of his baseline disease, followed by a candid discussion between the military dermatologist and the patient about treatment options and their respective ramifications to his military career. One option included continuing ustekinumab, which would initiate an MEB evaluation and likely result in separation. Another option was UV therapy, which would not prompt an MEB evaluation but would not be available in deployed environments. Apremilast was offered as a third treatment option and could be used in place of UV therapy during deployment along with topical medications. This patient opted to continue treatment with ustekinumab, resulting in MEB review and separation from military service.

Dermatology Treatment Considerations

Civilian dermatologists should be aware of specific considerations when treating active US service members with common cutaneous diagnoses such as acne, atopic dermatitis (AD), psoriasis, dissecting cellulitis of the scalp (DCS), and lupus erythematosus (LE). This discussion is not meant to be all-inclusive but provides information and examples related to common treatment challenges in this patient population.

Acne
Acne is common in the active-duty military population. Typically, acne should be treated per recommended guidelines based on type and severity.⁸ Medical evaluation board review is warranted in cases of severe acne that is unresponsive to treatment and interferes with a service member’s performance.^5,6 Unique situations in the active-duty military population include the following:

• Use of minocycline. Aircrew members have unique restrictions on many medications,⁶ including minocycline, which is restricted in this population due to vestibular side effects. Doxycycline is an acceptable alternative for aircrew members; however, even this medication may require a ground trial to ensure there are no idiosyncratic effects.

• Use of isotretinoin, which is not permitted in aircrew members, submariners, or divers. If they take this medication, they will be temporarily removed from duty for the duration of treatment and for a period of time after completion (1–3 months, depending on service). Isotretinoin also is not used during deployment due to potential side effects, the need for laboratory monitoring, and iPLEDGE system requirements.

Atopic Dermatitis
A history of AD after the 12th birthday is considered a disqualifying condition with regard to military service,³ though mild and well-controlled disease can easily be overlooked during entrance physical examinations. Members frequently present with eczema flares following field training exercises where they are outdoors for many hours and have been exposed to grass or other environmental triggers while wearing military gear that is heavy and occlusive, which is further exacerbated by being unable to bathe or care for their skin as they would at home.

Separation from the military is considered when AD is moderate to severe, is unresponsive to treatment, and/or interferes with performance of duty. Severity often can be evaluated based on the impact of AD on performance of duties in addition to clinical appearance. A pilot who is distracted by itching presents a potentially dangerous situation. A soldier whose AD flares every time he/she goes to the field, requiring him/her to return home early to control symptoms, can be considered moderate to severe due to lack of ability to do his/her job away from home base.

Response to treatment is more often where trouble lies for military members with AD, as patients are only permitted to take emollients, preferred cleansers, and topical medications to field training exercises and deployments. UV therapy is used to control disease in the military population but is not an option in deployed environments. Classic immunosuppressants (eg, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, cyclosporine) may result in a good response to treatment; however, due to their side-effect profiles, need for laboratory monitoring, and immunosuppressive nature, long-term use of those medications will result in a nondeployable status. Dupilumab does not appear to have the immunosuppressive effects of other biologics; however, the medication requires refrigeration,⁹ which currently precludes its use in the deployed environment, as it would be difficult to ensure supply and storage in remote areas.

Service members with a history of AD are exempt from the smallpox vaccine due to concerns about eczema vaccinatum.¹⁰

Psoriasis
Psoriasis is another dermatologic condition that does not meet military admission standards,³ and mild undiagnosed cases may be overlooked during the entrance physical examination. Because psoriasis commonly affects young adults, it may manifest in service members after entering service. If psoriasis is extensive or refractory to treatment, an MEB evaluation may be required.^5,6 Widespread psoriasis can result in considerable discomfort when wearing body armor and other military gear. Severe localized disease can have duty implications; service members with treatment-resistant scalp psoriasis or pustular psoriasis of the feet may have difficulty wearing helmets or military boots, respectively.

Most service members with limited psoriasis vulgaris can be managed with topical steroids and steroid-sparing agents such as calcipotriene. Some service members opt not to aggressively treat their psoriasis if it is limited in nature and not symptomatic.

When discussing systemic treatments beyond light therapy in those with refractory disease, apremilast can be a good first-line treatment option.¹¹ It is an oral medication, has minimal monitoring requirements, and lacks immunosuppressive side effects; therefore, it does not adversely impact deployability. If patients do not improve in 4 months with apremilast, biologics should then be considered; however, biologics have service implications, the most important being inability to deploy while taking the medication. In rare circumstances, military dermatologists may discuss utilizing biologic therapy only in the nondeployed setting. In these cases, service members are counseled that biologic therapy will be discontinued if they deploy in the future and treatment will be sustained with topicals and/or apremilast through the deployment. The treatment plan also should be communicated to the patient’s primary care provider to ensure that he/she is in agreement.

Dissecting Cellulitis of the Scalp
Dissecting cellulitis of the scalp may result in separation if the condition is unresponsive to treatment and/or interferes with satisfactory performance of duty.⁵ In addition to causing considerable pain, this condition can prevent service members from wearing combat helmets, which limits their ability to train and deploy. One of the authors (S.C.) has had more service members undergo an MEB evaluation for DCS than any of the other conditions mentioned.

Topical tretinoin and topical antibiotics can be used in conjunction with either doxycycline or minocycline to treat DCS, with the addition of intralesional corticosteroids for painful nodules. Fluctuant lesions are treated with incision and drainage. If there is inadequate response to treatment after 2 to 3 months, oral clindamycin and rifampin can be tried for 3 months. As an alternative measure or if the condition is refractory to oral clindamycin and rifampin, isotretinoin can then be used. One of the authors (S.C.) typically recommends a temporary no-helmet profile to the patient’s primary care provider until his/her next dermatology appointment. If the patient still has substantial disease despite these treatment options, it is recommended that the patient be issued a permanent profile for no helmet wear, which will prompt an MEB evaluation. Although tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors can work well in patients with DCS, the use of biologics is not conducive to continued service.

Lupus Erythematosus
A history of LE is disqualifying from military service. Patients who develop LE while on active duty will be referred for MEB evaluation if their disease is unresponsive to treatment and/or interferes with the satisfactory performance of duty.^5,6 In general, connective tissue diseases have an array of physical implications that can affect military service, including photosensitivity, joint inflammation, and internal organ involvement. Similar to the other dermatologic conditions described, treatment of connective tissue diseases also can present challenges to continued military service. Considerations in the case of LE that are unique to military service members include the following:

• Sun exposure. Most military service members are required to work outside in all manners of conditions, which include hot, sunny, humid, and/or dry climates. Often physicians might counsel sun-sensitive patients with LE to avoid being outside during daylight hours, limit window exposure at work, and avoid daytime driving when possible; however, these recommendations are not possible for many, if not most, service members.

• Immunosuppressive therapies are incompatible with military deployment; therefore, prescribing methotrexate, cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, rituximab, or belimumab for treatment of LE would prompt an MEB evaluation if the treatment is necessary to control the disease.

Final Thoughts

The recent changes to military medicine are needed to meet our country’s defense requirements and will ultimately result in civilian specialists playing a larger role in the care of our military population. This article highlights unique factors civilian dermatologists must consider when treating active-duty military patients to ensure they remain deployable during treatment.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017¹ has changed military medicine, including substantial reduction in military medical personnel as positions are converted to combat functions. As a result, there will be fewer military dermatologists, which means many US soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines will seek medical care outside of military treatment facilities. This article highlights some unique treatment considerations in this patient population for our civilian dermatology colleagues.

Medical Readiness

In 2015, General Joseph F. Dunford Jr, 19th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made readiness his top priority for the US Armed Forces.² Readiness refers to service members’ ability to deploy to locations across the globe and perform their military duties with little advanced notice, which requires personnel to be medically prepared at all times to leave home and perform their duties in locations with limited medical support.

Medical readiness is maintaining a unit that is medically able to perform its military function both at home and in a deployed environment. Military members’ medical readiness status is carefully tracked and determined via annual physical, dental, hearing, and vision examinations, as well as human immunodeficiency virus status and immunizations. The readiness status of the unit (ie, the number of troops ready to deploy at any given time) is available to commanders at all levels at any time. Each military branch has tracking systems that allow commanders to know when a member is past due for an examination or if a member’s medical status has changed, making them nondeployable. When a member is nondeployable, it affects the unit’s ability to perform its mission and degrades its readiness. If readiness is suboptimal, the military cannot deploy and complete its missions, which is why readiness is a top priority. The primary function of military medicine is to support the medical readiness of the force.

Deployment Eligibility

A unique aspect of military medicine that can be foreign to civilian physicians is the unit commanders’ authority to request and receive information on military members’ medical conditions as they relate to readiness. Under most circumstances, an individual’s medical information is his/her private information; however, that is not always the case in the military. If a member’s medical status changes and he/she becomes nondeployable, by regulation the commander can be privy to pertinent aspects of that member’s medical condition as it affects unit readiness, including the diagnosis, treatment plan, and prognosis. Commanders need this information to aid in the member’s recovery, ensure training does not impact his/her care, and identify possible need of replacement.

Published accession guidelines are used to determine medical eligibility for service.³ These instructions are organized by major organ systems and broad disease categories. They provide guidance on medically disqualifying conditions. The Table outlines those conditions that apply to the skin.³ Individual military branches may have additional regulations with guidance on medically disqualifying conditions that are job specific. Additional regulations also are available based on an area of military operation that can be more restrictive and specific to those locations.⁴

Readiness and Patient Care

Importantly, readiness should not be seen as a roadblock to appropriate patient care. Patients should receive treatment that is appropriate for their medical condition. Much of the difficulty within military medicine is understanding and communicating how the natural disease history, prognosis, and treatment of their respective medical conditions will impact members’ service.

In some cases, the condition and/or treatment is incompatible with military service. Consider the following scenario: A 23-year-old active-duty soldier with a history of psoriasis developed widespread disease of 1 year’s duration and was referred to a civilian dermatologist due to nonavailability of a military dermatologist. After topical and light-based therapies failed, he was started on ustekinumab, which cleared the psoriasis. He wanted to continue on ustekinumab due to its good efficacy, but his unit was set to deploy in the coming year, and the drug made him medically nondeployable due to its immunosuppressive nature.

This real-life example was a difficult case to disposition. The service member was unsure if he could perform his military duties and deploy without continuing treatment with ustekinumab. His prior dermatology notes were requested to better assess the severity of his baseline disease, followed by a candid discussion between the military dermatologist and the patient about treatment options and their respective ramifications to his military career. One option included continuing ustekinumab, which would initiate an MEB evaluation and likely result in separation. Another option was UV therapy, which would not prompt an MEB evaluation but would not be available in deployed environments. Apremilast was offered as a third treatment option and could be used in place of UV therapy during deployment along with topical medications. This patient opted to continue treatment with ustekinumab, resulting in MEB review and separation from military service.

Dermatology Treatment Considerations

Civilian dermatologists should be aware of specific considerations when treating active US service members with common cutaneous diagnoses such as acne, atopic dermatitis (AD), psoriasis, dissecting cellulitis of the scalp (DCS), and lupus erythematosus (LE). This discussion is not meant to be all-inclusive but provides information and examples related to common treatment challenges in this patient population.

Acne
Acne is common in the active-duty military population. Typically, acne should be treated per recommended guidelines based on type and severity.⁸ Medical evaluation board review is warranted in cases of severe acne that is unresponsive to treatment and interferes with a service member’s performance.^5,6 Unique situations in the active-duty military population include the following:

• Use of minocycline. Aircrew members have unique restrictions on many medications,⁶ including minocycline, which is restricted in this population due to vestibular side effects. Doxycycline is an acceptable alternative for aircrew members; however, even this medication may require a ground trial to ensure there are no idiosyncratic effects.

• Use of isotretinoin, which is not permitted in aircrew members, submariners, or divers. If they take this medication, they will be temporarily removed from duty for the duration of treatment and for a period of time after completion (1–3 months, depending on service). Isotretinoin also is not used during deployment due to potential side effects, the need for laboratory monitoring, and iPLEDGE system requirements.

Atopic Dermatitis
A history of AD after the 12th birthday is considered a disqualifying condition with regard to military service,³ though mild and well-controlled disease can easily be overlooked during entrance physical examinations. Members frequently present with eczema flares following field training exercises where they are outdoors for many hours and have been exposed to grass or other environmental triggers while wearing military gear that is heavy and occlusive, which is further exacerbated by being unable to bathe or care for their skin as they would at home.

Separation from the military is considered when AD is moderate to severe, is unresponsive to treatment, and/or interferes with performance of duty. Severity often can be evaluated based on the impact of AD on performance of duties in addition to clinical appearance. A pilot who is distracted by itching presents a potentially dangerous situation. A soldier whose AD flares every time he/she goes to the field, requiring him/her to return home early to control symptoms, can be considered moderate to severe due to lack of ability to do his/her job away from home base.

Response to treatment is more often where trouble lies for military members with AD, as patients are only permitted to take emollients, preferred cleansers, and topical medications to field training exercises and deployments. UV therapy is used to control disease in the military population but is not an option in deployed environments. Classic immunosuppressants (eg, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, cyclosporine) may result in a good response to treatment; however, due to their side-effect profiles, need for laboratory monitoring, and immunosuppressive nature, long-term use of those medications will result in a nondeployable status. Dupilumab does not appear to have the immunosuppressive effects of other biologics; however, the medication requires refrigeration,⁹ which currently precludes its use in the deployed environment, as it would be difficult to ensure supply and storage in remote areas.

Service members with a history of AD are exempt from the smallpox vaccine due to concerns about eczema vaccinatum.¹⁰

Psoriasis
Psoriasis is another dermatologic condition that does not meet military admission standards,³ and mild undiagnosed cases may be overlooked during the entrance physical examination. Because psoriasis commonly affects young adults, it may manifest in service members after entering service. If psoriasis is extensive or refractory to treatment, an MEB evaluation may be required.^5,6 Widespread psoriasis can result in considerable discomfort when wearing body armor and other military gear. Severe localized disease can have duty implications; service members with treatment-resistant scalp psoriasis or pustular psoriasis of the feet may have difficulty wearing helmets or military boots, respectively.

Most service members with limited psoriasis vulgaris can be managed with topical steroids and steroid-sparing agents such as calcipotriene. Some service members opt not to aggressively treat their psoriasis if it is limited in nature and not symptomatic.

When discussing systemic treatments beyond light therapy in those with refractory disease, apremilast can be a good first-line treatment option.¹¹ It is an oral medication, has minimal monitoring requirements, and lacks immunosuppressive side effects; therefore, it does not adversely impact deployability. If patients do not improve in 4 months with apremilast, biologics should then be considered; however, biologics have service implications, the most important being inability to deploy while taking the medication. In rare circumstances, military dermatologists may discuss utilizing biologic therapy only in the nondeployed setting. In these cases, service members are counseled that biologic therapy will be discontinued if they deploy in the future and treatment will be sustained with topicals and/or apremilast through the deployment. The treatment plan also should be communicated to the patient’s primary care provider to ensure that he/she is in agreement.

Dissecting Cellulitis of the Scalp
Dissecting cellulitis of the scalp may result in separation if the condition is unresponsive to treatment and/or interferes with satisfactory performance of duty.⁵ In addition to causing considerable pain, this condition can prevent service members from wearing combat helmets, which limits their ability to train and deploy. One of the authors (S.C.) has had more service members undergo an MEB evaluation for DCS than any of the other conditions mentioned.

Topical tretinoin and topical antibiotics can be used in conjunction with either doxycycline or minocycline to treat DCS, with the addition of intralesional corticosteroids for painful nodules. Fluctuant lesions are treated with incision and drainage. If there is inadequate response to treatment after 2 to 3 months, oral clindamycin and rifampin can be tried for 3 months. As an alternative measure or if the condition is refractory to oral clindamycin and rifampin, isotretinoin can then be used. One of the authors (S.C.) typically recommends a temporary no-helmet profile to the patient’s primary care provider until his/her next dermatology appointment. If the patient still has substantial disease despite these treatment options, it is recommended that the patient be issued a permanent profile for no helmet wear, which will prompt an MEB evaluation. Although tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors can work well in patients with DCS, the use of biologics is not conducive to continued service.

Lupus Erythematosus
A history of LE is disqualifying from military service. Patients who develop LE while on active duty will be referred for MEB evaluation if their disease is unresponsive to treatment and/or interferes with the satisfactory performance of duty.^5,6 In general, connective tissue diseases have an array of physical implications that can affect military service, including photosensitivity, joint inflammation, and internal organ involvement. Similar to the other dermatologic conditions described, treatment of connective tissue diseases also can present challenges to continued military service. Considerations in the case of LE that are unique to military service members include the following:

• Sun exposure. Most military service members are required to work outside in all manners of conditions, which include hot, sunny, humid, and/or dry climates. Often physicians might counsel sun-sensitive patients with LE to avoid being outside during daylight hours, limit window exposure at work, and avoid daytime driving when possible; however, these recommendations are not possible for many, if not most, service members.

• Immunosuppressive therapies are incompatible with military deployment; therefore, prescribing methotrexate, cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, rituximab, or belimumab for treatment of LE would prompt an MEB evaluation if the treatment is necessary to control the disease.

Final Thoughts

The recent changes to military medicine are needed to meet our country’s defense requirements and will ultimately result in civilian specialists playing a larger role in the care of our military population. This article highlights unique factors civilian dermatologists must consider when treating active-duty military patients to ensure they remain deployable during treatment.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017¹ has changed military medicine, including substantial reduction in military medical personnel as positions are converted to combat functions. As a result, there will be fewer military dermatologists, which means many US soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines will seek medical care outside of military treatment facilities. This article highlights some unique treatment considerations in this patient population for our civilian dermatology colleagues.

Medical Readiness

In 2015, General Joseph F. Dunford Jr, 19th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made readiness his top priority for the US Armed Forces.² Readiness refers to service members’ ability to deploy to locations across the globe and perform their military duties with little advanced notice, which requires personnel to be medically prepared at all times to leave home and perform their duties in locations with limited medical support.

Medical readiness is maintaining a unit that is medically able to perform its military function both at home and in a deployed environment. Military members’ medical readiness status is carefully tracked and determined via annual physical, dental, hearing, and vision examinations, as well as human immunodeficiency virus status and immunizations. The readiness status of the unit (ie, the number of troops ready to deploy at any given time) is available to commanders at all levels at any time. Each military branch has tracking systems that allow commanders to know when a member is past due for an examination or if a member’s medical status has changed, making them nondeployable. When a member is nondeployable, it affects the unit’s ability to perform its mission and degrades its readiness. If readiness is suboptimal, the military cannot deploy and complete its missions, which is why readiness is a top priority. The primary function of military medicine is to support the medical readiness of the force.

Deployment Eligibility

A unique aspect of military medicine that can be foreign to civilian physicians is the unit commanders’ authority to request and receive information on military members’ medical conditions as they relate to readiness. Under most circumstances, an individual’s medical information is his/her private information; however, that is not always the case in the military. If a member’s medical status changes and he/she becomes nondeployable, by regulation the commander can be privy to pertinent aspects of that member’s medical condition as it affects unit readiness, including the diagnosis, treatment plan, and prognosis. Commanders need this information to aid in the member’s recovery, ensure training does not impact his/her care, and identify possible need of replacement.

Published accession guidelines are used to determine medical eligibility for service.³ These instructions are organized by major organ systems and broad disease categories. They provide guidance on medically disqualifying conditions. The Table outlines those conditions that apply to the skin.³ Individual military branches may have additional regulations with guidance on medically disqualifying conditions that are job specific. Additional regulations also are available based on an area of military operation that can be more restrictive and specific to those locations.⁴

Readiness and Patient Care

Importantly, readiness should not be seen as a roadblock to appropriate patient care. Patients should receive treatment that is appropriate for their medical condition. Much of the difficulty within military medicine is understanding and communicating how the natural disease history, prognosis, and treatment of their respective medical conditions will impact members’ service.

In some cases, the condition and/or treatment is incompatible with military service. Consider the following scenario: A 23-year-old active-duty soldier with a history of psoriasis developed widespread disease of 1 year’s duration and was referred to a civilian dermatologist due to nonavailability of a military dermatologist. After topical and light-based therapies failed, he was started on ustekinumab, which cleared the psoriasis. He wanted to continue on ustekinumab due to its good efficacy, but his unit was set to deploy in the coming year, and the drug made him medically nondeployable due to its immunosuppressive nature.

This real-life example was a difficult case to disposition. The service member was unsure if he could perform his military duties and deploy without continuing treatment with ustekinumab. His prior dermatology notes were requested to better assess the severity of his baseline disease, followed by a candid discussion between the military dermatologist and the patient about treatment options and their respective ramifications to his military career. One option included continuing ustekinumab, which would initiate an MEB evaluation and likely result in separation. Another option was UV therapy, which would not prompt an MEB evaluation but would not be available in deployed environments. Apremilast was offered as a third treatment option and could be used in place of UV therapy during deployment along with topical medications. This patient opted to continue treatment with ustekinumab, resulting in MEB review and separation from military service.

Dermatology Treatment Considerations

Civilian dermatologists should be aware of specific considerations when treating active US service members with common cutaneous diagnoses such as acne, atopic dermatitis (AD), psoriasis, dissecting cellulitis of the scalp (DCS), and lupus erythematosus (LE). This discussion is not meant to be all-inclusive but provides information and examples related to common treatment challenges in this patient population.

Acne
Acne is common in the active-duty military population. Typically, acne should be treated per recommended guidelines based on type and severity.⁸ Medical evaluation board review is warranted in cases of severe acne that is unresponsive to treatment and interferes with a service member’s performance.^5,6 Unique situations in the active-duty military population include the following:

• Use of minocycline. Aircrew members have unique restrictions on many medications,⁶ including minocycline, which is restricted in this population due to vestibular side effects. Doxycycline is an acceptable alternative for aircrew members; however, even this medication may require a ground trial to ensure there are no idiosyncratic effects.

• Use of isotretinoin, which is not permitted in aircrew members, submariners, or divers. If they take this medication, they will be temporarily removed from duty for the duration of treatment and for a period of time after completion (1–3 months, depending on service). Isotretinoin also is not used during deployment due to potential side effects, the need for laboratory monitoring, and iPLEDGE system requirements.

Atopic Dermatitis
A history of AD after the 12th birthday is considered a disqualifying condition with regard to military service,³ though mild and well-controlled disease can easily be overlooked during entrance physical examinations. Members frequently present with eczema flares following field training exercises where they are outdoors for many hours and have been exposed to grass or other environmental triggers while wearing military gear that is heavy and occlusive, which is further exacerbated by being unable to bathe or care for their skin as they would at home.

Separation from the military is considered when AD is moderate to severe, is unresponsive to treatment, and/or interferes with performance of duty. Severity often can be evaluated based on the impact of AD on performance of duties in addition to clinical appearance. A pilot who is distracted by itching presents a potentially dangerous situation. A soldier whose AD flares every time he/she goes to the field, requiring him/her to return home early to control symptoms, can be considered moderate to severe due to lack of ability to do his/her job away from home base.

Response to treatment is more often where trouble lies for military members with AD, as patients are only permitted to take emollients, preferred cleansers, and topical medications to field training exercises and deployments. UV therapy is used to control disease in the military population but is not an option in deployed environments. Classic immunosuppressants (eg, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, cyclosporine) may result in a good response to treatment; however, due to their side-effect profiles, need for laboratory monitoring, and immunosuppressive nature, long-term use of those medications will result in a nondeployable status. Dupilumab does not appear to have the immunosuppressive effects of other biologics; however, the medication requires refrigeration,⁹ which currently precludes its use in the deployed environment, as it would be difficult to ensure supply and storage in remote areas.

Service members with a history of AD are exempt from the smallpox vaccine due to concerns about eczema vaccinatum.¹⁰

Psoriasis
Psoriasis is another dermatologic condition that does not meet military admission standards,³ and mild undiagnosed cases may be overlooked during the entrance physical examination. Because psoriasis commonly affects young adults, it may manifest in service members after entering service. If psoriasis is extensive or refractory to treatment, an MEB evaluation may be required.^5,6 Widespread psoriasis can result in considerable discomfort when wearing body armor and other military gear. Severe localized disease can have duty implications; service members with treatment-resistant scalp psoriasis or pustular psoriasis of the feet may have difficulty wearing helmets or military boots, respectively.

Most service members with limited psoriasis vulgaris can be managed with topical steroids and steroid-sparing agents such as calcipotriene. Some service members opt not to aggressively treat their psoriasis if it is limited in nature and not symptomatic.

When discussing systemic treatments beyond light therapy in those with refractory disease, apremilast can be a good first-line treatment option.¹¹ It is an oral medication, has minimal monitoring requirements, and lacks immunosuppressive side effects; therefore, it does not adversely impact deployability. If patients do not improve in 4 months with apremilast, biologics should then be considered; however, biologics have service implications, the most important being inability to deploy while taking the medication. In rare circumstances, military dermatologists may discuss utilizing biologic therapy only in the nondeployed setting. In these cases, service members are counseled that biologic therapy will be discontinued if they deploy in the future and treatment will be sustained with topicals and/or apremilast through the deployment. The treatment plan also should be communicated to the patient’s primary care provider to ensure that he/she is in agreement.

Dissecting Cellulitis of the Scalp
Dissecting cellulitis of the scalp may result in separation if the condition is unresponsive to treatment and/or interferes with satisfactory performance of duty.⁵ In addition to causing considerable pain, this condition can prevent service members from wearing combat helmets, which limits their ability to train and deploy. One of the authors (S.C.) has had more service members undergo an MEB evaluation for DCS than any of the other conditions mentioned.

Topical tretinoin and topical antibiotics can be used in conjunction with either doxycycline or minocycline to treat DCS, with the addition of intralesional corticosteroids for painful nodules. Fluctuant lesions are treated with incision and drainage. If there is inadequate response to treatment after 2 to 3 months, oral clindamycin and rifampin can be tried for 3 months. As an alternative measure or if the condition is refractory to oral clindamycin and rifampin, isotretinoin can then be used. One of the authors (S.C.) typically recommends a temporary no-helmet profile to the patient’s primary care provider until his/her next dermatology appointment. If the patient still has substantial disease despite these treatment options, it is recommended that the patient be issued a permanent profile for no helmet wear, which will prompt an MEB evaluation. Although tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors can work well in patients with DCS, the use of biologics is not conducive to continued service.

Lupus Erythematosus
A history of LE is disqualifying from military service. Patients who develop LE while on active duty will be referred for MEB evaluation if their disease is unresponsive to treatment and/or interferes with the satisfactory performance of duty.^5,6 In general, connective tissue diseases have an array of physical implications that can affect military service, including photosensitivity, joint inflammation, and internal organ involvement. Similar to the other dermatologic conditions described, treatment of connective tissue diseases also can present challenges to continued military service. Considerations in the case of LE that are unique to military service members include the following:

• Sun exposure. Most military service members are required to work outside in all manners of conditions, which include hot, sunny, humid, and/or dry climates. Often physicians might counsel sun-sensitive patients with LE to avoid being outside during daylight hours, limit window exposure at work, and avoid daytime driving when possible; however, these recommendations are not possible for many, if not most, service members.

• Immunosuppressive therapies are incompatible with military deployment; therefore, prescribing methotrexate, cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, rituximab, or belimumab for treatment of LE would prompt an MEB evaluation if the treatment is necessary to control the disease.

Final Thoughts

The recent changes to military medicine are needed to meet our country’s defense requirements and will ultimately result in civilian specialists playing a larger role in the care of our military population. This article highlights unique factors civilian dermatologists must consider when treating active-duty military patients to ensure they remain deployable during treatment.

Subclinical atherosclerosis in the carotid arteries as measured by ultrasound appears to nearly triple the risk of a first cardiovascular event among patients with psoriatic disease, according to findings from a retrospective study.

pixologicstudio/Thinkstock.com

When added to the Framingham risk score, the measurement significantly improved its predictive ability, Curtis Sobchak, MD, and colleagues wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

The findings indicate that carotid ultrasound could be a useful addition to cardiovascular risk stratification among these patients.

“Traditional algorithms do not consider other factors that may contribute to increased cardiovascular risk in rheumatic disease patients and tend to underestimate cardiovascular risk,” wrote Dr. Sobchak of the University of Toronto and coauthors.

“The advantage of ultrasound over other modalities for vascular imaging includes lack of radiation, low cost of the examination, and its widespread use in rheumatology for joint evaluation. Thus, this assessment could potentially be performed ‘at the bedside’ during consultation to provide immediate valuable information to complement clinical data from history, physical examination, and laboratory data,” they added.

The study retrospectively examined a prospective, observational cohort of 559 patients with psoriasis alone or psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis enrolled in the University of Toronto Psoriatic Disease Program. The investigators evaluated five ultrasound measures of atherosclerosis, including total plaque area (TPA), mean carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT), maximal cIMT, plaque category, and TPA category. Then they analyzed the risk relationship with major cardiovascular events (CVEs) classified as myocardial infarction, unstable angina, ischemic stroke, revascularization procedures, or cardiovascular-related death. Minor CVEs included stable angina, exacerbation of congestive heart failure, and transient ischemic attack over a mean follow-up close to 4 years.

The mean baseline TPA was 0.18 cm² and mean cIMT was 639 mcm. Most patients had plaques, including 27.0% with unilateral and 31.5% with bilateral plaques.

The rate of a first CVE during the study period was 1.11 per 100 patient-years, and the rate of a first major CVE was 0.91 per 100 patient-years. The risk of each was significantly related to a higher baseline burden of atherosclerosis.

A multivariate analysis determined that increased TPA at baseline increased the risk of an event by nearly 200% (hazard ratio, 2.85). Mean cIMT was not an independent predictor in the final analysis, “suggesting that TPA is a stronger predictor for CVE than cIMT,” the authors wrote.

Finally, they examined the predictive value of atherosclerosis alone, as well as combined with the Framingham risk score. The 5-year model indicated that the bivariate model was slightly more accurate than the Framingham score alone (area under the curve, 0.84 vs. 0.81), although this was not a significant difference. The predictive value of the Framingham risk score plus maximal cIMT, mean cIMT, or TPA all significantly improved when they were calculated using only high-risk patients (those above the treatment threshold for dyslipidemia).

“To the best of our knowledge this is the first study to assess the utility of various measures of carotid atherosclerosis to predict CVE in patients with psoriasis and PsA [psoriatic arthritis]. ... Combining vascular imaging data with clinical and laboratory measures of traditional cardiovascular risk factors could improve accuracy of cardiovascular risk stratification in patients with psoriatic disease and facilitate earlier initiation of appropriate treatment to reduce CVE in this population,” the investigators wrote.

The study was supported in part by a Young Investigator Operating Grant from the Arthritis Society. Dr. Sobchak had no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sobchak C et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Jun 5. doi: 10.1002/art.40925.

Subclinical atherosclerosis in the carotid arteries as measured by ultrasound appears to nearly triple the risk of a first cardiovascular event among patients with psoriatic disease, according to findings from a retrospective study.

pixologicstudio/Thinkstock.com

When added to the Framingham risk score, the measurement significantly improved its predictive ability, Curtis Sobchak, MD, and colleagues wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

The findings indicate that carotid ultrasound could be a useful addition to cardiovascular risk stratification among these patients.

“Traditional algorithms do not consider other factors that may contribute to increased cardiovascular risk in rheumatic disease patients and tend to underestimate cardiovascular risk,” wrote Dr. Sobchak of the University of Toronto and coauthors.

“The advantage of ultrasound over other modalities for vascular imaging includes lack of radiation, low cost of the examination, and its widespread use in rheumatology for joint evaluation. Thus, this assessment could potentially be performed ‘at the bedside’ during consultation to provide immediate valuable information to complement clinical data from history, physical examination, and laboratory data,” they added.

The study retrospectively examined a prospective, observational cohort of 559 patients with psoriasis alone or psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis enrolled in the University of Toronto Psoriatic Disease Program. The investigators evaluated five ultrasound measures of atherosclerosis, including total plaque area (TPA), mean carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT), maximal cIMT, plaque category, and TPA category. Then they analyzed the risk relationship with major cardiovascular events (CVEs) classified as myocardial infarction, unstable angina, ischemic stroke, revascularization procedures, or cardiovascular-related death. Minor CVEs included stable angina, exacerbation of congestive heart failure, and transient ischemic attack over a mean follow-up close to 4 years.

The mean baseline TPA was 0.18 cm² and mean cIMT was 639 mcm. Most patients had plaques, including 27.0% with unilateral and 31.5% with bilateral plaques.

The rate of a first CVE during the study period was 1.11 per 100 patient-years, and the rate of a first major CVE was 0.91 per 100 patient-years. The risk of each was significantly related to a higher baseline burden of atherosclerosis.

A multivariate analysis determined that increased TPA at baseline increased the risk of an event by nearly 200% (hazard ratio, 2.85). Mean cIMT was not an independent predictor in the final analysis, “suggesting that TPA is a stronger predictor for CVE than cIMT,” the authors wrote.

Finally, they examined the predictive value of atherosclerosis alone, as well as combined with the Framingham risk score. The 5-year model indicated that the bivariate model was slightly more accurate than the Framingham score alone (area under the curve, 0.84 vs. 0.81), although this was not a significant difference. The predictive value of the Framingham risk score plus maximal cIMT, mean cIMT, or TPA all significantly improved when they were calculated using only high-risk patients (those above the treatment threshold for dyslipidemia).

“To the best of our knowledge this is the first study to assess the utility of various measures of carotid atherosclerosis to predict CVE in patients with psoriasis and PsA [psoriatic arthritis]. ... Combining vascular imaging data with clinical and laboratory measures of traditional cardiovascular risk factors could improve accuracy of cardiovascular risk stratification in patients with psoriatic disease and facilitate earlier initiation of appropriate treatment to reduce CVE in this population,” the investigators wrote.

The study was supported in part by a Young Investigator Operating Grant from the Arthritis Society. Dr. Sobchak had no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sobchak C et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Jun 5. doi: 10.1002/art.40925.

Subclinical atherosclerosis in the carotid arteries as measured by ultrasound appears to nearly triple the risk of a first cardiovascular event among patients with psoriatic disease, according to findings from a retrospective study.

pixologicstudio/Thinkstock.com

When added to the Framingham risk score, the measurement significantly improved its predictive ability, Curtis Sobchak, MD, and colleagues wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

The findings indicate that carotid ultrasound could be a useful addition to cardiovascular risk stratification among these patients.

“Traditional algorithms do not consider other factors that may contribute to increased cardiovascular risk in rheumatic disease patients and tend to underestimate cardiovascular risk,” wrote Dr. Sobchak of the University of Toronto and coauthors.

“The advantage of ultrasound over other modalities for vascular imaging includes lack of radiation, low cost of the examination, and its widespread use in rheumatology for joint evaluation. Thus, this assessment could potentially be performed ‘at the bedside’ during consultation to provide immediate valuable information to complement clinical data from history, physical examination, and laboratory data,” they added.

The study retrospectively examined a prospective, observational cohort of 559 patients with psoriasis alone or psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis enrolled in the University of Toronto Psoriatic Disease Program. The investigators evaluated five ultrasound measures of atherosclerosis, including total plaque area (TPA), mean carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT), maximal cIMT, plaque category, and TPA category. Then they analyzed the risk relationship with major cardiovascular events (CVEs) classified as myocardial infarction, unstable angina, ischemic stroke, revascularization procedures, or cardiovascular-related death. Minor CVEs included stable angina, exacerbation of congestive heart failure, and transient ischemic attack over a mean follow-up close to 4 years.

The mean baseline TPA was 0.18 cm² and mean cIMT was 639 mcm. Most patients had plaques, including 27.0% with unilateral and 31.5% with bilateral plaques.

The rate of a first CVE during the study period was 1.11 per 100 patient-years, and the rate of a first major CVE was 0.91 per 100 patient-years. The risk of each was significantly related to a higher baseline burden of atherosclerosis.

A multivariate analysis determined that increased TPA at baseline increased the risk of an event by nearly 200% (hazard ratio, 2.85). Mean cIMT was not an independent predictor in the final analysis, “suggesting that TPA is a stronger predictor for CVE than cIMT,” the authors wrote.

Finally, they examined the predictive value of atherosclerosis alone, as well as combined with the Framingham risk score. The 5-year model indicated that the bivariate model was slightly more accurate than the Framingham score alone (area under the curve, 0.84 vs. 0.81), although this was not a significant difference. The predictive value of the Framingham risk score plus maximal cIMT, mean cIMT, or TPA all significantly improved when they were calculated using only high-risk patients (those above the treatment threshold for dyslipidemia).

“To the best of our knowledge this is the first study to assess the utility of various measures of carotid atherosclerosis to predict CVE in patients with psoriasis and PsA [psoriatic arthritis]. ... Combining vascular imaging data with clinical and laboratory measures of traditional cardiovascular risk factors could improve accuracy of cardiovascular risk stratification in patients with psoriatic disease and facilitate earlier initiation of appropriate treatment to reduce CVE in this population,” the investigators wrote.

The study was supported in part by a Young Investigator Operating Grant from the Arthritis Society. Dr. Sobchak had no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sobchak C et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Jun 5. doi: 10.1002/art.40925.

The American Academy of Dermatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation recently issued a joint guideline on the management and treatment of psoriasis, with a focus on comorbidities. The guideline offers information and recommendations on mental health in patients with psoriasis.

Vidyard Video

The American Academy of Dermatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation recently issued a joint guideline on the management and treatment of psoriasis, with a focus on comorbidities. The guideline offers information and recommendations on mental health in patients with psoriasis.

Vidyard Video

The American Academy of Dermatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation recently issued a joint guideline on the management and treatment of psoriasis, with a focus on comorbidities. The guideline offers information and recommendations on mental health in patients with psoriasis.

Vidyard Video