Search

Purpose: Tildrakizumab is a selective inhibitor of IL-23 approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in two dosages. We conducted a 16-week multicenter retrospective study to compare the effectiveness and safety of tildrakizumab 200 mg versus tildrakizumab 100 mg in patients with a high disease burden or high body weight., Materials and Methods: Our retrospective study included 134 patients treated with tildrakizumab 200 mg and 364 patients treated with tildrakizumab 100 mg from 28 Italian Dermatology Units affected by moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. The patients had a body weight above 90 kg or a high disease burden (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index [PASI] ≥ 16 or the involvement of difficult-to-treat areas). We evaluated the effectiveness of tildrakizumab at the week-16 visit in terms of PASI90, PASI100 and absolute PASI ≤ 2., Results: After 16 weeks of treatment with tildrakizumab 200 mg, PASI90 was reached by 57.5% of patients and PASI100 by 39.6% of patients. At the same time point, 34.3% and 24.2% of patients treated with tildrakizumab 100 mg achieved PASI90 and PASI100, respectively., Conclusions: Our data suggest that tildrakizumab 200 mg has better effectiveness than tildrakizumab 100 mg in patients with a body weight ≥ 90 kg and a high disease burden.

Purpose of the article: The aim of this multicenter observational study is to report data from real world on the use of bimekizumab in patients aged ≥ 65 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Elderly patients are poorly represented in clinical trials on bimekizumab for plaque psoriasis, and real-world studies are important to guide clinical choices., Materials and methods: A retrospective multicenter study was conducted in 33 dermatological outpatient clinics in Italy. Patients aged ≥ 65 years, with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and treated with bimekizumab were enrolled. No exclusion criteria were applied. Bimekizumab was administered following the Italian Guidelines for the management of plaque psoriasis and according to the summary of product characteristics, in adult patients who were candidates for systemic treatments. Overall, 98 subjects were included, and received bimekizumab up to week 36. Clinical and demographic data were collected before the initiation of treatment with bimekizumab. At baseline and each dermatological examination (4, 16, and 36 weeks), clinical outcomes were measured by the following parameters: (1) PASI score; (2) site-specific (scalp, palmoplantar, genital, nail) Psoriasis Global Assessment (PGA). At each visit, the occurrence of any adverse events (AEs) was recorded, including serious AEs and AEs leading to bimekizumab discontinuation., Results: The mean PASI score was 16.6 ± 9.4 at baseline and significantly decreased to 4.3 ± 5.2 after 4 weeks ( p  < 0.001), and 1.1 ± 1.7 after 16 week ( p  < 0.001). This level of improvement was maintained after 36 weeks ( p  < 0.001). PASI ≤2 was recorded in 36 (36.7%) at week 4, 68% and 69.4% at week 16 and 36, respectively. By week 16, 86/98 (87.8%) patients reached PASI75, 71/98 (72.4%) obtained PASI90, and 52/98 (53.1%) PASI100. Binary logistic regression tests showed a significant association of PASI100 by week 4 with lower PASI at baseline. PASI 100 at 16 or 36 weeks was not associated with baseline PASI, obesity, age, gender, previously naïve state, and presence of psoriatic arthritis. Patients naïve to biologics at baseline had similar response to bimekizumab as non-naïve subjects., Conclusions: Bimekizumab is a suitable option for elder patients as it is effective, tolerated and has a convenient schedule.

Introduction: Patients with psoriasis who have failed multiple biologic drugs have been defined as "multi-failure," although there are no clear data on the characteristics, comorbidities, and best treatment strategies for this population. Nowadays, given the next generation and the number of biologics available, patients are considered multi-failure when ≥4 biologics fail to achieve a good response., Methods: Demographic characteristics and efficacy of anti-interleukin drugs in multi-failure patients were compared to a cohort of general psoriatic patients treated with IL-23 or IL-17 inhibitors., Results: In total 97 multi-failure patients (≥4 lines of biologics) were compared with 1,057 patients in the general cohort. The current drugs in the multi-failure group were risankizumab (34), ixekizumab (23), guselkumab (21), brodalumab (7), tildrakizumab (5), ustekinumab (4), secukinumab (2), and certolizumab pegol (1). A significant difference was found in the multi-failure cohort for age of psoriasis onset (mean 29.7 vs. 35.1, P < 0.001), concurrent psoriatic arthritis (45.4 vs. 26.9%, P < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (30.9 vs. 10.9%, P < 0.001), and cardiovascular comorbidity (54.6 vs. 39.8%, P = 0.005). In multi-failure patients, current biological therapy showed a good initial response (PASI 90 and 100 of 41.24 and 27.84%, respectively, at 16 weeks); the response tended to decline after 40 weeks. Anti-IL-17 agents showed clinical superiority over IL-23 agents in terms of achieving PASI90 at 28 weeks (P < 0.001) and 40 weeks (P = 0.007), after which they reached a plateau. In contrast, IL-23 agents showed a slower but progressive improvement that was maintained for up to 52 weeks. A similar trend was also seen for PASI100 (28 weeks P = 0.032; 40 weeks P = 0.121)., Conclusions: The multi-failure patient is characterized by many comorbidities and longstanding inflammatory disease that frequently precedes the introduction of systemic biologic therapy. Further studies are needed to identify more specific criteria that could be applied as a guideline by clinicians., (© 2024 The Authors. International Journal of Dermatology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of the International Society of Dermatology.)

Introduction: The development of several effective biological drugs for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis has dramatically changed the lives of patients. Despite the wide use of interleukin (IL) inhibitors, limited data are available to date regarding long-term treatment persistence., Method: This multicenter retrospective real-world study evaluated 5932 treatment courses across 5300 patients, all treated with interleukin inhibitors. Drug survival was expressed by using the Kaplan-Meier estimator for each biological drug at 6, 12, 24, 36 and 48 months. We also stratified by discontinuation associated with primary or secondary ineffectiveness., Results: In our study, the most prescribed drugs were secukinumab (1412), ixekizumab (1183), and risankizumab (977). After four years of follow-up, risankizumab emerged as the treatment with the highest drug survival overall, as 91.6% of patients were still on treatment. The overall probability of drug survival at four years was comparable for tildrakizumab (83.5%), ixekizumab (82.6%), guselkumab (82.4%) and brodalumab (81.8%). When evaluating only patients who discontinued the treatment because of ineffectiveness, once again risankizumab was the molecule with the highest drug survival at 4 years (93.4%), this time followed by ixekizumab (87%). Our study, in which all IL inhibitors were adequately represented, confirmed a slightly better treatment persistence for IL-23 inhibitors, consistent with other real-world studies., Conclusion: Our experience showed that IL-23 inhibitors, and risankizumab in particular, had a higher probability of drug survival overall during a 4-year follow-up. Risankizumab and ixekizumab were less likely to be discontinued because of ineffectiveness after four years., Competing Interests: LG has been a consultant for Almirall. LI has been a consultant for Almirall. PM has been a speaker for AbbVie, Lilly, Novartis, Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Leopharma and Almirall. AB has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards, meetings or as speaker for AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Eli Lilly, Novartis Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi-Genzyme and UCB Pharma. FB has been a consultant advisor and clinical study investigator for Eli Lilly, Abbvie, Novartis, Leo Pharma, Sandoz, Bristol Myers, Abiogen-Pharma, Celgene and Janssen. MB has acted as a speaker and consultant for AbbVie, Janssen, Amgen, Novartis, Eli Lilly and UCB Pharma. CC has served as a board participant or speaker for Abbvie, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Celgene, Almirall and Leopharma. GD served as consultant and/or speaker for AbbVie, Almirall, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, LeoPharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB and received unrestricted grants from Pfizer and Almirall. PD has been a speaker for Novartis, Abbvie, Sanofi, UCB, Janssen, Lilly and LeoPharma. FG acted as a speaker or consultant for Novartis, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Celgene, LeoPharma and Almirall. GG served as consultant and/or speaker for AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Biogen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, LeoPharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung, Sanofi and UCB. CG has been a scientific consultant/speaker/clinical study investigator for Abbvie, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Almirall and LEO Pharma. CL declares a conflict of interest with Abbvie, Novartis, Lilly and Almirall. FL served on advisory boards and/or received honoraria for lectures from Abbvie, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Lilly and Sanofi. AM reports consultancy/advisory boards disease-relevant honoraria from AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB. MM acted as a speaker or consultant for Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo-Pharma, UCB and Novartis. AC has served as an advisory board member, consultant and has received fees and speaker’s honoraria or has participated in clinical trials for Abbvie, Almirall, Biogen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme and UCB-Pharma. AN has served on advisory boards, received honoraria for lectures and research grants from Almirall, Abbvie, Leo Pharma, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Amgen and Boehringer Ingelheim. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Gargiulo, Ibba, Malagoli, Balato, Bardazzi, Burlando, Carrera, Damiani, Dapavo, Dini, Gaiani, Girolomoni, Guarneri, Lasagni, Loconsole, Marzano, Megna, Mercuri, Travaglini, Costanzo and Narcisi.)

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by recurrent and painful nodules and abscesses in intertriginous skin areas, which can progress to sinus tract formation, tissue destruction, and scarring. HS is highly debilitating and severely impairs the psychological well-being and quality of life of patients. The therapeutic approach to HS is based on medical therapy and surgery. First-line medical therapy includes topical antibiotics, systemic antibiotics, and biologics. Main surgical procedures include deroofing, local excision, and wide local excision. Despite the availability of multiple therapeutic options, the rates of disease recurrence and progression continue to be high. In recent years, the possibility of combining biologic therapy and surgery has raised considerable interest. In a clinical trial, the perioperative use of adalimumab has been associated with greater response rates and improved inflammatory load and pain, with no increased risk of postoperative infectious complications. However, several practical aspects of combined biologic therapy and surgery are poorly defined. In June 2022, nine Italian HS experts convened to address issues related to the integration of biologic therapy and surgery in clinical practice. To this purpose, the experts identified 10 areas of interest based on published evidence and personal experience: (1) patient profiling (diagnostic criteria, disease severity classification, assessment of response to treatment, patient-reported outcomes, comorbidities); (2) tailoring surgery to HS characteristics; (3) wide local excision; (4) presurgery biologic treatment; (5) concomitant biologic and surgical treatments; (6) pre- and postsurgery management; (7) antibiotic systemic therapy; (8) biologic therapy after radical surgery; (9) management of adverse events to biologics; and (10) management of postoperative infectious complications. Consensus between experts was reached using the Estimate-Talk-Estimate method (Delphi Method). The statements were subsequently presented to a panel of 27 HS experts from across Italy, and their agreement was assessed using the UCLA Appropriateness Method. This article presents and discusses the consensus statements., (© 2024 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Purpose: Ixekizumab is a high-affinity monoclonal antibody that selectively targets interleukin (IL)-17A approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. The objective of this study was to describe the real-world long-term effectiveness of ixekizumab in patients with plaque psoriasis in Italy., Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted in patients affected by moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis who were continuously treated with ixekizumab for at least 12 months. Patient data was obtained at 4-weeks, 12-weeks and 6-, 12-, 18- and 24-months after baseline (June 2017 and September 2019) from 10 sites. Results were analyzed by complete case approach, with sensitivity analysis performed to evaluate the impact of missing data., Results: A total of 198 patients were enrolled in the study. At Month 24, 94.3% of patients achieved PASI75 response, while 85.1 and 71.8% achieved PASI90 and PASI100, respectively; and 91.1% of the patients achieved absolute PASI score ≤2. Patients experienced psoriasis improvement at 4 weeks after starting treatment, and improvement was maintained with continued ixekizumab use. The quality of life of patients also improved significantly starting at Week 12, with sustained effect in the long term., Conclusion: This 24-month observational cohort study confirmed that ixekizumab is effective in the long-term management of patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

Background: Tildrakizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds selectively the p19 subunit of interleukin-23. It is approved for treatment of moderate-severe chronic plaque psoriasis., Objectives: We conducted a 52-week retrospective study to assess the effectiveness and safety of tildrakizumab in a real-life setting., Methods: Our retrospective study included 237 consecutive adults with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, enrolled in 10 different Italian centres, treated with tildrakizumab up to Week 52. Patient characteristics, comorbidities, previous treatments and the PASI (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) score at each visit (baseline, Week 16, Week 28 and Week 52) were retrieved from the electronic medical records. The percentages of patients achieving 75%, 90% and 100% (PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100) improvement in PASI with respect to baseline PASI were registered., Results: At Week 52, 90.91%, 73.55% and 58.68% of patients achieved a PASI reduction ≥75% (PASI 75), PASI 90 and PASI 100, respectively. An absolute PASI ≤ 2 was reached by 85.95% at Week 52. Compared with Phase 3 clinical trials, we observed similar rates of PASI 75/90 responses and higher percentages of patients achieving PASI 100. Patients who had not responded to previous biologic treatments and patients with cardio-metabolic comorbidities were significantly more likely to achieve PASI 100 at Week 28 and PASI 90 at Week 52. The higher body mass index did not interfere with the odds of reaching PASI 75/90/100 at each time point. No significant safety findings were recorded throughout the study, and none of the patients had to interrupt the treatment because of adverse events., Conclusion: Our data suggest that the efficacy of tildrakizumab for plaque psoriasis in 'real-life' clinical practice is comparable with Phase 3 clinical trials with higher percentages of patients achieving complete skin clearance (PASI 100) at Weeks 16, 28 and 52., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

The number of psoriatic elderly patients is steadily increasing in the Western world, nevertheless they are frequently excluded from clinical trials and described as a high-risk group for adverse events.We conducted a retrospective multicentric study of DMF use in elderly (>65 years) psoriatic patients. DMF efficacy was evaluated up to 24 weeks by Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score. We also evaluated drug maintenance and safety.Our study population included 81 elderly psoriatic patients treated with DMF up to 24 weeks. The PASI score at the baseline (week 0) ranged from 3,7-24 (mean ± SD, 9,8 ± 4,1), which changed after DMF administration to 4,3 ± 3,2 at week 16 and 2,7 ± 3,2 at week 24. Among 81 elderly psoriatic patients 59 (72,8%) adverse events were reported during the observation period. The most common were gastrointestinal complaints ( n  = 24, 29,6%) and flushes ( n  = 10, 12,3%). Lymphocytopenia ( n  = 10, 12,35%) was frequently observed.In daily practice, DMF seems to be efficacy and well tolerated in elderly psoriatic patients. DMF may be a first-line systemic treatment option to manage elderly psoriasis, provided that also the long-term safety data are closely monitored, in particular lymphocytopenia.

Background: Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory skin disease which can also involve joints. It is often associated with burdensome comorbidities which negatively impact prognosis and quality of life (QoL). Biologic agents have been shown to be effective in controlling disease progression, but their use is associated with higher costs compared with traditional systemic treatments. The economic analysis of the CANOVA (EffeCtiveness of biologic treAtmeNts for plaque psOriasis in Italy: an obserVAtional longitudinal study of real-life clinical practice) study aims to assess the costs and cost-effectiveness of biologics in a real-world context in Italy., Methods: The annualised overall direct costs of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis management, the annualised cost of biologic drugs and the cost per responder in the Italian National Health System perspective were assessed. More specifically, the cost per response and cost per sustained response of the most prescribed biologic therapies for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis within the CANOVA study were assessed using the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) at several score levels (75, 90 and 100%)., Results: The most frequently used biologic therapies for plaque psoriasis were secukinumab, ustekinumab, adalimumab originator, and ixekizumab. Cost of biologics was the driver of expenditure, accounting for about 98% of total costs. Adalimumab originator was the biologic with the lowest cost per responder ratio (range: €7848 - €31,378), followed by secukinumab (range: €9015 - €33,419). Ustekinumab (range: €11,689 - €39,280) and ixekizumab (range: €11,092 - €34,289) ranked respectively third and fourth, in terms of cost-effectiveness ratio. As concerns the cost per sustained response analysis, secukinumab showed the lowest value observed (€21,375) over the other options, because of its high response rate (86% vs. 60-80%), which was achieved early in time., Conclusion: Biologic therapy is a valuable asset for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Concomitant assessment of treatment costs against the expected therapeutic response over time can provide physicians and payers additional insights which can complement the traditional risk-benefit profile assessment and drive treatment decisions., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Whether biologic therapies enhance the risk of coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) or affect the disease outcome in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis remains to be ascertained., Objective: We sought to investigate the incidence of hospitalization and death for COVID-19 in a large sample of patients with plaque psoriasis receiving biologic therapies compared with the general population., Methods: This is a retrospective multicenter cohort study including patients with chronic plaque psoriasis (n = 6501) being treated with biologic therapy and regularly followed up at the divisions of dermatology of several main hospitals in the Northern Italian cities of Verona, Padua, Vicenza, Modena, Bologna, Piacenza, Turin, and Milan. Incidence rates of hospitalization and death per 10,000 person-months with exact mid-p 95% CIs and standardized incidence ratios were estimated in the patients with psoriasis and compared with those in the general population in the same geographic areas., Results: The incidence rate of hospitalization for COVID-19 was 11.7 (95% CI, 7.2-18.1) per 10,000 person-months in patients with psoriasis and 14.4 (95% CI, 14.3-14.5) in the general population; the incidence rate of death from COVID-19 was 1.3 (95% CI, 0.2-4.3) and 4.7 (95% CI, 4.6-4.7) in patients with psoriasis and the general population, respectively. The standardized incidence ratio of hospitalization and death in patients with psoriasis compared with those in the general population was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.57-1.45; P = .82) and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.07-1.38; P = .19), respectively., Conclusions: Our data did not show any adverse impact of biologics on COVID-19 outcome in patients with psoriasis. We would not advise biologic discontinuation in patients on treatment since more than 6 months and not infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 to prevent hospitalization and death from COVID-19., (Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Knowledge regarding differences in care for psoriatic patients is limited. The aim of this study was to investigate factors influencing prescription of systemic treatments for patients with psoriasis with a special focus on socioeconomic factors., Methods and Findings: This was a non-interventional, cross-sectional study, conducted in 18 Italian University and/or hospital centers with psoriasis-specialized units. Questionnaires evaluating demographic and socioeconomic characteristics were administered to participants. Overall, 1880 consecutive patients affected by mild-to-severe psoriasis were recruited. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses of systemic therapy prescription, with a special focus on biologics, accounting for the above mentioned characteristics were performed. Our analysis showed that all analyzed patients' characteristics were significantly associated with biological therapy compared to non-biological systemic one. Particularly, women were less likely to receive biologics than men (OR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.77). Elderly patients (≥65 years) and subjects with a BMI ≥30 had lower odds to receive biologics respect to adults (≥35-64 years) (OR = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.25-0.40), and subjects with BMI≥25<30 (OR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53-0.77), respectively. Northern and Southern patients were both less likely to receive biologics than Central patients (OR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.89, and OR = 0.56; 95% CI,0.47-0.68, respectively). Lower economic profile and never reading books were both associated with decreased odds of receiving biological therapy., Conclusions: This study shows that sex, age, comorbidities, and socioeconomic characteristics influence the prescription of systemic treatments in psoriasis, highlighting that there are still unmet needs influencing the therapeutic decision-making process that have to be addressed., Competing Interests: P. Amerio has been a scientific consultant for Abbvie, Eli-Lilly, Jannsen, Celgene, Galderma, LEO-Pharma, Sanofi Genzyme and Alfa Wasserman. F. Bardazzi has been a scientific consultant/speaker/clinical study investigator for AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, LEOPharma, Eli-Lilly, MSD, Novartis and Pfizer. L. Bianchi has been a scientific consultant/speaker for Abbvie, Janssen, Celgene, Pfizer, UCB, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme and LEO-Pharma. A. Campanati has been a scientific consultant/speaker/clinical study investigator for AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, LEO-Pharma, Eli-Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi. S.P. Cannavò has been a scientific consultant/speaker for AbbVie, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, LEO-Pharma, Novartis and Sanofi. A. Chiricozzi has been a scientific consultant/speaker/clinical study investigator for Abbvie, Biogen, Fresenius Kabi, LEO-Pharma, Eli-Lilly, Novartis, UCB, Sanofi and Janssen. A. Conti has been a scientific consultant for Abbvie, Eli-Lilly, Janssen Cilag, LEO-Pharma, UCB and Sandoz. P. Dapavo has been a scientific consultant/speaker for Novartis, Abbvie, Eli-Lilly, Celgene, LEOpharma and Janssen. C. De Simone has been a scientific consultant/speaker/clinical study investigator for AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, LEO-Pharma, Eli-Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and Sun Pharma. M. Esposito has been a scientific consultant/speaker for Abbvie, Novartis, Eli-Lilly, Biogen, LEO-Pharma. M.C. Fargnoli has been a scientific consultant/speaker/clinical study investigator for AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, LEO-Pharma, Eli- Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Galderma, Almirall, Mylan, UCB and Regeneron. C. Guarneri has been a scientific consultant/speaker/clinical study investigator for Wyeth-Pfizer, Abbott Immunology-Abbvie, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, LEO-Pharma, Eli-Lilly, Celgene and Merck-Serono. K. Hansel has been a scientific consultant/speaker/clinical study investigator for AbbVie, Eli- Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi and Admiral. P. Malagoli has been a scientific consultant/speaker/clinical study investigator for AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, LEO-Pharma, Eli-Lilly, Novartis. G. Micali has been a scientific consultant/clinical study investigator for Abbvie, Eli-Lilly, Janssen- Cilag, LEO-Pharma and Novartis. C. Mugheddu has been a speaker/clinical study investigator for Abbvie, Celgene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janseen, Novartis and LEO-Pharma. A. Offidani has been a scientific consultant/speaker/clinical study investigator for AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, LEOPharma, Eli-Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Alfasigma and Almirall. F. Prignano has been a scientific consultant/adviser/clinical study investigator for Eli-Lilly, Abbvie, Novartis, LEOPharma, Abiogen-Pharma, Celgene and Janssen-Cilag. F. Rongioletti has been a scientific consultant/speaker/clinical study investigator for AbbVie, Boehringer, Celgene, Janssen, LEOPharma, Eli-Lilly, Novartis and Sanofi. L. Stingeni has been a scientific consultant/speaker/clinical study investigator for AbbVie, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Novartis, Almirall and Sanofi. A. Balato has been a scientific consultant/speaker/clinical study investigator for AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Eli-Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Background: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is defined as spontaneous occurrence of wheals and/or angioedema for ≥6 weeks. Omalizumab is a monoclonal anti-IgE antibody effective in refractory CSU, but its mechanism of action and markers predictive of response remain not completely defined., Objectives: To correlate baseline levels of two proposed biomarkers, total IgE (bIgE) and d-dimer (bd-dimer), and clinical parameters to omalizumab response and to relapses after drug withdrawal., Methods: In this retrospective Italian multicentre study, clinical data were collected in 470 CSU patients, and bIgE and bd-dimer were measured in 340 and 342 patients, respectively. Disease activity was determined by Urticaria Activity Score 7 (UAS7) at week 1 and 12 after omalizumab starting. Relapses were evaluated during a 2- and 3-month interval after a first and a second course of treatment, respectively., Results: bIgE correlated to a good response to omalizumab since levels were significantly higher in responders than non-responders (P = 0.0002). Conversely, bd-dimer did not correlate to response. There was no correlation between both bIgE and d-dimer and either first or second relapse. Disease duration was significantly longer in patients who experienced either first or second relapse (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.0105, respectively), while baseline UAS7 correlated only to first relapse (P = 0.0023)., Conclusions: Our study confirms bIgE as a reliable biomarker predicting response to omalizumab in CSU, while it does not support the usefulness of bd-dimer unlike previous findings. CSU duration before omalizumab and baseline UAS7 may be clinical markers of relapse risk., (© 2018 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Background: The number of elderly patients with psoriasis is steadily increasing in the Western world; nevertheless, they are frequently excluded from biological clinical trials and described as a high-risk group for adverse events. Thus, there is lack of information concerning safety and effectiveness of available treatments for psoriasis in the elderly, particularly about new biological systemic drugs., Objective: Our aim was to describe our experience with all biological therapies currently used in the elderly (>65 years) psoriatic patients., Methods: A retrospective multicentric review of clinical records of all psoriatic patient aged 65 years or older actually receiving biological drugs (etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, certolizumab pegol, ustekinumab or secukinumab) was undertaken., Results: Our study population included 266 elderly psoriatic patients actually receiving any biological therapy (adalimumab 31.2%, ustekinumab 28.9%, etanercept 20.3%, secukinumab 15%, infliximab 3%, golimumab 1% and certolizumab pegol 0.6%). The PASI score at the baseline (week 0) ranged from 4 to 54; mean ± SD, 16.5 ± 7.1, which changed after biological administration to 3.7 ± 8 at week 16, 1.6 ± 2.1 at week 28 and 1.2 ± 2.1 at week 52. Among 266 elderly psoriatic patients, 25 adverse events were reported during the observation period. The most frequent events were infections with 12 (48%) reports, followed by malignancies with four (16%) reports., Conclusions: To date, our study represents the widest experience on the use of biological drugs in elderly psoriatic patients. We found that all biologics for psoriasis showed a great efficacy also in elderly people, and the rate and the type of adverse effects were similar to the younger patients. In conclusion, the age alone should not limit our therapeutic options. Further observational study using multiple data sources is needed to evaluate long-term effectiveness and safety for elderly psoriatic patients., (© 2018 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Background: Interleukin (IL) inhibitors are increasingly used in the management of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. However, their use in patients with a history of cancer is debated., Objective: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study across nine Italian Dermatology Units to assess the real-world effectiveness and safety of IL inhibitors (IL-23, IL-17, IL-12/23) in 136 oncological patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. In particular, we evaluated 116 patients who developed the neoplasm before starting the biologic with a mean time from diagnosis of neoplasia to the first biologic dose of 8.31 years. We also assessed 20 patients who received a diagnosis of neoplasm during treatment with IL inhibitors after a mean time of 2.41 years from the start of the biologic with a cumulative incidence of 3.06 per 1000 individuals., Results: Three patients experienced neoplasm recurrence during treatment with IL inhibitors, which led to the discontinuation of these drugs. In our study, biologics have demonstrated safety and effectiveness as treatment options for patients with both a history of neoplasm and those with concurrent tumors. However, further investigation is needed, particularly through larger and longer multicenter studies.