-
Skin Appendage Disorders Jan 2020Hair graying is a common sign of aging resulting from complex regulation of melanogenesis. Currently, there is no medical treatment available for hair repigmentation. In... (Review)
Review
Hair graying is a common sign of aging resulting from complex regulation of melanogenesis. Currently, there is no medical treatment available for hair repigmentation. In this article we review the literature on medication-induced hair repigmentation, discuss the potential mechanisms of action, and review the quality of the literary data. To date, there have been 27 studies discussing medication-induced gray hair repigmentation, including 6 articles on gray hair repigmentation as a primary objective, notably with psoralen treatment or vitamin supplementation, and 21 reports on medication-induced gray hair repigmentation as an incidental finding. Medications noted in the literature include anti-inflammatory medications (thalidomide, lenalidomide, adalimumab, acitretin, etretinate, prednisone, cyclosporin, cisplatinum, interferon-α, and psoralen), stimulators of melanogenesis (latanoprost, erlotinib, imatinib, tamoxifen, and levodopa), vitamins (calcium pantothenate and -amino benzoic acid), a medication that accumulates in tissues (clofazimine), and a medication with an undetermined mechanism (captopril). Diffuse repigmentation of gray hair can be induced by certain medications that inhibit inflammation or stimulate melanogenesis. There is also low-quality evidence that some vitamin B complex supplementation can promote gray hair darkening. While these compounds are not currently indicated for the treatment of gray hair, their mechanisms shed light on targets for future medications for hair repigmentation.
PubMed: 32021854
DOI: 10.1159/000504414 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Palmoplantar pustulosis is a chronic inflammatory disease in which sterile, relapsing pustules appear on the palms and soles, possibly in conjunction with other... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Palmoplantar pustulosis is a chronic inflammatory disease in which sterile, relapsing pustules appear on the palms and soles, possibly in conjunction with other symptoms. The previous Cochrane Review on this topic was published in 2006, before biological treatments were extensively used.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions for chronic palmoplantar pustulosis to induce and maintain complete remission.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to March 2019: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of the included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered RCTs including people with palmoplantar pustulosis or chronic palmoplantar pustular psoriasis assessing topical therapy, systemic therapy, combinations of topical or systemic therapies, or non-pharmacological therapies compared with placebo, no intervention, or each other.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our outcomes included 'Proportion of participants cleared or almost cleared', 'Proportion of participants with adverse effects serious or severe enough to cause withdrawal', 'Proportion of participants with at least 50% improvement in disease severity', and 'Proportion of participants with adverse effects'.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 37 studies (1663 participants; mean age 50 years (range 34 to 63); 24% males). These studies reported condition severity differently. Around half of the included trials stated the setting (hospitals, community clinics, or both). More than half of the studies were at high risk of bias in at least one domain. Our included studies assessed mainly systemic treatments (retinoids, ciclosporin, biologics, etretinate + PUVA (combination of psoralens and long-wave ultraviolet radiation) therapy combined, and antibiotics), but also topical treatments (dermocorticoids, vitamin D) and phototherapy (PUVA, ultraviolet A1 (UVA1)). Other interventions were assessed by single studies. The most common comparator was placebo. All results presented in this abstract were assessed in the short term (mean treatment duration was 11 weeks (range 8 to 24 weeks)) and are based on participants with chronic palmoplantar pustulosis. All outcome time point measurements were taken from baseline and assessed at the end of treatment. Short-term and long-term outcomes were defined as measurement up to 24 weeks after randomisation and between 24 and 104 weeks after randomisation, respectively. One trial (188 participants) assessed the topical vitamin D derivative maxacalcitol versus placebo and found that maxacalcitol may be more effective than placebo in achieving clearance (risk ratio (RR) 7.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.85 to 33.12; low-quality evidence), and the risk of adverse effects (such as mild local irritation, pruritus, and haematological or urinary test abnormalities) is probably similar in both groups (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.19; moderate-quality evidence). Severity was not reported. Two trials (49 participants) assessed PUVA therapy versus placebo or no treatment, providing very low-quality evidence. Adverse effects were reported with oral PUVA (including nausea, ankle swelling, and non-purulent conjunctivitis) and with local PUVA (including blistering, erythema, and pruritus). With regard to the systemic retinoid alitretinoin, one trial (33 participants; moderate-quality evidence) showed that alitretinoin probably makes little or no difference in reducing severity when compared to placebo (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.30). A similar number of adverse events were reported in both treatment groups, including headache, cheilitis, nausea, arthralgia, and nasopharyngitis (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.17). Clearance was not reported. There may be little or no difference between etanercept and placebo in achieving clearance (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.08 to 34.28; 1 study; 15 participants; low-quality evidence); however, the 95% CI was very wide, showing there may be a difference between groups. Severity was not measured. More patients treated with placebo may achieve reduced severity than those treated with ustekinumab, but the wide 95% CI indicates there might be little or no difference between groups and there might be greater effect with ustekinumab (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.13; 1 study; 33 participants; low-quality evidence). Clearance was not reported. It is uncertain whether guselkumab increases clearance when compared to placebo (2 studies; 154 participants) because the quality of evidence is very low, but guselkumab probably better reduces disease severity (RR 2.88, 95% CI 1.24 to 6.69; 1 study; 49 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Secukinumab is probably superior to placebo in reducing severity (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.35; 1 study; 157 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but our clearance outcome was not reported. None of these trials reported on occurrence of adverse effects. Only two of the studies discussed above reported adverse effects serious or severe enough to cause withdrawal. Guselkumab may cause more serious adverse events when compared to placebo, but there is uncertainty due to the very wide 95% CI showing there may be little or no difference and showing more events with placebo (RR 2.88, 95% CI 0.32 to 25.80; 1 study; 49 participants; low-quality evidence). Secukinumab probably causes more serious adverse events than placebo (RR 3.29, 95% CI 1.40 to 7.75; 1 study; 157 participants; moderate-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence is lacking for major chronic palmoplantar pustulosis treatments such as superpotent corticosteroids, phototherapy, acitretin, methotrexate, and ciclosporin. Risk of bias and imprecision limit our confidence. Maxacalcitol may be more effective than placebo in achieving clearance in the short term (low-quality evidence), and the risk of adverse effects is probably similar (moderate-quality evidence). Oral alitretinoin is probably no more effective than placebo in reducing severity, with a similar risk of adverse effects (moderate-quality evidence). Regarding biological treatments, we are uncertain of the effect of etanercept on clearance and the effect of ustekinumab on severity (low-quality evidence). Secukinumab and guselkumab are probably superior to placebo in reducing severity (moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events not requiring withdrawal were not reported for these treatments. Reporting of serious adverse effects was incomplete: compared to placebo, secukinumab probably caused more participant withdrawals (moderate-quality evidence), but we are uncertain of the effect of guselkumab (low-quality evidence). Future trials should assess commonly used treatments using validated severity and quality of life scales.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Chronic Disease; Exanthema; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Phototherapy; Psoriasis; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Ultraviolet Rays; Ustekinumab
PubMed: 31958161
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011628.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. This is the baseline update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2017, in preparation for this Cochrane Review becoming a living systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our research using the following databases to January 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and the conference proceedings of a number of dermatology meetings. We also searched five trials registers and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) reports (until June 2019). We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant RCTs.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse effects (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse effects). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes, according to GRADE, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 140 studies (31 new studies for the update) in our review (51,749 randomised participants, 68% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (59%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 19 treatments. In all, 117 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (57/140) as being at high risk of bias; 42 were at an unclear risk, and 41 at low risk. Most studies (107/140) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report the source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90. At class level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents. At drug level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, infliximab, all of the anti-IL17 drugs (ixekizumab, secukinumab, bimekizumab and brodalumab) and the anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab, but not tildrakizumab) were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and 3 anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept. Adalimumab and ustekinumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than certolizumab and etanercept. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and between two conventional drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness for these seven drugs was similar: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 29.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 19.94 to 43.70, Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) = 88.5; moderate-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.12, 95% CI 23.17 to 34.12, SUCRA = 88.3, moderate-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 27.67, 95% CI 22.86 to 33.49, SUCRA = 87.5, high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86, SUCRA = 83.5, low-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.84, 95% CI 20.90 to 31.95; SUCRA = 81; moderate-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 23.97, 95% CI 20.03 to 28.70, SUCRA = 75.4; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 21.96, 95% CI 18.17 to 26.53, SUCRA = 68.7; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to very low certainty for just under half of the treatment estimates in total, and moderate for the others. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were very similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab were the best choices for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence (low-certainty evidence for bimekizumab). This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. Indeed, we found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, but the evidence for all the interventions was of very low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials comparing directly active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between conventional systemic and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Chronic Disease; Cytokines; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Network Meta-Analysis; Psoriasis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 31917873
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub3 -
The Journal of Dermatological Treatment Aug 2021Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is an uncommon variant of psoriasis that is characterized clinically by sterile pustule formation superimposed over inflamed,...
BACKGROUND
Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is an uncommon variant of psoriasis that is characterized clinically by sterile pustule formation superimposed over inflamed, erythematous skin.
METHODS
In June 2019, we conducted a systematic search of the PubMed Medline database using the keywords 'pustular psoriasis' and 'treatment'.
RESULTS
First-line treatment for the condition consists of established therapies, such as acitretin, cyclosporine, methotrexate, and infliximab. Several medications targeting IL-17 or IL-23 have also emerged recently with drugs such as ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, and ustekinumab having shown some efficacy.
CONCLUSIONS
This review highlights the research in support of common treatments of GPP, including classically used medications and newer monoclonal antibodies, and addresses the continued need for high quality studies regarding treatments for this condition.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Dermatologic Agents; Humans; Interleukin-17; Psoriasis; Skin Diseases, Vesiculobullous
PubMed: 31697211
DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2019.1682502 -
Transplantation Jun 2019Organ transplant recipients are at high risk of developing skin cancer. The benefits and harms of interventions to prevent nonmelanoma skin cancer in solid organ... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Organ transplant recipients are at high risk of developing skin cancer. The benefits and harms of interventions to prevent nonmelanoma skin cancer in solid organ transplant recipients have not been summarized.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL through April 2018. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, and evidence certainty was evaluated using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation process. Prespecified outcomes were nonmelanoma skin cancer, clearance and prevention of keratotic skin lesions, and intervention-specific adverse events.
RESULTS
Ninety-two trials (20 012 participants) were included. The evaluated treatments were cancer-specific interventions (acitretin, imiquimod, photodynamic therapy, nicotinamide, topical diclofenac, and selenium) and immunosuppression regimes (azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, calcineurin inhibitors, mammalian target of rapamycin [mTOR] inhibitors, belatacept, induction agents, and withdrawal of calcineurin inhibitors or corticosteroids). Effects on nonmelanoma skin cancer were uncertain for photodynamic therapy (3 trials, 93 participants, risk ratio [RR] 1.42 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.65-3.11]; low certainty evidence), nicotinamide (2 trials, 60 participants), acitretin (2 trials, 61 participants), and imiquimod (1 trial, 20 participants) compared to control. mTOR inhibitors probably reduced skin cancer compared to calcineurin inhibitors (12 trials, 2225 participants, RR 0.62 [95% CI, 0.45-0.85]; moderate certainty evidence). Photodynamic therapy may cause pain at the treatment site (4 trials, 95 patients, RR 17.09 [95% CI, 4.22-69.26]; low certainty evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence for the efficacy and safety of specific treatments to prevent nonmelanoma skin cancers among solid organ transplant recipients.
Topics: Female; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Male; Middle Aged; Organ Transplantation; Protective Factors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Skin Neoplasms; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31246934
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000002641 -
Revista Da Associacao Medica Brasileira... May 2019The Guidelines Project, an initiative of the Brazilian Medical Association, aims to combine information from the medical field in order to standardize producers to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The Guidelines Project, an initiative of the Brazilian Medical Association, aims to combine information from the medical field in order to standardize producers to assist the reasoning and decision-making of doctors. The information provided through this project must be assessed and criticized by the physician responsible for the conduct that will be adopted, depending on the conditions and the clinical status of each patient.
Topics: Acitretin; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Brazil; Clinical Decision-Making; Cyclosporine; Dermatologic Agents; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Methotrexate; Psoriasis; Severity of Illness Index; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31066805
DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.65.4.530 -
The British Journal of Dermatology Aug 2019The persistence and effectiveness of systemic therapies for moderate-to-severe psoriasis in current clinical practice are poorly characterized.
BACKGROUND
The persistence and effectiveness of systemic therapies for moderate-to-severe psoriasis in current clinical practice are poorly characterized.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review observational studies investigating the persistence and effectiveness of acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters (FAE) and methotrexate, involving at least 100 adult patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, exposed to therapy for ≥ 3 months.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and PubMed were searched from 1 January 2007 to 1 November 2017 for observational studies reporting on persistence (therapy duration or the proportion of patients discontinuing therapy during follow-up) or effectiveness [improvements in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) or Physician's Global Assessment (PGA)]. This review was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018099771.
RESULTS
Of 411 identified studies, eight involving 4624 patients with psoriasis were included. Variations in the definitions and analyses of persistence and effectiveness outcomes prevented a meta-analysis from being conducted. One prospective multicentre study reported drug survival probabilities of 23% (ciclosporin), 42% (acitretin) and 50% (methotrexate) at 1 year. Effectiveness outcomes were not reported for either acitretin or ciclosporin. The persistence and effectiveness of FAE and methotrexate were better characterized, but mean discontinuation times ranged from 28 to 50 months for FAE and 7·7 to 22·3 months for methotrexate. At 12 months of follow-up, three studies reported that 76% (FAE), 53% (methotrexate) and 59% (methotrexate) of patients achieved ≥ 75% reduction in PASI, and one reported that 76% of FAE-exposed patients achieved a markedly improved or clear PGA.
CONCLUSIONS
The comparative persistence and effectiveness of acitretin, ciclosporin, FAE and methotrexate in real-world clinical practice in the past decade cannot be well described due to the inconsistency of the methods used.
Topics: Acitretin; Adult; Cyclosporine; Dermatologic Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Fumarates; Humans; Methotrexate; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Observational Studies as Topic; Psoriasis; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30628069
DOI: 10.1111/bjd.17625 -
Journal Der Deutschen Dermatologischen... Mar 2019Pityriasis rubra pilaris (PRP) is a rare papulosquamous disorder. Treatment is challenging; the armamentarium consists of topical corticosteroids, phototherapy, classic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Pityriasis rubra pilaris (PRP) is a rare papulosquamous disorder. Treatment is challenging; the armamentarium consists of topical corticosteroids, phototherapy, classic systemic treatments such as retinoids or immunosuppressive drugs, and most recently biologicals. However, the relative effectiveness of therapies is unclear. Our objective was to review the published literature on systemic treatment of PRP. A systematic review was conducted on PubMed and the Cochrane Library up to 5 September 2017. Studies evaluating any systemic treatments of PRP (except for historical treatments) were included. Overall, 182 studies met the predefined inclusion criteria, and reported on 475 patients and 652 courses of treatment. 42.0 % (225/514) of all patients treated with retinoids achieved an excellent response (isotretinoin: 61.1 % [102/167], etretinate: 47 % [54/115], and acitretin: 24.7 % [43/174]) compared to an excellent response rate of 33.1 % (53/160) with methotrexate. Therapy with biologicals was successful in 51.0 % of patients (71/133) (ustekinumab: 62.5 % [10/16], infliximab: 57.1 % [28/49], etanercept: 53.3 % [16/30], and adalimumab: 46.4 % [13/28]). This review balances effectiveness, side effects, experience, and drug costs in order to suggest a treatment regimen starting with isotretinoin as first-line, methotrexate as second-line and biologicals as third-line treatment for this difficult-to-treat dermatosis.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Age Distribution; Biological Products; Child; Dermatologic Agents; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pityriasis Rubra Pilaris; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 30520557
DOI: 10.1111/ddg.13718 -
Journal of the American Academy of... Apr 2019This systematic review assesses effects of paternal exposure to dermatologic medications by using the former US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pregnancy categories...
BACKGROUND
This systematic review assesses effects of paternal exposure to dermatologic medications by using the former US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pregnancy categories as a benchmark.
OBJECTIVE
To assess whether systemic dermatologic medications can cause infertility and teratogenicity when taken by men.
METHODS
Categories D and X dermatologic medications were identified; a systematic review of the literature and reviews of the FDA Adverse Events Reporting System and prescribing information were performed to identify the effects of these medications on male fertility and teratogenicity. A secondary search was performed to assess for other systemic dermatologic medications causing teratogenicity or infertility following paternal exposure.
RESULTS
A total of 13 medications met the inclusion criteria. Of 1,032 studies identified, 19 were included after a systematic review of the literature. Studies evaluating medication effects with paternal exposure were identified for 10 of the 13 evaluated medications, and evidence of a negative effect was identified for 6 medications.
LIMITATIONS
We did not encounter any studies for 3 medications that met the inclusion criteria. Information submitted to the FDA Adverse Events Reporting System may not reflect the incidence of side effects.
CONCLUSIONS
Many former pregnancy category D and X systemic dermatologic medications also have effects on male fertility. More research and better-quality studies are required in this area, particularly studies assessing potential teratogenicity.
Topics: Acitretin; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Colchicine; Cyclophosphamide; Dermatologic Agents; Doxycycline; Finasteride; Humans; Infertility, Male; Isotretinoin; Male; Methotrexate; Paternal Exposure; Teratogenesis; Tetracycline; Thalidomide
PubMed: 30287313
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.09.031 -
International Journal of Dermatology Dec 2018Tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors (anti-TNF-α) completely revolutionized the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, anti-TNF-α-induced cutaneous...
Tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors (anti-TNF-α) completely revolutionized the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, anti-TNF-α-induced cutaneous side effects have been increasingly reported in the literature. Particularly, psoriasis and the recently recognized psoriasiform lesions are of particular concern, as anti-TNF-α agents are also used in the treatment of psoriasis, seemingly reflecting an immunological paradox. The clinical management of these cutaneous lesions is particularly challenging, owing to the potential need of anti-TNF-α discontinuation and scarcity of other therapeutic options. Therefore, optimization of current topical and systemic therapies and incorporation of new therapeutic agents is of great interest. Our aim is to review data in the literature regarding the clinical management of these cutaneous lesions and provide a therapeutic algorithm, supported by our experience as a tertiary referral center for IBD. Although in older reports no distinction was made, anti-TNF-α-induced psoriasiform lesions are not only more prevalent but also bear notable differences from classical psoriasis, possibly reflecting a different nosological entity. Onset of lesions has been related to periods of IBD remission, as supported by low levels of fecal calprotectin. Psoriasiform lesions can be adequately managed either by topical (glucocorticoids, calcineurin inhibitors, and antibiotics) or systemic (phototherapy, acitretin, glucocorticoids, and antibiotics) therapies and/or switch to other anti-TNF-α agents. Data referring to patients who were able to continue on the same IBD therapy ranged from 30.7 to 100%, reinforcing the importance of an adequate control of these lesions. The recently approved ustekinumab offers another step in the management of anti-TNF-α-intolerant patients.
Topics: Adalimumab; Algorithms; Certolizumab Pegol; Dermatologic Agents; Feces; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Infliximab; Leukocyte L1 Antigen Complex; Psoriasis; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha; Ustekinumab
PubMed: 30028008
DOI: 10.1111/ijd.14072