Clinical Impacts of Omalizumab on the Psychiatric Comorbidities of Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Individuals with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) experience significant sleep disturbances and are at risk of anxiety and depression.

A case of drug-induced bullous pemphigoid secondary to immunotherapy treated with upadacitinib: A case report.

Bullous pemphigoid is an acquired autoimmune subepidermal blistering disease that can arise following exposure to systemic medication, referred to as drug-induced bullous pemphigoid. Drug-induced bullous pemphigoid is a rare but potentially serious immune-related adverse event that should be considered in patients with advanced malignancies undergoing immunotherapy, with immune checkpoint inhibitors emerging in particular as a well-documented drug association in drug-induced bullous pemphigoid. We present a 74-year-old female with recurrent metastatic programmed cell death-ligand 1-positive squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck area who developed drug-induced bullous pemphigoid in the setting of immunotherapy with a novel immunoglobulin-like transcript 4 inhibitor (MK-4830) in combination with pembrolizumab. Treatment with upadacitinib, a Janus-associated kinase-1 inhibitor, was pursued for significantly disabling disease that was recalcitrant to standard therapies and ultimately transition to palliative care. Follow-up at 4 weeks demonstrated good response. This is the first report describing the use of a Janus-associated kinase inhibitor for the treatment of bullous pemphigoid.

Use of Systemic Therapies for Treatment of Psoriasis in Patients with a History of Treated Solid Tumours: Inference-Based Guidance from a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel.

BACKGROUND: Patients with treated solid tumours (TSTs) are a highly heterogeneous population at an increased risk for malignancy compared with the general population. When treating psoriasis in patients with a history of TSTs, clinicians are concerned about the immunosuppressive nature of psoriasis therapies, the possibility of augmenting cancer recurrence/progression, and infectious complications. No direct, high-level evidence exists to address these concerns. OBJECTIVES: We aim to provide a structured framework supporting healthcare professional and patient discussions on the risks and benefits of systemic psoriasis therapy in patients with previously TSTs. Our goal was to address the clinically important question, "In patients with TSTs, does therapy with systemic agents used for psoriasis increase the risk of malignancy or malignancy recurrence?" METHODS: We implemented an inference-based approach relying on indirect evidence when direct clinical trial and real-world data were absent. We reviewed indirect evidence supporting inferences on the status of immune function in patients with TSTs. Recommendations on systemic psoriasis therapies in patients with TSTs were derived using an inferential heuristic. RESULTS: We identified five indirect indicators of iatrogenic immunosuppression informed by largely independent bodies of evidence: (1) overall survival, (2) rate of malignancies with psoriasis and systemic psoriasis therapies, (3) rate of infections with psoriasis and systemic psoriasis therapies, (4) common disease biochemical pathways for solid tumours and systemic psoriasis therapies, and (5) solid organ transplant outcomes. On the basis of review of the totality of this data, we provided inference-based conclusions and ascribed level of support for each statement. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to considering new therapies for psoriasis, an understanding of cancer prognosis should be addressed. Patients with TSTs and a good cancer prognosis will have similar outcomes to non-TST patients when treated with systemic psoriasis therapies. For patients with TSTs and a poor cancer prognosis, the quality-of-life benefits of treating psoriasis may outweigh the theoretical risks.

Patients with previously treated cancer have a higher chance of cancer recurrence compared with the general population. With cancer incidence rising worldwide, doctors across medical specialities will need to treat other medical conditions, including inflammatory diseases such as psoriasis, in these patients. Effective systemic therapies for psoriasis reduce immune cell activity. Accordingly, there are concerns that treatments for psoriasis could worsen cancer recurrence/progression and infectious complications. There is not enough quality evidence to make broad recommendations for treating other inflammatory conditions in patients with a history of cancer. To guide patient and doctor discussions, we asked: what are effective and safe treatments when patients with treated solid tumours need systemic therapy (pills or injections) for their psoriasis? We focused on patients with solid tumours and excluded blood and skin cancers. Our panel of experts, including 12 dermatologists and 3 medical oncologists, reviewed direct and indirect evidence to answer this question. Considering the totality of evidence reviewed, the expert panel drafted and rated their level of support for opinion statements on important considerations in treating patients with psoriasis who have a history of solid tumours. By making inferences on systemic psoriasis therapies in this heterogeneous population, we take the onus off individual physicians to review the indirect data. This process may help answer questions in other disease populations where direct evidence is scarce or absent. To support treatment decisions, doctors should have a guided conversation with the patient and their family on a case-by-case basis about the risks and benefits of treatment.

Extracorporeal Photopheresis and Its Use in Clinical Dermatology in Canada

Extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) is an immunomodulatory therapy that has been used for over 35 years to treat numerous conditions. ECP was initially approved by the US FDA in 1988 for the treatment of Sézary syndrome, a leukemic form of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL). Although CTCL remains the only FDA-approved indication, ECP has since been used off-label for numerous other conditions, including graft-versus-host disease (GvHD), systemic sclerosis, autoimmune bullous dermatoses, Crohn's disease, and prevention of solid organ transplant rejection. In Canada, ECP is mainly used to treat CTCL, acute and chronic GvHD, and in some instances systemic sclerosis. Herein, we review the current concepts regarding ECP mechanism of action, treatment considerations and protocols, and efficacy.

Use of Systemic Therapies for Treatment of Psoriasis in People Living with Controlled HIV: Inference-Based Guidance from a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel.

BACKGROUND: People living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) have a similar prevalence of psoriasis as the general population, though incidence and severity correlate with HIV viral load. Adequately treating HIV early renders the infection a chronic medical condition and allows PLHIV with a suppressed viral load (PLHIV-s) to live normal lives. Despite this, safety concerns and a lack of high-level data have hindered the use of systemic psoriasis therapies in PLHIV-s. OBJECTIVES: We aim to provide a structured framework that supports healthcare professionals and patients discussing the risks and benefits of systemic psoriasis therapy in PLHIV-s. Our goal was to address the primary question, are responses to systemic therapies for the treatment of psoriasis in PLHIV-s similar to those in the non-HIV population? METHODS: We implemented an inference-based approach relying on indirect evidence when direct clinical trial data were absent. In this instance, we reviewed indirect evidence supporting inferences on the status of immune function in PLHIV. Recommendations on systemic treatment for psoriasis in PLHIV were derived using an inferential heuristic. RESULTS: We identified seven indirect indicators of immune function informed by largely independent bodies of evidence: (1) functional assays, (2) vaccine response, (3) life expectancy, (4) psoriasis manifestations, (5) rate of infections, (6) rate of malignancies, and (7) organ transplant outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Drug-related benefits and risks when treating a patient with systemic psoriasis therapies are similar for non-HIV patients and PLHIV with a suppressed viral load and normalized CD4 counts. Prior to initiating psoriasis treatment in PLHIV, HIV replication should be addressed by an HIV specialist. Exercise additional caution for patients with a suppressed viral load and discordant CD4 responses on antiretroviral therapy.

People living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) develop psoriasis as often as everyone else. We asked: what are effective and safe treatments when PLHIV need systemic therapy (pills or injections) for their psoriasis?HIV infection attacks the immune system. When HIV is not treated, the immune system declines. A less effective immune system makes it harder for the body to fight infections and certain cancers. Psoriasis is a skin condition caused by overactive immune cells. Effective psoriasis treatments reduce immune-cell activity. There are some concerns that treatments for psoriasis may not work and could worsen infections or cancers.To answer the question, we gathered 11 dermatologists and 4 HIV specialists. We reviewed the international scientific literature on PLHIV and psoriasis. The absence of direct evidence and volume of information to review made the process challenging. The end results were worthwhile.We concluded that people who are diagnosed early and take antiretroviral therapy to control their HIV infection (PLHIV-c) can live long, healthy lives. Accordingly, we determined that PLHIV-c can likely expect the same safety and efficacy for systemic psoriasis treatments as the general population. Treatment decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis through consultation with the patient and treating physician(s).Pillars of modern medicine are evidence-based care and collaborative decision-making. Too often, neither care provider nor patient are adequately informed. We have tried to fill one information gap for PLHIV and psoriasis. This process may help answer questions in other disease populations where direct evidence is scarce or absent.

YouTube as a source of misinformation on COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 have been accessible to the public since December 2020. However, only 58.3% of Americans are fully vaccinated as of 5 November 2021. Numerous studies have supported YouTube as a source of both reliable and misleading information during the COVID-19 pandemic. Misinformation regarding the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines has negatively impacted vaccination intent. To date, the literature lacks a systematic evaluation of YouTube's content on COVID-19 vaccination using validated scoring tools. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy, usability and quality of the most widely viewed YouTube videos on COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: A search on YouTube was performed on 21 July 2021, using keywords 'COVID-19 vaccine' on a cleared-cache web browser. Search results were sorted by 'views', and the top 150 most-viewed videos were collected and analysed. Duplicate, non-English, non-audiovisual, exceeding 1-hour duration, or videos unrelated to COVID-19 vaccine were excluded. The primary outcome was usability and reliability of videos, analysed using the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) score, the modified Journal of the American Medical Association (mJAMA) score and the COVID-19 Vaccine Score (CVS). RESULTS: CONCLUSION: As the COVID-19 pandemic evolves, widespread adoption of vaccination is essential in reducing morbidity, mortality, and returning to some semblance of normalcy. Providing high-quality and engaging health information from reputable sources is essential in addressing vaccine hesitancy.