Search

This study correlated assessment tools for evaluating the severity of skin, nail, and joint symptoms in patients with psoriasis (Pso) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Adults with plaque Pso (with or without PsA) were enrolled from four U.S. institutions. Patients were evaluated using a novel 10-area Linear Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (XL-PASI), Psoriatic Arthritis Assessment (PsAA), Psoriatic Arthritis Screening and Evaluation Questionnaire (PASE), Nail Assessment (NA) and Joint Assessment (JA) tools, Psoriasis Weighted Extent and Severity Index (PWESI), and Lattice Physician Global Assessment (LS-PGA). Correlations between assessment tools and individual items in the assessment tools were performed. Data from 180 patients (55 with PsA) were analyzed. Highest correlations between tools (r = 0.77-0.88) were between the XL-PASI, PWESI and LS-PGA. Individual items in the XL-PASI correlated with items in the PWESI for extent skin symptoms, but not for all body areas. Overall, correlations were seen between hands and feet, between face and scalp, and between buttocks, chest, and back. Only low correlation was seen between items assessing joint symptoms with items assessing skin symptoms. These data support the notion that the complex phenotype of psoriatic disease requires instruments that assess the severity of skin, nails, and joints separately.

Background: Psoriasis severity categories have been important tools for clinicians to use in treatment decisions as well as to determine eligibility criteria for clinical studies. However, owing to the heterogeneity of severity classifications and their lack of consideration for the impact of psoriasis involvement of special areas or past treatment history, patients may be miscategorized, which can lead to undertreatment of psoriasis.Objective: To develop a consensus statement on the classification of psoriasis severity.Methods: A modified Delphi approach was developed by the International Psoriasis Council to define psoriasis severity.Results: After completion of the exercise, 7 severity definitions were preferentially ranked. This most preferred statement rejects the mild, moderate, and severe categories in favor of a dichotomous definition: Psoriasis patients should be classified as either candidates for topical therapy or candidates for systemic therapy; the latter are patients who meet at least one of the following criteria: (1) body surface area >10%, (2) disease involving special areas, and (3) failure of topical therapy.Limitations: This effort might have suffered from a lack of representation by all relevant stakeholders, including patients.Conclusion: The consensus statement describes 2 categories of psoriasis severity, while accounting for special circumstances where patients may require systemic therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Currently, no formalized international consensus guidelines exist to direct optimal topical treatment including long-term treatment., Objective: In this survey, we aim to examine if and which topicals are used in clinical practice in long-term continuous treatment of psoriasis and how topicals are used in treating specific sites of the body., Methods: A questionnaire was distributed electronically to dermatologists from the International Psoriasis Council (IPC) representing 26 countries., Results: The top three topicals used across all severities of disease were topical corticosteroids, vitamin D analogs, and potent topical corticosteroids in combination with vitamin D analogs. On locations where the skin is thin, flexural and genital psoriasis, lower potency topical corticosteroids were used, whereas on other sites, in particular in palmoplantar psoriasis, superpotent topical corticosteroids and combination vitamin D analogs/corticosteroids were used., Conclusions: It is relevant to optimize localized therapy for all severities of psoriasis reconciling disease activity (stable vs. unstable disease), localization of the lesions and the individual patient and his/her perspectives on disease control. Topical therapies are valuable treatments for classical mild disease and may have a position in some patients with more severe manifestations.

Background: Psoriasis severity is usually evaluated using quantitative and qualitative measures, including per cent body surface area (BSA) involvement, the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), a patient-reported questionnaire. However, standardized definitions for psoriasis severity categories have not been well established. A PASI of 10 or 12 has remained the minimal severity threshold defining eligibility for psoriasis treatments. In the present study, the validity of this cut-off was re-evaluated in the context of quality of life., Objective: To determine whether the thresholds commonly used to define moderate psoriasis (PASI of 10-12 and BSA of 10) are supported by patient-reported DLQI data., Methods: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials that enrolled mild or moderate patients published between January 2000 and June 2017 was used to assess correlations between provider and patient-generated severity at baseline., Results: For subject groups with high impact on quality of life (DLQI > 10), the mean weighted BSA was 7.6 (Range: 7.1-8.4) and the mean weighted DLQI was 11 (Range: 10.2-12.2). Similarly, the mean weighted PASI for patients with DLQI > 10 was 8.7 (Range: 7.1-10.1) and the mean weighted DLQI was 10.9 (Range: 10.1-12.2)., Conclusion: Patients with PASI or BSA scores less than 10 can have major quality of life impairment. In general, the objective measures of BSA and PASI alone, when excluding DLQI, may not fully capture the impact of disease severity., (© 2020 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Background: The Psoriasis Symptom Inventory (PSI) is a patient-reported outcome measure designed to assess psoriasis signs and symptoms., Objectives: The aim was to assess the usefulness of the PSI in enhancing patient care in the clinical setting., Methods: Eight dermatology clinics in six countries enrolled adults representing the full spectrum of psoriasis severity who regularly received care at the clinic. Patients were administered the eight-item PSI (score range 0-32; higher scores indicate greater severity) while waiting for the physician; the physician conducted a static physician global assessment (sPGA) and estimated psoriasis-affected body surface area (BSA) at the same visit. Physicians completed a brief questionnaire after each patient visit, and were interviewed about the PSI after all patients were seen., Results: The clinics enrolled 278 patients; mean [standard deviation (SD)] psoriasis-affected BSA was 7.6% (11.4). Based on BSA, 47.8% had mild psoriasis, 29.1% had moderate psoriasis, and 23.0% had severe psoriasis. Based on sPGA, 18.7% were clear/almost clear, 67.3% were mild/moderate, and 14.0% were severe/very severe. The mean (SD) PSI total score was 12.2 (8.3). Physicians spent a mean (SD) 4.9 (4.8) min discussing PSI findings with their patients (range 0-20 min). 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., Conclusions: The PSI was useful for treated and untreated patients to enhance patient-physician communication, and influenced treatment decisions.

Engaging global key opinion leaders, the International Psoriasis Council (IPC) held a day-long roundtable discussion with the primary purpose to discuss the treatment goals of psoriasis patients and worldwide barriers to optimal care. Setting clear expectations might ultimately encourage undertreated psoriasis patients to seek care in an era in which great gains in therapeutic efficacy have been achieved. Here, we discuss the option for early treatment of all categories of psoriasis to alleviate disease impact while emphasizing the need for more focused attention for psoriasis patients with mild and moderate forms of this autoimmune disease. In addition, we encourage policy changes to keep pace with the innovative therapies and clinical science and highlight the demand for greater understanding of treatment barriers in resource-poor countries.

The introduction of biological drugs for the treatment of patients with psoriasis has revolutionized treatment paradigms and enabled numerous patients to achieve disease control with an acceptable safety profile. However, the high cost of biologics limits access to these medications for the majority of patients worldwide. In recent years, the introduction of biosimilars for inflammatory diseases has become a fast evolving field. The future use of biosimilars offers the potential for decreased cost and increased access to biologics for patients with psoriasis. For approval of biosimilars, different regulatory agencies use highly variable methods for definition, production, approval, marketing and postmarketing surveillance. Due to potential interchangeability between biologics and biosimilars, traceability and pharmacovigilance are required to collect accurate data about adverse events in patients with psoriasis; spontaneous reporting, registries and use of 'big data' should facilitate this process on a global basis. The current article describes biosimilar regulatory guidelines and examples of biosimilar uptake in clinical practice in several countries around the world. As it is apparent that biological therapy treatment decisions may become more physician independent, the International Psoriasis Council recommends that dermatologists should take an active role in the development of biosimilar prescribing policies with their respective healthcare settings and government agencies., (© 2017 British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: Topical treatment of mild to moderate psoriasis is first-line treatment and exhibits varying degrees of success across patient groups. Key factors influencing treatment success are physician topical treatment choice (high efficacy, low adverse events) and strict patient adherence. Currently, no formalized, international consensus guidelines exist to direct optimal topical treatment, although many countries have national guidelines., Objective: To describe and analyse cross-regional variations in the use and access of psoriasis topical therapies., Methods: The study was conducted as an observational cross-sectional study. A survey was distributed to dermatologists from the International Psoriasis Council (IPC) to assess topical therapy accessibility in 26 countries and to understand how body surface area (BSA) categories guide clinical decisions on topical use., Results: Variation in the availability of tars, topical retinoids, dithranol and balneotherapy was reported. The vast majority of respondents (100% and 88.4%) used topical therapy as first-line monotherapy in situations with BSA < 3% and BSA between 3% and 10%, respectively. However, with disease severity increasing to BSA > 10%, the number of respondents who prescribe topical therapy decreased considerably. In addition, combination therapy of a topical drug and a systemic drug was frequently reported when BSA measured >10%., Conclusion: This physician survey provides new evidence on topical access and the influence of disease severity on topical usage in an effort to improve treatment strategies on a global level., (© 2017 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

The International Psoriasis Council, a global nonprofit organization dedicated to innovation across the full spectrum of psoriasis, led a symposium to discuss the current state of psoriasis epidemiology and to introduce the vision and development of a Global Psoriasis Atlas. The symposium was held on 9 September 2015 at the 45th annual meeting of the European Society for Dermatological Research, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Collectively, these presentations highlighted challenges associated with assessing psoriasis epidemiology and emphasized the urgent need for an authoritative resource to clarify psoriasis disease burden on a global scale., (© 2017 British Association of Dermatologists.)

Biosimilars are drugs that are similar, but not identical, to originator biologics. Preclinical analytical studies are required to show similarity on a molecular and structural level, but efficacy and safety studies in humans are essential to determining biosimilarity. In this review, written by members of the International Psoriasis Council, we discuss how biosimilars are evaluated in a clinical setting, with emphasis on extrapolation of indication, interchangeability and optimal clinical trial design., (© 2016 British Association of Dermatologists.)

Latin American countries view biosimilar agents as an effective approach to curtail health-care expenditures while maintaining the safety and efficacy profile of their branded innovator comparators. To understand the complexities of the regulatory landscape and key therapeutic issues for use of biosimilars to treat moderate to severe psoriasis in Latin America, the International Psoriasis Council convened dermatology experts from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Mexico in October 2015 to review the definition, approval, marketing and future of biosimilars in each country and develop a consensus statement. The regulatory framework for marketing approval of biosimilars in Latin America is currently a mosaic of disparate, country-specific, regulatory review processes, rules and standards, with considerable heterogeneity in clarity and specificity. Regulations in Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico have undergone multiple refinements whereas Colombia is finalizing draft guidelines. Verification of the similarity in quality, safety and efficacy of biosimilars to the innovator biologic remains a key challenge for policy makers and regulatory authorities. Other key regulatory challenges include: naming of agents and traceability, pharmacovigilance, extrapolation of indications, and interchangeability and substitution. An urgent need exists for more Latin American countries to establish national psoriasis registries and to integrate their common components into a multinational psoriasis network, thereby enhancing their interpretative power and impact. A Latin American psoriasis network similar to PSONET in Europe would assist health-care providers, pharmaceutical companies, regulators and patients to fully comprehend specific products being prescribed and dispensed and to identify potential regional trends or differences in safety or outcomes., (© 2016 Japanese Dermatological Association.)

In this age of expanding choices of therapy for psoriasis, topical therapies still play an important part in the management of patients. There are many knowledge gaps in topical therapy for psoriasis with regard to efficacy and safety as well as various combinations including topical therapy with phototherapy or with systemic agents. Councillors of the International Psoriasis Council comprised a topical therapy working group to describe these gaps in order to help direct future research endeavours. Herein, we present the results of this analysis, discuss topical agents in clinical development and the attributes of the ideal topical treatment for psoriasis., (© 2016 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Biosimilars, sometimes called 'generic biologics', are no longer a vision for the future but a present-day reality. Drug manufacturers and regulatory authorities are charged with ensuring that these products are safe and effective. Because biologically produced medications are large, complex proteins, many factors affect the quality of the end product, including glycosylation and presence of impurities, and thus many factors need to be compared between an emerging biosimilar and its originator biologic. Indeed, preclinical analytical assessments to determine similarity to an originator biologic are critical and are considered to be the foundation for regulatory approval of biosimilars. Here, the science behind the preclinical development of biosimilars is discussed by members of the International Psoriasis Council, and suggestions are put forth to try to ensure that future biosimilars are produced in a high quality and standardized manner., (© 2015 British Association of Dermatologists.)

This review delivers a commentary on the first decade of biologics' use in psoriasis and provides a glimpse of the pipeline of therapies currently in development for psoriasis that will enhance the therapeutic armamentarium available to the dermatologist. In addition, the authors revisit the rationale for the development of biological therapies, inventory the available therapies of today, and retrospectively assess their impact on the dermatology practice as it relates to the management of patients with psoriasis.

The International Psoriasis Council, a global nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing psoriasis research and treatment, led an initiative to better define the association of various cardiometabolic comorbidities with psoriasis. In November 2013, a workshop was held in Boston, Mass. By assembling a panel of global dermatology, immunology, and cardiovascular experts, the objective was to better define the current status of the science that explains the association of psoriasis with various cardiometabolic-related comorbidities. The International Psoriasis Council has played a historical role in associating psoriasis with various comorbidities by integrating multidisciplinary expertise to advance the scientific and clinical knowledge through publications and clinical trials. This report synthesizes the current understanding of psoriasis with various cardiometabolic risk factors by exploring the potential shared pathogenic mechanisms and genetic connectivity., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Corticosteroids are a mainstay of topical therapy for psoriasis. While efficacious and relatively safe when used carefully, the potential for side effects, notably skin atrophy and adrenal suppression, have been associated with excesses in potency, prolonged or widespread use. The International Psoriasis Council Working Group on Topical Therapy has reviewed the efficacy and safety of topical corticosteroids and recommends strategies for safe, long-term use of these agents.