A plain language summary of what freedom from disease means to people with psoriasis according to doctors, nurses, and people with psoriasis.

What is this summary about? This summary presents findings from recent research involving people with psoriasis, based on an article originally published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. Psoriasis is a condition that primarily affects the skin. However, it can also influence people's mental health, social activities, work, and relationships too. Current assessment tools used by doctors and nurses do not cover the complete experience of people with psoriasis, which often include other medical conditions and can leave these individuals feeling that treatment has not been successful. Researchers conducted a study in which people with psoriasis, doctors, and nurses were asked in virtual meetings and via questionnaires what freedom from disease in psoriasis means to them. What were the results? In addition to skin symptoms, the areas of mental health, well-being, treatment, and relationships with healthcare teams were found to be important aspects to be addressed. What do the results of the study mean? Focusing on all five aspects of freedom from disease will help people with psoriasis manage their psoriasis with confidence.

A Retrospective Real-World Study of the Effectiveness and Tolerability of Tildrakizumab in UK Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Chronic Plaque Psoriasis.

INTRODUCTION: As with most medicines historically, clinicians prescribing tildrakizumab have relied on information derived from registration studies undertaken in a prospective controlled clinical trial setting. More recently, clinicians, policymakers, and commissioners increasingly rely on real-world data to inform both policy and practice. METHODS: A retrospective real-world data study was undertaken at four specialist dermatology departments in the United Kingdom. All adult patients treated with tildrakizumab for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis were included, with data being collected for 122 patients. RESULTS: Psoriatic patients on tildrakizumab tended to be overweight (median body mass index of 32 (range 19-59) (n = 61); 26/68 (38%) < 90 kg, 32/68 (47%) between 90 and 120 kg, and 10/68 (15%) > 120 kg). The study population had high levels of comorbidities (83/116, 72%), multiple special sites (39/117, 33%), and histories of biological treatments (81/100, 81%). Most patients (61/80, 76%) initiated on tildrakizumab were switched from another biological treatment. Tildrakizumab was effective, with 91/122 (75%) patients remaining on treatment for the duration of the study-a median of 12 months per patient (range 1-29 months)-and achieving a change in median Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) from 12 to 0.35 and in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) from 20 to 0. The response rate was 57/66 (86%) when tildrakizumab was used as the first- or second-line biologic compared to 19/31 (61%) when used as the third- to seventh-line. Thirty-three (78.6%) patients over 90 kg of weight received the 200-mg dose of tildrakizumab. All but one (n = 8) patient with body weight over 120 kg maintained response over time. There was one treatment discontinuation; a patient who had a local sensitivity reaction. CONCLUSIONS: In UK clinical practice, tildrakizumab was well tolerated and effective at doses of 100 mg or 200 mg in a range of patient phenotypes.

A Survey of Hospice and Palliative Care Clinicians' Experiences and Attitudes Regarding the Use of Palliative Sedation.

BACKGROUND: A variety of terms and attitudes surround palliative sedation (PS) with little research devoted to hospice and palliative care (HPC) clinicians' perceptions and experiences with PS. These factors may contribute to the wide variability in the reported prevalence of PS. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to better identify hospice and palliative care (HPC) clinician attitudes toward, and clinical experiences with palliative sedation (PS). METHODS: A 32-question survey was distributed to members of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (n = 4678). The questions explored the language clinicians use for PS, and their experiences with PS. RESULTS: Nine hundred thirty-six (20% response rate) responded to the survey. About 83.21% preferred the terminology of PS compared with other terms. A majority felt that PS is a bioethically appropriate treatment for refractory physical and nonphysical symptoms in dying patients. Most felt PS was not an appropriate term in clinical scenarios when sedation occurred as an unintended side effect from standard treatments. Hospice clinicians use PS more consistently and with less distress than nonhospice clinician respondents. Benzodiazepines (63.1%) and barbiturates (18.9%) are most commonly prescribed for PS. CONCLUSION: PS is the preferred term among HPC clinicians for the proportionate use of pharmacotherapies to intentionally lower awareness for refractory symptoms in dying patients. PS is a bioethically appropriate treatment for refractory symptoms in dying patients. However, there is a lack of clear agreement about what is included in PS and how the practice of PS should be best delivered in different clinical scenarios. Future efforts to investigate PS should focus on describing the clinical scenarios in which PS is utilized and on the level of intended sedation necessary, in an effort to better unify the practice of PS.

A Trial of Concurrent Care: Shedding Light on the Gray Zone.

BACKGROUND: Patients are hospice eligible when they have an estimated prognosis of 6 months and the readiness to forgo attempts at disease-modifying treatments related to their terminal illness. The decision to enroll in hospice is relatively clear when the prognosis is based on an incurable illness for which there are no further life-prolonging therapies. However, when the prognosis is based on a serious chronic illness for which possible interventions remain but must be forgone to access hospice support, the decision process is more complex. Such patients may benefit from a trial of concurrent care, receiving both disease-modifying and comfort-focused hospice care, while determining whether or not to pursue further treatment. OBJECTIVE: This article illuminates the need for concurrent care for hospice patients with serious illness. We present a case to exemplify this gap and offer a framework for managing patients in transition between disease-modifying therapies and hospice care. DISCUSSION: The case describes an 86-year-old woman with dry gangrene of her foot who was admitted to hospice for end-of-life care and, after a trial period on hospice, chose to pursue further treatment. CONCLUSION: Integrating concurrent care into the Medicare Hospice Benefit allows patients to receive care that aligns with their values, even as they experience and collect new information about their condition. We propose the TRIAL framework to assess evolving goals of care for hospice patients with serious chronic illness.