NICE has renewed accreditation of the process used by the British Association of Dermatologists to produce clinical guidelines. The renewed accreditation is valid until 31 May 2021 and applies to guidance produced using the processes described in the updated guidance for writing a British Asso-
The relationship between psoriasis and increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is controversial. We critically evaluate 14 cohorts and meta-analyze the magnitude of CVD risk for the primary outcomes of CVD mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI), and establish subgroup risk for different psoriasis severities and age groups. Increased CVD risk was identified only in individuals with severe psoriasis (defined as requiring systemic therapy or hospital admission): the risk ratio relative to the general population was 1.37 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17-1.60) for CVD mortality, 3.04 (95% CI 0.65-14.35) for MI, and 1.59 (95% CI 1.34-1.89) for stroke. The relative risks of CVD were highest in the younger, severe psoriasis population (e.g., 3.10 (95% CI 1.98-4.86) for MI at 30 years), and absolute risks were greatest in older individuals with severe psoriasis (e.g., 23.2 excess MIs per 10,000 person-years at 60 years). Uncertainty remains about whether CVD risk is directly attributable to psoriasis, as the majority of studies failed to adequately adjust for key traditional risk factors.
Multiple biologic treatments are licensed for psoriasis. The lack of head-to-head randomized controlled trials makes choosing between them difficult for patients, clinicians, and guideline developers. To establish their relative efficacy and tolerability, we searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for randomized controlled trials of licensed biologic treatments for skin psoriasis. We performed a network meta-analysis to identify direct and indirect evidence comparing biologics with one another, methotrexate, or placebo. We combined this with hierarchical cluster analysis to consider multiple outcomes related to efficacy and tolerability in combination for each treatment. Study quality, heterogeneity, and inconsistency were evaluated. Direct comparisons from 41 randomized controlled trials (20,561 participants) were included. All included biologics were efficacious compared with placebo or methotrexate at 3–4 months. Overall, cluster analysis showed adalimumab, secukinumab, and ustekinumab were comparable in terms of high efficacy and tolerability. Ixekizumab and infliximab were differentiated by very high efficacy but poorer tolerability. The lack of longer term controlled data limited our analysis to short-term outcomes. Trial performance may not equate to real-world performance, and so results need to be considered alongside real-world, long-term safety and effectiveness data. These data suggest that it is possible to discriminate between biologics to inform clinical practice and decision making (PROSPERO 2015:CRD42015017538).
SummaryThe majority of people with psoriasis have localized disease, where topical therapy forms the cornerstone of treatment. We set out to summarize evidence on the relative efficacy, safety and tolerability of different topical treatments used in plaque psoriasis. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized trial data of U.K.-licensed topical therapies. The primary outcome was clear or nearly clear status stratified for (i) trunk and limbs; and (ii) scalp. Network meta-analyses allowed ranking of treatment efficacy. In total, 48 studies were available for trunk and limb psoriasis, and 17 for scalp psoriasis (22 028 patients in total); the majority included people with at least moderate severity psoriasis. Strategies containing potent corticosteroids (alone or in combination with a vitamin D analogue) or very potent corticosteroids dominated the treatment hierarchy at both sites (trunk and limbs, scalp); coal tar and retinoids were no better than placebo. No significant differences in achievement of clear or nearly clear status were observed between twice-and once-daily application of the same intervention or between any of the following: combined vitamin D analogue and potent corticosteroid (applied separately or in a single product), very potent corticosteroids, or potent corticosteroids (applied twice daily). Investigator and patient assessment of response differed significantly for some interventions (response rates to very potent corticosteroids: 78% and 39%, respectively). No significant differences were noted for tolerability or steroid atrophy, but data were limited. In conclusion, corticosteroids are highly effective in psoriasis when used continuously for up to 8 weeks and intermittently for up to 52 weeks. Coal tar and retinoids are of limited benefit. There is a lack of long-term efficacy and safety data available on topical interventions used for psoriasis.Psoriasis is a common chronic inflammatory skin condition and, although generally not life threatening, it can have a profound impact on physical, psychological and social wellbeing. 1 While recent advances and investment in high-cost biological therapies have revolutionized outcomes for people with severe disease, comparatively little attention has been paid to topical therapy, which forms the cornerstone of management for the majority of people with psoriasis. 2 Furthermore, the degree of disability does not necessarily correlate with objective measures of disease extent or severity, 3 and people with minimal involvement (less than the equivalent of three palm areas) state that psoriasis has a major effect on their life, 4 underscoring the importance of effective treatment in this group.Corticosteroids, vitamin D 3 and its analogues, calcineurin inhibitors, retinoids, tar, dithranol and keratolytic agents such as salicylic acid and urea are all used, 5 and come in a vast array of formulations, combinations and potencies. Choice of treatment is tailored to the needs of the patient and includes consideration of the nature of...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.