Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Psoriasis: HELP
Articles from Berlin
Based on 136 articles published since 2008
||||

These are the 136 published articles about Psoriasis that originated from Berlin during 2008-2019.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6
1 Guideline Treating axial spondyloarthritis and peripheral spondyloarthritis, especially psoriatic arthritis, to target: 2017 update of recommendations by an international task force. 2018

Smolen, Josef S / Schöls, Monika / Braun, Jürgen / Dougados, Maxime / FitzGerald, Oliver / Gladman, Dafna D / Kavanaugh, Arthur / Landewé, Robert / Mease, Philip / Sieper, Joachim / Stamm, Tanja / Wit, Maarten de / Aletaha, Daniel / Baraliakos, Xenofon / Betteridge, Neil / Bosch, Filip van den / Coates, Laura C / Emery, Paul / Gensler, Lianne S / Gossec, Laure / Helliwell, Philip / Jongkees, Merryn / Kvien, Tore K / Inman, Robert D / McInnes, Iain B / Maccarone, Mara / Machado, Pedro M / Molto, Anna / Ogdie, Alexis / Poddubnyy, Denis / Ritchlin, Christopher / Rudwaleit, Martin / Tanew, Adrian / Thio, Bing / Veale, Douglas / Vlam, Kurt de / van der Heijde, Désirée. ·Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine 3, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. · 2nd Department of Medicine, Hietzing Hospital, Vienna, Austria. · Health Consult, Vienna, Austria. · Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet, Ruhr-University Bochum, Herne, Germany. · Department of Rheumatology, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France. · Department of Rheumatology, St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. · Division of Rheumatology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. · Division of Rheumatology, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA. · Amsterdam Rheumatology & Immunology Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Division of Rheumatology Research, Swedish-Providence St. Joseph Health System, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. · Department of Gastroenterology, Infectiology and Rheumatology, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Berlin, Germany. · Section for Outcomes Research, Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics, and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. · Department of Medical Humanities, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Neil Betteridge Associates, UK. · Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. · Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. · Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, Leeds, UK. · Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. · Department of Rheumatology, UPMC Univ Paris 06, GRC-UPMC 08 (EEMOIS); AP-HP, Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France. · Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. · Seayn Medical, Voorschoten, The Netherlands. · Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway. · University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. · University of Glasgow, College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences, Glasgow, UK. · A.DI.PSO. (Associazione per la Difesa degli Psoriasici)-PE.Pso.POF (Pan European Psoriasis Patients' Organization Forum), Rome, Italy. · Centre for Rheumatology & MRC Centre for Neuromuscular Diseases, University College London, London, UK. · Division of Rheumatology, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, PA, USA. · German Rheumatism Research Centrer, Berlin, Germany. · Allergy, Immunology and Rheumatology Division, University of Rochester Medical Center Rochester, New York, NY, USA. · Division of Internal Medicine and Rheumatology, Klinikum Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany. · Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. · Department of Dermatology, Erasmus Medical Center, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. · Department of Rheumatology, Klinikum Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany. · Division of Rheumatology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. · Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. ·Ann Rheum Dis · Pubmed #28684559.

ABSTRACT: Therapeutic targets have been defined for axial and peripheral spondyloarthritis (SpA) in 2012, but the evidence for these recommendations was only of indirect nature. These recommendations were re-evaluated in light of new insights. Based on the results of a systematic literature review and expert opinion, a task force of rheumatologists, dermatologists, patients and a health professional developed an update of the 2012 recommendations. These underwent intensive discussions, on site voting and subsequent anonymous electronic voting on levels of agreement with each item. A set of 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations were developed and voted on. Some items were present in the previous recommendations, while others were significantly changed or newly formulated. The 2017 task force arrived at a single set of recommendations for axial and peripheral SpA, including psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The most exhaustive discussions related to whether PsA should be assessed using unidimensional composite scores for its different domains or multidimensional scores that comprise multiple domains. This question was not resolved and constitutes an important research agenda. There was broad agreement, now better supported by data than in 2012, that remission/inactive disease and, alternatively, low/minimal disease activity are the principal targets for the treatment of PsA. As instruments to assess the patients on the path to the target, the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) for axial SpA and the Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) and Minimal Disease Activity (MDA) for PsA were recommended, although not supported by all. Shared decision-making between the clinician and the patient was seen as pivotal to the process. The task force defined the treatment target for SpA as remission or low disease activity and developed a large research agenda to further advance the field.

2 Guideline European S3-Guideline on the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris - Update Apremilast and Secukinumab - EDF in cooperation with EADV and IPC. 2017

Nast, A / Spuls, P I / van der Kraaij, G / Gisondi, P / Paul, C / Ormerod, A D / Saiag, P / Smith, C H / Dauden, E / de Jong, E M / Feist, E / Jobling, R / Maccarone, M / Mrowietz, U / Papp, K A / Reich, K / Rosumeck, S / Talme, T / Thio, H B / van de Kerkhof, P / Werner, R N / Dressler, C. ·Division of Evidence-Based Medicine, Department of Dermatology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany. · Department of Dermatology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Section of Dermatology and Venereology, Department of Medicine, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Department of Dermatology, Paul Sabatier University, Toulouse, France. · Department of Dermatology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK. · Service de Dermatologie, Hôpital Ambroise Paré Université Paris V, Boulogne, France. · St Johns Institute of Dermatology, Guys and St Thomas' Hospital Foundation Trust, London, UK. · Hospital Universitario de la Princesa, Madrid, Spain. · Radboud University medical center and Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. · Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. · Cambridge, UK. · Roma, Italy. · Department of Dermatology, Psoriasis-Center University Medical Center Schleswig Holstein, Kiel, Germany. · Waterloo, Canada. · Dermatologikum Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. · Section of Dermatology and Venereology, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden. ·J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol · Pubmed #28895202.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

3 Guideline European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies: 2015 update. 2016

Gossec, L / Smolen, J S / Ramiro, S / de Wit, M / Cutolo, M / Dougados, M / Emery, P / Landewé, R / Oliver, S / Aletaha, D / Betteridge, N / Braun, J / Burmester, G / Cañete, J D / Damjanov, N / FitzGerald, O / Haglund, E / Helliwell, P / Kvien, T K / Lories, R / Luger, T / Maccarone, M / Marzo-Ortega, H / McGonagle, D / McInnes, I B / Olivieri, I / Pavelka, K / Schett, G / Sieper, J / van den Bosch, F / Veale, D J / Wollenhaupt, J / Zink, A / van der Heijde, D. ·Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, GRC-UPMC 08 (EEMOIS), Paris, France Department of rheumatology, AP-HP, Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France. · Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine 3, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria Second Department of Medicine, Hietzing Hospital, Vienna, Austria. · Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands. · EULAR, representing People with Arthritis/Rheumatism in Europe (PARE), London, UK. · Research Laboratory and Clinical Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Genova, Viale Benedetto, Italy. · Medicine Faculty, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France Rheumatology B Department, APHP, Cochin Hospital, Paris, France. · Leeds NIHR Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, LTHT, Leeds, UK Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. · Department of Clinical Immunology & Rheumatology, Amsterdam Rheumatology Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Atrium Medical Center, Heerlen, The Netherlands. · North Devon, UK. · Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine 3, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. · Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet, Herne and Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Herne, Germany. · Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité-University Medicine Berlin, Germany. · Arthritis Unit, Department of Rheumatology, Hospital Clínic and IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain. · Belgrade University School of Medicine, Belgrade, Serbia. · Department of Rheumatology, St. Vincent's University Hospital and Conway Institute, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. · Section of Rheumatology, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden Sweden and School of Business, Engineering and Science, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden. · Section of Musculoskeletal Disease, Leeds Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. · Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway. · Laboratory of Tissue Homeostasis and Disease, Skeletal Biology and Engineering Research Center, KU Leuven, Belgium Division of Rheumatology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany. · A.DI.PSO. (Associazione per la Difesa degli Psoriasici)-PE.Pso.POF (Pan European Psoriasis Patients' Organization Forum), Rome, Italy. · Institute of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. · Rheumatology Department of Lucania, San Carlo Hospital of Potenza and Madonna delle Grazie Hospital of Matera, Potenza, Italy. · Institute and Clinic of Rheumatology Charles University Prague, Czech Republic. · Department of Internal Medicine 3, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany. · Department of Rheumatology, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Charité, Berlin, Germany. · Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. · Centre for Arthritis and Rheumatic Disease, Dublin Academic Medical Centre, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. · Schoen Klinik Hamburg, Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Hamburg, Germany. · Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, German Rheumatism Research Centre Berlin, Charité-University Medicine Berlin, Germany. ·Ann Rheum Dis · Pubmed #26644232.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Since the publication of the European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in 2012, new evidence and new therapeutic agents have emerged. The objective was to update these recommendations. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed regarding pharmacological treatment in PsA. Subsequently, recommendations were formulated based on the evidence and the expert opinion of the 34 Task Force members. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendations were allocated. RESULTS: The updated recommendations comprise 5 overarching principles and 10 recommendations, covering pharmacological therapies for PsA from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), to conventional synthetic (csDMARD) and biological (bDMARD) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, whatever their mode of action, taking articular and extra-articular manifestations of PsA into account, but focusing on musculoskeletal involvement. The overarching principles address the need for shared decision-making and treatment objectives. The recommendations address csDMARDs as an initial therapy after failure of NSAIDs and local therapy for active disease, followed, if necessary, by a bDMARD or a targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD). The first bDMARD would usually be a tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. bDMARDs targeting interleukin (IL)12/23 (ustekinumab) or IL-17 pathways (secukinumab) may be used in patients for whom TNF inhibitors are inappropriate and a tsDMARD such as a phosphodiesterase 4-inhibitor (apremilast) if bDMARDs are inappropriate. If the first bDMARD strategy fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD may be used. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations provide stakeholders with an updated consensus on the pharmacological treatment of PsA and strategies to reach optimal outcomes in PsA, based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion.

4 Guideline European S3-Guidelines on the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris--Update 2015--Short version--EDF in cooperation with EADV and IPC. 2015

Nast, A / Gisondi, P / Ormerod, A D / Saiag, P / Smith, C / Spuls, P I / Arenberger, P / Bachelez, H / Barker, J / Dauden, E / de Jong, E M / Feist, E / Jacobs, A / Jobling, R / Kemény, L / Maccarone, M / Mrowietz, U / Papp, K A / Paul, C / Reich, K / Rosumeck, S / Talme, T / Thio, H B / van de Kerkhof, P / Werner, R N / Yawalkar, N. ·Division of Evidence Based Medicine, Department of Dermatology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. · Section of Dermatology and Venereology, Department of Medicine, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Department of Dermatology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK. · Service de Dermatologie, Hôpital Ambroise Paré Université Paris V, Boulogne, France. · Clinical Lead for Dermatology, St Johns Institute of Dermatology, St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK. · Department of Dermatology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Third Faculty of Medicine, Department of Dermatology, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. · Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France. · St. Johns Institute of Dermatology, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, UK. · Hospital Universitario de la Princesa, Madrid, Spain. · University Medical Center Nijmegen St Radboud, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. · Medizinische Klinik mit Schwerpunkt Rheumatologie u. klinische Immonologie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. · Cambridge, UK. · SZTE Borgyogyaszati Klinika, Szeged, Hungary. · Roma, Italy. · Department of Dermatology, Psoriasis-Center University Medical Center Schleswig Holstein, Kiel, Germany. · Waterloo, Canada. · Department of Dermatology, Paul Sabatier University, Toulouse, France. · Dermatologikum Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. · Section of Dermatology and Venereology, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden. · Department of Dermatology, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. · Department of Dermatology, Inselspital, Universitätsklinik für Dermatologie, Bern, Switzerland. ·J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol · Pubmed #26481193.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

5 Guideline Methods Report: European S3-Guidelines on the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris--update 2015--EDF in cooperation with EADV and IPC. 2015

Nast, A / Jacobs, A / Rosumeck, S / Werner, R N. ·Division of Evidence Based Medicine, Klinik für Dermatologie, Allergologie und Venerologie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. ·J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol · Pubmed #26471228.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

6 Guideline S3 - Guidelines on the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris (English version). Update. 2012

Nast, Alexander / Boehncke, Wolf-Henning / Mrowietz, Ulrich / Ockenfels, Hans-Michael / Philipp, Sandra / Reich, Kristian / Rosenbach, Thomas / Sammain, Adel / Schlaeger, Martin / Sebastian, Michael / Sterry, Wolfram / Streit, Volker / Augustin, Matthias / Erdmann, Ricardo / Klaus, Joachim / Koza, Joachim / Muller, Siegrid / Orzechowski, Hans-Dieter / Rosumeck, Stefanie / Schmid-Ott, Gerhard / Weberschock, Tobias / Rzany, Berthold / Anonymous5550719 / Anonymous5560719. ·Division of Evidence Based Medicine (dEBM), Klinik für Dermatologie, Venerologie und Allergologie, Charité- Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany. ·J Dtsch Dermatol Ges · Pubmed #22386073.

ABSTRACT: Psoriasis vulgaris is a common and often chronic inflammatory skin disease. The incidence of psoriasis in Western industrialized countries ranges from 1.5% to 2%. Patients afflicted with severe psoriasis vulgaris may experience a significant reduction in quality of life. Despite the large variety of treatment options available, surveys have shown that patients still do not received optimal treatments. To optimize the treatment of psoriasis in Germany, the Deutsche Dermatologi sche Gesellschaft (DDG) and the Berufsverband Deutscher Dermatologen (BVDD) have initiated a project to develop evidence-based guidelines for the management of psoriasis. They were first published in 2006 and updated in 2011. The Guidelines focus on induction therapy in cases of mild, moderate and severe plaque-type psoriasis in adults including systemic therapy, UV therapy and topical therapies. The therapeutic recommendations were developed based on the results of a systematic literature search and were finalized during a consensus meeting using structured consensus methods (nominal group process).

7 Guideline German S3-guidelines on the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris (short version). 2012

Nast, A / Boehncke, W H / Mrowietz, U / Ockenfels, H M / Philipp, S / Reich, K / Rosenbach, T / Sammain, A / Schlaeger, M / Sebastian, M / Sterry, W / Streit, V / Augustin, M / Erdmann, R / Klaus, J / Koza, J / Müller, S / Orzechowski, H D / Rosumeck, S / Schmid-Ott, G / Weberschock, T / Rzany, B / Anonymous4940718 / Anonymous4950718. ·Division of Evidence Based Medicine, Klinik für Dermatologie, Venerologie und Allergologie, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany. info@psoriasis-leitlinie.de ·Arch Dermatol Res · Pubmed #22350179.

ABSTRACT: Psoriasis vulgaris is a common and often chronic inflammatory skin disease. The incidence of psoriasis in Western industrialized countries ranges from 1.5 to 2%. Patients afflicted with severe psoriasis vulgaris may experience a significant reduction in quality of life. Despite the large variety of treatment options available, patient surveys have revealed insufficient satisfaction with the efficacy of available treatments and a high rate of medication non-compliance (Richards et al. in J Am Acad Dermatol 41(4):581-583, 1999). To optimize the treatment of psoriasis in Germany, the Deutsche Dermatologische Gesellschaft (DDG) and the Berufsverband Deutscher Dermatologen (BVDD) have initiated a project to develop evidence-based guidelines for the management of psoriasis first published in 2006 and now updated in 2011. The Guidelines focus on induction therapy in cases of mild, moderate, and severe plaque-type psoriasis in adults. This short version of the guidelines presents the resulting series of therapeutic recommendations, which were based on a systematic literature search and discussed and approved by a team of dermatology experts. In addition to the therapeutic recommendations provided in this short version, the full version of the guidelines includes information on contraindications, adverse events, drug interactions, practicality, and costs, as well as detailed information on how best to apply the treatments described (for full version please see Nast et al. in JDDG Suppl 2:S1-S104, 2011 or http://www.psoriasis-leitlinie.de ).

8 Guideline Evidence-based (S3) guideline for the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris - Update: "Therapeutic options" and "Efalizumab". 2010

Nast, Alexander / Augustin, Matthias / Boehncke, Wolf-Henning / Klaus, Joachim / Mrowietz, Ulrich / Ockenfels, Hans-Michael / Philipp, Sandra / Reich, Kristian / Rosenbach, Thomas / Schlaeger, Martin / Sebastian, Michael / Sterry, Wolfram / Streit, Volker / Weisenseel, Peter / Rzany, Berthold. ·Division of Evidence Based Medicine (dEBM), Klinik für Dermatologie, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Berlin. alexander.nast@charite.de ·J Dtsch Dermatol Ges · Pubmed #20096063.

ABSTRACT: In February 2009, the European Medicines Agency's (EMEA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) had recommended the suspension of efalizumab's (Raptiva) marketing authorization, because its benefits in the treatment of psoriasis were modest, while there was a risk of serious side effects in patients receiving the medicine, including the occurrence of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). The guideline group has changed the guideline accordingly.

9 Editorial [Psoriasis]. 2016

Sabat, R / Schön, M P / Schäkel, K. ·Psoriasis Forschungs- und BehandlungsCentrum, Klinik für Dermatologie, Venerologie und Allergologie und Institut für Medizinische Immunologie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland. robert.sabat@charite.de. · Klinik für Dermatologie, Venerologie und Allergologie, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Göttingen, Deutschland. michael.schoen@med.uni-goettingen.de. · Hautklinik, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 440, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland. knut.schaekel@med.uni-heidelberg.de. ·Hautarzt · Pubmed #27215755.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

10 Review Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) vs. monoethyl fumarate (MEF) salts for the treatment of plaque psoriasis: a review of clinical data. 2018

Landeck, Lilla / Asadullah, Khusru / Amasuno, Adriana / Pau-Charles, Ignasi / Mrowietz, Ulrich. ·Department of Dermatology, Ernst von Bergmann General Hospital, Teaching Hospital Charité, Humboldt University, Charlottenstrasse 72, 14467, Potsdam, Germany. llandeck@klinikumevb.de. · Department of Dermatology, Venerology and Allergology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. · Almirall S.A., Barcelona, Spain. · Psoriasis-Center at the Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Germany. ·Arch Dermatol Res · Pubmed #29574575.

ABSTRACT: Fumarates (fumaric acid esters, FAEs) are orally administered systemic agents used for the treatment of psoriasis and multiple sclerosis. In 1994, a proprietary combination of FAEs was licensed for psoriasis by the German Drug Administration for use within Germany. Since then, fumarates have been established as one of the most commonly used treatments for moderate-to-severe psoriasis in Germany and other countries. The licensed FAE formulation contains dimethyl fumarate (DMF), as well as calcium, zinc, and magnesium salts of monoethyl fumarate (MEF). While the clinical efficacy of this FAE mixture is well established, the combination of esters on which it is based, and its dosing regimen, was determined empirically. Since the mid-1990s, the modes of action and contribution of the different FAEs to their overall therapeutic effect in psoriasis, as well as their adverse event profile, have been investigated in more detail. In this article, the available clinical data for DMF are reviewed and compared with data for the other FAEs. The current evidence substantiates that DMF is the main active compound, via its metabolic transformation to monomethyl fumarate (MMF). A recent phase III randomized and placebo-controlled trial including more than 700 patients demonstrated therapeutic equivalence when comparing the licensed FAE combination with DMF alone, in terms of psoriasis clearance according to the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and Physician's Global Assessment (PGA). Thus, DMF as monotherapy for the treatment of psoriasis is as efficacious as in combination with MEF, making the addition of such fumarate derivatives unnecessary.

11 Review Biologicals and small molecules in psoriasis: A systematic review of economic evaluations. 2018

Kromer, Christian / Celis, Daniel / Sonntag, Diana / Peitsch, Wiebke K. ·Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen University, Göttingen, Germany. · Mannheim Institute of Public Health, Social and Preventive Medicine, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany. · Faculty of Economic Sciences, Göttingen University, Göttingen, Germany. · Department of Health Science, University of York, Heslington, York, United Kingdom. · Department of Dermatology and Phlebology, Vivantes Klinikum im Friedrichshain, Berlin, Germany. ·PLoS One · Pubmed #29298315.

ABSTRACT: Biological therapy for moderate-to-severe psoriasis is highly effective but cost-intensive. This systematic review aimed at analyzing evidence on the cost-effectiveness of biological treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. A literature search was conducted until 30/06/2017 in PubMed, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and EconLit. The quality of identified studies was assessed with the checklist by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance. Out of 482 records, 53 publications were eligible for inclusion. Half of the studies met between 20 and 25 of the quality checklist items, displaying moderate quality. Due to heterogeneity of studies, a qualitative synthesis was conducted. Cost ranges per outcome were enormous across different studies due to diversity in assumptions and model design. Pairwise comparisons of biologicals revealed conflicting results. Overall, adalimumab appeared to be most cost-effective (100% of all aggregated pairwise comparisons), followed by ustekinumab (66.7%), and infliximab (60%). However, in study conclusions most recent publications favored secukinumab and apremilast (75% and 60% of the studies investigating these medications). Accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds varied between 30,000 and 50,000 USD/Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY). Three-quarters of studies were financially supported, and in 90% of those, results were consistent with the funder's interest. Economic evaluation of biologicals is crucial for responsible allocation of health care resources. In addition to summarizing the actual evidence this review highlights gaps and needs for future research.

12 Review Topical treatments for scalp psoriasis: summary of a Cochrane Systematic Review. 2017

Schlager, J G / Rosumeck, S / Werner, R N / Jacobs, A / Schmitt, J / Schlager, C / Nast, A. ·Division of Evidence Based Medicine (dEBM), Department of Dermatology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. · Department of Medical Consulting, Federal Joint Committee (G-BA, Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss), Wegelystr. 8, 10623, Berlin, Germany. · Zentrum für evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsversorgung (ZEGV), Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, Technischen Universität Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany. ·Br J Dermatol · Pubmed #27312814.

ABSTRACT: People with chronic plaque psoriasis often have lesions on the scalp that are difficult to treat. This report is a summary of a Cochrane review on the efficacy and safety of topical treatments for scalp psoriasis. For quality-of-evidence assessment, we used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group approach. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion. We searched the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS; ongoing trials; indexes of included studies and screened abstracts of six psoriasis-specific conferences up to August 2015. We included 59 RCTs, with 11 561 participants overall. Most findings were limited to short-term treatments (< 6 months). According to the clinician and patients' self-assessment, a corticosteroid-vitamin D combination (e.g. betamethasone dipropionate plus calcipotriol) and corticosteroids of high and very high potency were better than vitamin D. The two-compound combination was superior to the corticosteroid alone, but the additional benefit was small. Reporting of quality-of-life data was insufficient. The two-compound combination and corticosteroids caused fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than vitamin D. There was no difference between the two-compound combination and corticosteroid monotherapy concerning this outcome. Overall the evidence was of moderate quality. Evaluation of other topical treatments was limited. Given the comparable safety profile and only slim benefit of the two-compound combination over the corticosteroid alone, monotherapy with generic topical corticosteroids of high and very high potency may be fully acceptable for short-term therapy. More quality-of-life data and long-term assessments are needed.

13 Review Adipokines in psoriasis: An important link between skin inflammation and metabolic alterations. 2016

Wolk, Kerstin / Sabat, Robert. ·Psoriasis Research and Treatment Center, Department of Dermatology and Allergy & Institute of Medical Immunology, University Medicine Charité, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. kerstin.wolk@charite.de. · Berlin-Brandenburg Center of Regenerative Therapies, University Medicine Charité, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany. kerstin.wolk@charite.de. · Psoriasis Research and Treatment Center, Department of Dermatology and Allergy & Institute of Medical Immunology, University Medicine Charité, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. · Research Center Immunosciences, University Medicine Charité, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. ·Rev Endocr Metab Disord · Pubmed #27554109.

ABSTRACT: Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease most common in Europe, North America, and Australia. The etiology and pathomechanisms underlying the evolution and persistence of the skin alterations are increasingly being understood and have led to the development of effective anti-psoriatic therapies. Apart from the skin manifestations, psoriasis is associated with the metabolic syndrome (MetS), known to increase the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disorders. Research of the last years demonstrated a dysregulated adipokine balance as an important link between inflammation, MetS, and consequential disorders. This article describes selected adipokines and their potential role in both metabolic comorbidity and skin inflammation in psoriasis.

14 Review [Systemic treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis]. 2016

Philipp, S / Kokolakis, G / Sabat, R. ·Psoriasis Forschungs- und Behandlungs-Centrum, Klinik für Dermatologie, Venerologie und Allergologie und Institut für Medizinische Immunologie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland. · Psoriasis Forschungs- und Behandlungs-Centrum, Klinik für Dermatologie, Venerologie und Allergologie und Institut für Medizinische Immunologie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland. robert.sabat@charite.de. · Interdisziplinäre Gruppe Molekulare Immunpathologie, Dermatologie/Med. Immunologie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland. robert.sabat@charite.de. ·Hautarzt · Pubmed #27240668.

ABSTRACT: Psoriasis is one of the most common chronic dermatoses. More than 25 % of the affected individuals require effective systemic treatment because of severe symptoms and/or the significantly restricted quality of life. Thanks to intensive research and successful cooperation between academia and the pharmaceutical industry, the options for treating psoriasis have dramatically increased in recent years. Especially targeted therapies give us the opportunity for personalized regimen. This review describes the spectrum of the systemic treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis and discusses the efficacy, safety, and particular features of the individual substances.

15 Review [Psoriasis in special localizations]. 2016

Schmieder, A / Peitsch, W K. ·Klinik für Dermatologie, Venerologie und Allergologie, Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Medizinische Fakultät Mannheim der Universität Heidelberg, Mannheim, Deutschland. · Klinik für Dermatologie und Phlebologie, Vivantes Klinikum im Friedrichshain, Landsberger Allee 49, 10249, Berlin, Deutschland. wiebke.ludwig-peitsch@vivantes.de. ·Hautarzt · Pubmed #27215754.

ABSTRACT: A large proportion of patients with plaque psoriasis suffer from psoriatic lesions of the scalp, nails, and intertrigines. These locations can also be soley or predominantly affected. Scalp psoriasis, nail psoriasis, and inverse psoriasis are often perceived as particularly stigmatizing. Involvement of these parts of the body is associated with an increased risk of psoriatic arthritis. Location-specific features must be considered when choosing treatment. Evidence for topical therapy of scalp psoriasis with steroids and combinations of steroids and vitamin D analogues is high. These agents are regarded as safe and effective treatments of first choice. Efficacy of TNF antagonists and apremilast is well documented for refractory scalp psoriasis. Nail psoriasis often responds insufficiently to topical therapy. Several effective systemic medications including methotrexate and TNF antagonists are available for treatment of severe forms. Controlled trials for treatment of inverse psoriasis are scarce. Topical steroids, vitamin D analogues, dithranol, and off-label calcineurin inhibitors are used in clinical practice. This review provides a survey on the clinical presentation and current evidence for treatment of psoriasis in challenging locations.

16 Review Topical treatments for scalp psoriasis. 2016

Schlager, Justin Gabriel / Rosumeck, Stefanie / Werner, Ricardo Niklas / Jacobs, Anja / Schmitt, Jochen / Schlager, Christoph / Nast, Alexander. ·Division of Evidence Based Medicine, Department of Dermatology, Venerology and Allergology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin, Germany, 10117. ·Cochrane Database Syst Rev · Pubmed #26915340.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: People with chronic plaque psoriasis often have lesions on the scalp. Hair makes the scalp difficult to treat and the adjacent facial skin is particularly sensitive to topical treatments. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of topical treatments for scalp psoriasis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to August 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974) and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched five trials registers, screened abstracts of six psoriasis-specific conferences and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a parallel-group, cross-over or within-patient design of topical treatments for people of all ages with scalp psoriasis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently carried out study selection, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment. Disagreements were settled by reference to a third author.To assess the quality of evidence, we focused on the following outcomes: 'clearance' or 'response' as assessed by the investigator global assessment (IGA), improvement in quality of life, adverse events requiring withdrawal of treatment and 'response' as assessed by the patient global assessment (PGA).We expressed the results of the single studies as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. If studies were sufficiently homogeneous, we meta-analysed the data by using the random-effects model. Where it was not possible to calculate a point estimate for a single study, we described the data qualitatively. We also presented the number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB).We categorised topical corticosteroids according to the German classification of corticosteroid potency as mild, moderate, high and very high. MAIN RESULTS: We included 59 RCTs with a total of 11,561 participants. Thirty studies were either conducted or sponsored by the manufacturer of the study medication. The risk of bias varied considerably among the included studies. For instance, most authors did not state the randomisation method and few addressed allocation concealment. Most findings were limited to short-term treatments, since most studies were conducted for less than six months. Only one trial investigated long-term therapy (12 months). Although we found a wide variety of different interventions, we limited the grading of the quality of evidence to three major comparisons: steroid versus vitamin D, two-compound combination of steroid and vitamin D versus steroid monotherapy and versus vitamin D.In terms of clearance, as assessed by the IGA, steroids were better than vitamin D (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.18; four studies, 2180 participants, NNTB = 8; 95% CI 7 to 11; moderate quality evidence). Statistically, the two-compound combination was superior to steroid monotherapy, however the additional benefit was small (RR 1.22; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.36; four studies, 2474 participants, NNTB = 17; 95% CI 11 to 41; moderate quality evidence). The two-compound combination was more effective than vitamin D alone (RR 2.28; 95% CI 1.87 to 2.78; four studies, 2008 participants, NNTB = 6; 95% CI 5 to 7; high quality evidence).In terms of treatment response, as assessed by the IGA, corticosteroids were more effective than vitamin D (RR 2.09; 95% CI 1.80 to 2.41; three studies, 1827 participants; NNTB = 4; 95% CI 4 to 5; high quality evidence). The two-compound combination was better than steroid monotherapy, but the additional benefit was small (RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.25; three studies, 2444 participants, NNTB = 13; 95% CI 9 to 24; moderate quality evidence). It was also more effective than vitamin D alone (RR 2.31; 95% CI 1.75 to 3.04; four studies, 2222 participants, NNTB = 3; 95% CI 3 to 4; moderate quality evidence).Reporting of quality of life data was poor and data were insufficient to be included for meta-analysis.Steroids caused fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than vitamin D (RR 0.22; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.42; four studies, 2291 participants; moderate quality evidence). The two-compound combination and steroid monotherapy did not differ in the number of adverse events leading withdrawal (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.88; three studies, 2433 participants; moderate quality evidence). The two-compound combination led to fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than vitamin D (RR 0.19; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.36; three studies, 1970 participants; high quality evidence). No study reported the type of adverse event requiring withdrawal.In terms of treatment response, as assessed by the PGA, steroids were more effective than vitamin D (RR 1.48; 95% CI 1.28 to 1.72; three studies, 1827 participants; NNTB = 5; 95% CI 5 to 7; moderate quality evidence). Statistically, the two-compound combination was better than steroid monotherapy, however the benefit was not clinically important (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.20; two studies, 2226 participants; NNTB = 13; 95% CI 9 to 26; high quality evidence). The two-compound combination was more effective than vitamin D (RR 1.76; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.12; four studies, 2222 participants; NNTB = 4; 95% CI 3 to 6; moderate quality evidence).Common adverse events with these three interventions were local irritation, skin pain and folliculitis. Systemic adverse events were rare and probably not drug-related.In addition to the results of the major three comparisons we found that the two-compound combination, steroids and vitamin D monotherapy were more effective than the vehicle. Steroids of moderate, high and very high potency tended to be similarly effective and well tolerated. There are inherent limitations in this review concerning the evaluation of salicylic acid, tar, dithranol or other topical treatments. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The two-compound combination as well as corticosteroid monotherapy were more effective and safer than vitamin D monotherapy. Given the similar safety profile and only slim benefit of the two-compound combination over the steroid alone, monotherapy with generic topical steroids may be fully acceptable for short-term therapy.Future RCTs should investigate how specific therapies improve the participants' quality of life. Long-term assessments are needed (i.e. 6 to 12 months).

17 Review A patient-centred approach to biological treatment decision making for psoriasis: an expert consensus. 2015

Strohal, R / Prinz, J C / Girolomoni, G / Nast, A. ·Department of Dermatology and Venerology, Federal Academic Teaching Hospital of Feldkirch, Feldkirch, Austria. · Department of Dermatology, University of Munich, Munich, Germany. · Section of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Division of Evidence Based Medicine (dEBM), Department of Dermatology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. ·J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol · Pubmed #26370908.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Each individual psoriasis patient has different expectations and goals for biological treatment, which may differ from those of the clinician. As such, a patient-centred approach to treatment goals remains an unmet need in psoriasis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to review available data on patients' and physicians' decision criteria and expectations of biological treatment for moderate-to-severe psoriasis with the aim of developing a core set of questions for clinicians to ask patients routinely to understand what is important to them and thus better align physicians' and patients' expectations of treatment with biologics and its outcomes. METHODS: A literature search was conducted to identify key themes and data gaps. Aspects of treatment relevant when choosing a biological agent for an individual patient were identified and compared to an existing validated instrument. A series of questions aimed at helping the physician to identify the particular aspects of treatment that are recognised as important to individual psoriasis patients was developed. RESULTS: Key findings of the literature search were grouped under themes of adherence, decision-making, quality of life, patient/physician goals, communication, patient-reported outcomes, satisfaction and patient benefit index. Several aspects of treatment were identified as being relevant when choosing a biological agent for an individual patient. The questionnaire is devised in two parts. The first part asks questions about patients' experience of psoriasis and satisfaction with previous treatments. The second part aims to identify the treatment attributes patients consider to be important and may as such affect their preference for a particular biological treatment. The questionnaire results will allow the physician to understand the key factors that can be influenced by biological drug choice that are of importance to the patient. This information can be used be the physician in clinical decision making. CONCLUSION: The questionnaire has been developed to provide a new tool to better understand and align patients' and physicians' preferences and goals for biological treatment of psoriasis.

18 Review Systematic review on the maintenance of response during systemic antipsoriatic therapy. 2015

Jacobs, A / Rosumeck, S / Nast, A. ·Division of Evidence Based Medicine, Department of Dermatology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. ·Br J Dermatol · Pubmed #26280365.

ABSTRACT: As a chronic disease psoriasis often requires long-term treatment. Successful continuation of therapy during a maintenance phase is therefore important. A systematic review was performed on the efficacy of psoriasis drugs during maintenance treatment in patients who had achieved sufficient treatment success during the induction period. Maintenance therapy is defined as treatment during the period after successful induction therapy. Inclusion criteria were prospective studies with systemic therapies recommended by the 2009 European psoriasis guidelines (plus ustekinumab), and a study population that had achieved a defined treatment response criterion after induction therapy within a period of ≥ 6 months. Maintenance studies on conventional treatments were identified for ciclosporin (CSA) only (no studies investigating acitretin, methotrexate or ustekinumab were found). Compared with placebo, CSA was shown to be effective in maintenance therapy, yet CSA 1·5 mg kg(-1) seems to be insufficient to maintain disease control. Based on the evidence, it is uncertain whether there is any difference between daily or intermittent treatment. For biologics, maintenance data were available for adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab. No differences in 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) response were identified between adalimumab 40 mg once and twice a month. Continuous infliximab treatment was shown to be superior to as-needed treatment. For etanercept, only observational postrandomized controlled trial data were available, indicating a maintained PASI 75 response in approximately three-quarters of patients during long-term treatment. Only limited evidence is available for a conclusion on how patients with an adequate response should be optimally treated during the maintenance period. A clear ranking of the available treatments is not yet possible.

19 Review Practical guidance on immunogenicity to biologic agents used in the treatment of psoriasis: What can be learnt from other diseases? 2015

Lambert, Jo / Nast, Alexander / Nestle, Frank O / Prinz, Jörg C. ·a Department of Dermatology , Ghent University Hospital , Ghent , Belgium . · b Division of Evidence Based Medicine (dEBM), Department of Dermatology, Venerology and Allergy , Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin , Berlin , Germany . · c St. John's Institute of Dermatology, King's College London School of Medicine , London , UK , and. · d Clinic and Policlinic for Dermatology and Allergology, Ludwig-Maximilian-University , Munich , Germany. ·J Dermatolog Treat · Pubmed #26108443.

ABSTRACT: The clinical efficacy of biologic agents for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis is well proven in clinical studies, but patients may lose response over time. Loss of response may be due to immunogenicity and the formation of anti-drug antibodies (ADA). Although data on the immunogenicity of drugs used to treat psoriasis are now emerging, more information on the impact of factors, such as dosing regimens and concomitant immunosuppressive therapy is needed. Exploring research from other disease areas where immunogenicity has long been recognised as a significant clinical issue may help in developing future strategies for using drug level and ADA measurements to help tailor biologic therapy to meet individual needs. To this end, we analyse what is known about biologics and immunogenicity in psoriasis. In order to learn from other indications, we then address the issue of immunogenicity for three different types of biologic treatments. First, factor VIII-substitution in haemophilia, where the immune system is newly exposed to a physiologic but formerly absent protein. Second, the use of biologics in inflammatory bowel disease, where similar treatment challenges apply as observed in psoriasis. Third, immunogenicity in multiple sclerosis caused by therapeutic antibodies or interferons. Immunogenicity strategies used in other disease areas will need to be tested in psoriasis before they can be widely adopted in routine clinical practice.

20 Review Clinical trial development for biosimilars. 2015

Alten, Rieke / Cronstein, Bruce N. ·Department of Internal Medicine II, Rheumatology, Clinical Immunology, Osteology, Schlosspark-Klinik, University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Rheumatology Research Center, Rheumatology, Clinical Immunology, Osteology, Schlosspark-Klinik, University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: rieke.alten@schlosspark-klinik.de. · Clinical and Translational Science Institute, NYU School of Medicine, New York, New York. ·Semin Arthritis Rheum · Pubmed #26058550.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: Discuss issues regarding clinical trial design for the development of biosimilars in the European Union and the United States, with special focus on monoclonal antibodies used in the treatment of inflammatory diseases. METHODS: A search of the Internet as well as PubMed was conducted through June 2014 for information related to the clinical development of biosimilars using the keywords biosimilar, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, and ankylosing spondylitis. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) websites were searched for biosimilar guidelines. RESULTS: The EMA began issuing draft guidelines for the development of biosimilars almost a decade ago and has approved numerous biosimilars. The US FDA has issued draft guidances providing stepwise considerations for the nonclinical and clinical development of biosimilars but has yet to approve a biosimilar under this pathway. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trials aim to resolve uncertainties that may remain following nonclinical development regarding the similarity of the proposed biosimilar with the reference product. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies form the backbone of early clinical development and serve to inform phase 3 clinical development. Factors to be considered in clinical development include study population, design, end points, sample size, duration, and analytical methods.

21 Review Efficacy and Safety of Systemic Long-Term Treatments for Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. 2015

Nast, Alexander / Jacobs, Anja / Rosumeck, Stefanie / Werner, Ricardo N. ·Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Klinik für Dermatologie, Division of Evidence-Based Medicine (dEBM), Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: alexander.nast@charite.de. · Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Klinik für Dermatologie, Division of Evidence-Based Medicine (dEBM), Berlin, Germany. ·J Invest Dermatol · Pubmed #26046458.

ABSTRACT: Psoriasis as a chronic inflammatory disease often requires effective long-term treatment; a comprehensive systematic evaluation of efficacy and safety of systemic long-term treatments in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis is lacking. Twenty-five randomized clinical trials were included. Results were pooled and quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). With respect to PASI 75 (psoriasis area and severity index), pooled risk ratios for infliximab (13.07, 95% confidence interval (CI): 8.60-19.87), secukinumab (11.97, 95% CI: 8.83-16.23), ustekinumab (11.39, 95% CI: 8.94-14.51), adalimumab (8.92, 95% CI: 6.33-12.57), etanercept (8.39, 95% CI: 6.74-10.45), and apremilast (5.83, 95% CI: 2.58-13.17) show superiority of biologics and apremilast in long-term therapy compared with placebo. With respect to the addressed safety parameters, no differences were seen between adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab versus placebo. No placebo-controlled data on conventional treatments was identified. Head-to-head studies showed superior efficacy of secukinumab and infliximab versus etanercept and of infliximab versus methotrexate. A clear ranking is limited by the lack of long-term head-to-head trials. From the available evidence, infliximab, secukinumab, and ustekinumab are the most efficacious long-term treatments. Data on conventionals are insufficient. Further head-to-head comparisons and studies on safety and patient-related outcomes are needed to draw more reliable conclusions.

22 Review Biosimilars: a systematic review of published and ongoing clinical trials of antipsoriatics in chronic inflammatory diseases. 2015

Nast, Alexander / Rosumeck, Stefanie / Seidenschnur, Karin. ·Division of Evidence Based Medicine (dEBM), Department of Dermatology, Charitè - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany. ·J Dtsch Dermatol Ges · Pubmed #25819235.

ABSTRACT: Biosimilars for psoriasis treatment are currently being developed. Comparison of their efficacy and safety is a challenge. For approval, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) considers indirect evidence from other indications (for example, rheumatoid arthritis) as sufficient. Systematic review of biosimilars for psoriasis and other indications, review of ongoing trials in trial registers. Systematic search for randomized controlled trials (RCT) on biosimilars to adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and ustekinumab compared to their reference medication: (1) Publications in Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, Cochrane Library (efficacy, safety, immunogenicity) and (2) ongoing studies in clinical trial registers. No trials on biosimilars in psoriasis patients were identified. As to the infliximab biosimilar, there is data on patients with ankylosing spondylitis and rheumatoid arthritis, indicating no clinically relevant differences regarding efficacy and safety. Currently, there are two registered studies of an adalimumab biosimilar and one study of an etanercept biosimilar in psoriasis patients. Further ongoing studies on biosimilars to adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab - all in rheumatoid arthritis patients - were identified. There is currently only limited data regarding RCTs with biosimilars. Provision of further clinical data and inclusion of patients in patient registers will be crucial.

23 Review The OMERACT MRI in Arthritis Working Group - Update on Status and Future Research Priorities. 2015

Østergaard, Mikkel / Bird, Paul / Gandjbakhch, Frédérique / Eshed, Iris / Haugen, Ida K / Haavardsholm, Espen A / Lillegraven, Siri / Foltz, Violaine / Glinatsi, Daniel / Peterfy, Charles / Ejbjerg, Bo / Bøyesen, Pernille / Mease, Philip J / Hermann, Kay-Geert / Emery, Paul / Genant, Harry K / Conaghan, Philip G. ·From the Copenhagen Center for Arthritis Research, Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Glostrup Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; Department of Rheumatology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, APHP, Université Paris 6-UPMC, Paris, France; Sheba Medical Center, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel; Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Spire Sciences, Boca Raton, Florida, USA; Department of Rheumatology, Slagelse Hospital, Slagelse, Denmark; Division of Rheumatology Research, Swedish Medical Center, University of Washington School of Medicine; and Seattle Rheumatology Associates, Seattle, Washington, USA; Department of Radiology, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany; Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds; National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Leeds, UK; University of California, San Francisco, and Synarc Inc., San Francisco, California, USA. M. Østergaard, MD, PhD, DMSc, Professor of Rheumatology, Copenhagen Center for Arthritis Research, Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Glostrup Hospital and Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen; P. Bird, BMed (Hons), FRACP, PhD, Grad Dip MRI, Senior Lecturer, University of NSW; F. Gandjbakhch, MD, Practicing Rheumatologist, Department of Rheumatology, Pitié-Salpêtrière, APHP, Université Paris 6-UPMC; I. Eshed, MD, Professor of Radiology, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Aviv University; I.K. Haugen, MD, PhD, Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital; E.A. Haavardsholm, MD, PhD, Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital; S. Lillegraven, MD, PhD, Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, University of Oslo; V. Foltz, MD, Practicing Rheumatologist, ·J Rheumatol · Pubmed #25684771.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To provide an update on the status and future research priorities of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in arthritis working group. METHODS: A summary is provided of the activities of the group within rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and osteoarthritis (OA), and its research priorities. RESULTS: The OMERACT RA MRI score (RAMRIS) evaluating bone erosion, bone edema (osteitis), and synovitis is now the standard method of quantifying articular pathology in RA trials. Cartilage loss is another important part of joint damage, and at the OMERACT 12 conference, we provided longitudinal data demonstrating reliability and sensitivity to change of the RAMRIS JSN component score, supporting its use in future clinical trials. The MRI group has previously developed a PsA MRI score (PsAMRIS). At OMERACT 12, PsAMRIS was evaluated in a randomized placebo-controlled trial of patients with PsA, demonstrating the responsiveness and discriminatory ability of applying the PsAMRIS to hands and feet. A hand OA MRI score (HOAMRIS) was introduced at OMERACT 11, and has subsequently been further validated. At OMERACT 12, good cross-sectional interreader reliability, but variable reliability of change scores, were reported. Potential future research areas were identified at the MRI session at OMERACT 12 including assessment of tenosynovitis in RA and enthesitis in PsA and focusing on alternative MRI techniques. CONCLUSION: MRI has been further developed and validated as an outcome measure in RA, PsA, and OA. The group will continue its efforts to optimize the value of MRI as a robust biomarker in rheumatology clinical trials.

24 Review Differentiation between osteoarthritis and psoriatic arthritis: implications for pathogenesis and treatment in the biologic therapy era. 2015

McGonagle, Dennis / Hermann, Kay-Geert A / Tan, Ai Lyn. ·Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, UK and Department of Radiology, Charité Medical School, Berlin, Germany. Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, UK and Department of Radiology, Charité Medical School, Berlin, Germany. d.g.mcgonagle@leeds.ac.uk. · Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, UK and Department of Radiology, Charité Medical School, Berlin, Germany. · Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, UK and Department of Radiology, Charité Medical School, Berlin, Germany. Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, UK and Department of Radiology, Charité Medical School, Berlin, Germany. ·Rheumatology (Oxford) · Pubmed #25231177.

ABSTRACT: Rheumatologists have long considered OA and PsA as two completely distinct arthropathies. This review highlights how some forms of generalized OA and PsA may afflict the same entheseal-associated anatomical territories. While degeneration or inflammation may be clearly discernible at the two extremes, there may be a group of patients where differentiation is impossible. Misdiagnosis of a primary degeneration-related pathology as being part of the PsA spectrum could lead to apparent failure of disease-modifying agents, including apparent anti-TNF and apparent IL23/17 axis therapy failure. This is not a reflection of poor clinical acumen, but rather a failure to appreciate that the pathological process overlaps in the two diseases. Whether the category of OA-PsA overlap disease exists or whether it represents the co-occurrence of two common arthropathies that afflict the same anatomical territories has implications for the optimal diagnosis and management of both OA and PsA.

25 Review [Spondyloarthritis including psoriatic arthritis]. 2014

Krause, A / Märker-Hermann, E. ·Klinik für Innere Medizin, Abteilung Rheumatologie und Klinische Immunologie, Immanuel Krankenhaus Berlin. · Klinik Innere Medizin IV (Rheumatologie, Klinische Immunologie, Nephrologie), HSK Dr. Horst Schmidt Klinik GmbH, Wiesbaden. ·Dtsch Med Wochenschr · Pubmed #25254399.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

Next