Acceptability of 'as needed' biologic therapy in psoriasis: insights from a multistakeholder mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Biologic therapies have led to increasing numbers of patients with psoriasis who have clear or nearly clear skin. It is current practice to continue biologic therapy indefinitely in these patients, which contributes to a substantial long-term drug and healthcare burden. 'As needed' biologic therapy in psoriasis may address this; however, our understanding of patient and clinician perceptions of this strategy is limited. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this mixed-methods study was to gain insight into the perspectives of both patients and clinicians regarding the acceptability of an 'as needed' approach to biologic therapy in psoriasis, including potential barriers and enablers to implementation in routine care. METHODS: We first conducted UK-wide online scoping surveys of patients with psoriasis and dermatology clinicians to explore their views on 'as needed' biologic therapy. Using topic guides informed by these survey findings, we then carried out qualitative focus groups with patients and clinicians. Themes were identified using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of 67 patients and 27 clinicians completing the scoping surveys, 67% (43 of 64 patients) and 78% (21 of 27 clinicians) supported the use of 'as needed' biologic therapy, respectively. Respondents highlighted advantages such as a reduction in healthcare burden and greater ownership of care. Challenges included logistics of 'as needed' drug provision and potential risks of disease flare and drug immunogenicity. Focus groups comprised 15 patients with psoriasis [9 female patients (60%), average disease duration 32 years (range 9-64)] and 9 dermatology clinicians [8 female clinicians (89%), average dermatology experience 20 years (range 8-33)]. Both patients and clinicians felt that an 'as needed' treatment approach will deliver a reduction in treatment burden and present an opportunity for patient-led ownership of care. Both groups highlighted the importance of ensuring ongoing access to medication and discussing the potential impact of psoriasis recurrence. Patient preferences were influenced by their lived experiences, particularly previous difficulties with medication delivery logistics and establishing disease control. Clinician perspectives were informed by personal experience of their patients adapting their own dosing schedules. Clinicians highlighted the importance of targeted patient selection for an 'as needed' approach, ongoing disease monitoring, and prompt reaccess to medications upon psoriasis recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that 'as needed' biologic therapy in psoriasis is acceptable for both patients and clinicians. Formal assessment of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is warranted to enable the real-world potential of this approach to be realized.

Psoriasis is a common skin disease that affects up to 2% of adults in the UK and causes red, scaly patches of skin. A new group of injectable medicines (called biologics) are extremely effective at controlling psoriasis. However, continuous use of these medicines can increase the risk of negative side-effects (such as infections). 'As needed' biologic therapy is when a person takes their biologic medication at the first sign of psoriasis recurrence (rather than continuously). This approach has potential to reduce the risks associated with taking biologics, while still maintaining good control of psoriasis symptoms. 'As needed' therapy has not been used in psoriasis yet, and so we wanted to know what people with psoriasis and healthcare professionals thought about this approach. We carried out national surveys of people with psoriasis and healthcare professionals to explore their views on 'as needed' biologic therapy. We also held group interviews to understand in more detail the positive aspects and potential issues with this approach. Overall, we found that an 'as needed' approach was viewed as acceptable by people with psoriasis and healthcare professionals. They thought this approach would reduce the negative impacts of treatment and allow patients to have more ownership of their care. Potential issues included the possibility of patients' psoriasis returning, as well as ensuring that they had access to medication quickly enough when needed. These findings indicate that 'as needed' biologic therapy in psoriasis is acceptable from both a patient and clinician perspective.

Defining disease severity in atopic dermatitis and psoriasis for the application to biomarker research: an interdisciplinary perspective.

More severe atopic dermatitis and psoriasis are associated with a higher cumulative impact on quality of life, multimorbidity and healthcare costs. Proactive, early intervention in those most at risk of severe disease may reduce this cumulative burden and modify the disease trajectory to limit progression. The lack of reliable biomarkers for this at-risk group represents a barrier to such a paradigm shift in practice. To expedite discovery and validation, the BIOMarkers in Atopic Dermatitis and Psoriasis (BIOMAP) consortium (a large-scale European, interdisciplinary research initiative) has curated clinical and molecular data across diverse study designs and sources including cross-sectional and cohort studies (small-scale studies through to large multicentre registries), clinical trials, electronic health records and large-scale population-based biobanks. We map all dataset disease severity instruments and measures to three key domains (symptoms, inflammatory activity and disease course), and describe important codependencies and relationships across variables and domains. We prioritize definitions for more severe disease with reference to international consensus, reference standards and/or expert opinion. Key factors to consider when analysing datasets across these diverse study types include explicit early consideration of biomarker purpose and clinical context, candidate biomarkers associated with disease severity at a particular point in time and over time and how they are related, taking the stage of biomarker development into account when selecting disease severity measures for analyses, and validating biomarker associations with disease severity outcomes using both physician- and patient-reported measures and across domains. The outputs from this exercise will ensure coherence and focus across the BIOMAP consortium so that mechanistic insights and biomarkers are clinically relevant, patient-centric and more generalizable to current and future research efforts.

Atopic dermatitis (AD), and psoriasis are long-term skin conditions that can significantly affect people's lives, especially when symptoms are severe. Approximately 10% of adults and 20% of children are affected by AD, while psoriasis affects around 5% of people in the UK. Both conditions are associated with debilitating physical symptoms (such as itch) and have been linked to depression and anxiety. Biomarkers are naturally occurring chemicals in the human body and have potential to enhance the longer-term management of AD and psoriasis. Currently, there are no routinely used biomarkers that can identify people who experience or will go on to develop severe AD and psoriasis. For this reason, research is under way to understand which biomarkers are linked to severity. In this study, a multidisciplinary team of skin researchers from across Europe, along with patient groups, discussed the complexities of studying severity-related biomarkers. We identified a number of severity measurement approaches and there were recommendations for future biomarker research, including (i) considering multiple measures as no single measure can encompass all aspects of severity, (ii) exploring severity measures recorded by both healthcare professionals and patients, as each may capture different aspects, and (iii) accounting for influencing factors, such as different treatment approaches, that may impact AD and psoriasis severity, which make it challenging to compare findings across studies. Overall, we anticipate that the insights gained from these discussions will increase the likelihood of biomarkers being effectively applied in real-world settings, to ultimately improve outcomes for people with AD and psoriasis.

The top 10 research priorities in psoriatic arthritis: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and prioritize the top 10 research questions for PsA. METHODS: The British Psoriatic Arthritis Consortium (BritPACT) formed a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) comprising of people living with PsA, carers and clinicians, supported by the James Lind Alliance (JLA). This PSP followed the established three-stage JLA process: first, an online survey of people living with PsA, carers and clinicians to identify PsA questions, asking, 'What do you think are the most important unanswered questions in psoriatic arthritis research?' The questions were checked against existing evidence to establish 'true uncertainties' and grouped as 'indicative questions' reflecting the overarching themes. Then a second online survey ranked the 'true uncertainties' by importance. Finally, a workshop including people living with PsA and clinician stakeholders finalized the top 10 research priorities. RESULTS: The initial survey attracted 317 respondents (69% people living with PsA, 15% carers), with 988 questions. This generated 46 indicative questions. In the second survey, 422 respondents (78% people living with PsA, 4% carers) prioritized these. Eighteen questions were taken forward to the final online workshop. The top unanswered PsA research question was 'What is the best strategy for managing patients with psoriatic arthritis including non-drug and drug treatments?' Other top 10 priorities covered diagnosis, prognosis, outcome assessment, flares, comorbidities and other aspects of treatment (https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk). CONCLUSION: The top 10 priorities will guide PsA research and enable PsA researchers and those who fund research to know the most important questions for people living with PsA.

Nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy in people with psoriasis during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from a global cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Nonadherence to immune-modifying therapy is a complex behaviour which, before the COVID-19 pandemic, was shown to be associated with mental health disorders in people with immune-mediated diseases. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a rise in the global prevalence of anxiety and depression, and limited data exist on the association between mental health and nonadherence to immune-modifying therapy during the pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent of and reasons underlying nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic in individuals with psoriasis, and the association between mental health and nonadherence. METHODS: Online self-report surveys (PsoProtectMe), including validated screens for anxiety and depression, were completed globally during the first year of the pandemic. We assessed the association between anxiety or depression and nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy using binomial logistic regression, adjusting for potential cofounders (age, sex, ethnicity, comorbidity) and country of residence. RESULTS: Of 3980 participants from 77 countries, 1611 (40.5%) were prescribed a systemic immune-modifying therapy. Of these, 408 (25.3%) reported nonadherence during the pandemic, most commonly due to concerns about their immunity. In the unadjusted model, a positive anxiety screen was associated with nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy [odds ratio (OR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.76]. Specifically, anxiety was associated with nonadherence to targeted therapy (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01-1.96) but not standard systemic therapy (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81-1.67). In the adjusted model, although the directions of the effects remained, anxiety was not significantly associated with nonadherence to overall systemic (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92-1.56) or targeted (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.94-1.89) immune-modifying therapy. A positive depression screen was not strongly associated with nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy in the unadjusted (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.94-1.57) or adjusted models (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.87-1.49). CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate substantial nonadherence to immune-modifying therapy in people with psoriasis during the pandemic, with attenuation of the association with mental health after adjusting for confounders. Future research in larger populations should further explore pandemic-specific drivers of treatment nonadherence. Clear communication of the reassuring findings from population-based research regarding immune-modifying therapy-associated adverse COVID-19 risks to people with psoriasis is essential, to optimize adherence and disease outcomes.

Factors associated with adverse COVID-19 outcomes in patients with psoriasis-insights from a global registry-based study.

BACKGROUND: The multimorbid burden and use of systemic immunosuppressants in people with psoriasis may confer greater risk of adverse outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the data are limited. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to characterize the course of COVID-19 in patients with psoriasis and identify factors associated with hospitalization. METHODS: Clinicians reported patients with psoriasis with confirmed/suspected COVID-19 via an international registry, Psoriasis Patient Registry for Outcomes, Therapy and Epidemiology of COVID-19 Infection. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the association between clinical and/or demographic characteristics and hospitalization. A separate patient-facing registry characterized risk-mitigating behaviors. RESULTS: Of 374 clinician-reported patients from 25 countries, 71% were receiving a biologic, 18% were receiving a nonbiologic, and 10% were not receiving any systemic treatment for psoriasis. In all, 348 patients (93%) were fully recovered from COVID-19, 77 (21%) were hospitalized, and 9 (2%) died. Increased hospitalization risk was associated with older age (multivariable-adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.59 per 10 years; 95% CI = 1.19-2.13), male sex (OR = 2.51; 95% CI = 1.23-5.12), nonwhite ethnicity (OR = 3.15; 95% CI = 1.24-8.03), and comorbid chronic lung disease (OR = 3.87; 95% CI = 1.52-9.83). Hospitalization was more frequent in patients using nonbiologic systemic therapy than in those using biologics (OR = 2.84; 95% CI = 1.31-6.18). No significant differences were found between classes of biologics. Independent patient-reported data (n = 1626 across 48 countries) suggested lower levels of social isolation in individuals receiving nonbiologic systemic therapy than in those receiving biologics (OR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.50-0.94). CONCLUSION: In this international case series of patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, biologic use was associated with lower risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization than with use of nonbiologic systemic therapies; however, further investigation is warranted on account of potential selection bias and unmeasured confounding. Established risk factors (being older, being male, being of nonwhite ethnicity, and having comorbidities) were associated with higher hospitalization rates.

A UK online survey exploring patient perspectives of remote consultations for managing psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The use of remote consultations via telephone or video can contribute to the management of people with psoriasis and has allowed continuity of patient care throughout the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, though little is known about the patient experience. The present study aimed to provide insights into the views and experiences of people with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis on their remote consultations during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and develop guidance for patients and healthcare professionals on how to optimise future remote consultations. We conducted a cross-sectional, on-line survey of people with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and Thematic Analysis. Overall, 126 people reported experiences of telephone (92%) or video (8%) consultations. Most participants were satisfied with (78%), and were happy for, remote consultations to continue (21%); few were not (5%). Others did not always want remote consultations (39%) and preferred alternating with face-to-face consultations (18%). Some wanted remote care during the pandemic only (17%). Five themes were identified: (1) Advantages of Remote Consultations; (2) Disadvantages of Remote Consultations plus sub-themes (2.1) Practical Issues and (2.2) the Absence of Non-Verbal Cues and Emotions; (3) Serving a Purpose; and (4) A 'Good' Remote Consultation; and (5) Advice to Other Patients. Remote consultations form an important part of psoriatic disease management, mainly for routine follow-up appointments in patients with stable disease, and in addition to face-to-face consultations. Additional skills training for clinicians could improve the quality of remote consultations.

Implementation of the PsoWell™ Model for the Management of People with Complex Psoriasis.

The Psoriasis and Well-being (PsoWell)™ training programme, incorporating motivational interviewing, improves clinicians' knowledge and skills to manage complex psoriasis, including behaviour change. The aims of this study were to deliver the PsoWell™ training programme to dermatology specialists, and to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of implementing the PsoWell™ model across dermatology services. Framework analysis of 19 qualitative semi-structured interviews was performed, following delivery of nine, 1-day PsoWell™ training days involving 119 participants. Two themes were identified: "Perceptions and Priorities" and "Awareness", sub-divided into: "Awareness Not Competence" and "Increasing Awareness". The PsoWell™ model was found to be acceptable and feasible to implement across dermatology settings. Participants were more skilled and motivated to address psycho-logical issues, including behaviour change, but wanted further training to ensure competency. The trainees claimed that scepticism among some colleagues regarding whole-patient management might prevent uptake. Data show-ing the impact on health outcomes are needed and might overcome scepticism. Remote consultation could adopt the PsoWell™ approach.

Equity, expense, and expertise in biologic commissioning: adding the patient to the equation.

INTRODUCTION: Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are increasingly managed effectively with biologic medicines. However, with relatively high unit costs, there remains a meaningful pressure to ensure streamlined, equitable, and inclusive prescription of biologics in the UK. Despite an increased awareness of the benefits of patient-centric shared decision making, patients remain on the periphery of biologic selection for the treatment of IMIDs. AREAS COVERED: We provide a patient perspective on core issues in the commissioning, prescription, and decision making around biologics for IMIDs in the UK, focusing on England. In particular, the crucial aspect of determining 'value' for different stakeholders, who necessarily have different priorities, is considered. EXPERT OPINION: There are disparities in commissioning, access to, and prescription of biologics for IMIDs in the UK. This creates an unequal treatment model and drives patient dissatisfaction with an 'experience lottery' for the management of disease. A more transparent approach to prescribing decisions, made in close consultation with patients, is essential for improving equity and experience with biologic treatment of IMIDs.

Elevating the Standard of Care for Patients with Psoriasis: 'Calls to Action' from Epicensus, a Multistakeholder Pan-European Initiative.

INTRODUCTION: Despite advances in treatment options and the management of patients with psoriasis, considerable unmet needs remain. Our objective was to identify ways to elevate the standard of care for patients with psoriasis by combining the perspectives of three important stakeholders: patients, clinicians and payors, and define 'Calls to Action' designed to achieve the identified changes. METHODS: Eight themes relevant to elevating the standard of care were identified from an insights-gathering questionnaire completed by all three stakeholder groups. A modified Delphi exercise gained consensus on statements informed by the insights. Statements were then used to inspire 'Calls to Action' - practical steps that could be taken to realise the desired changes and elevate the standard of care. RESULTS: In total, 18 European experts (10 dermatologists, 3 payors and 5 patient representatives) took part in the Delphi process. Consensus was reached on statements relating to all eight themes: improve healthcare systems to better support multidisciplinary team working and digital services, real-world data generation and optimal use, improve patient access, elevate quality-of-life measures as the most important outcomes, involve patients in patient-centred and personalised approaches to care, improve the relevance and reach of guidelines, education, and multistakeholder engagement. 'Calls to Action' common to all three stakeholder groups recognised the need to capitalise on the shift to digital healthcare, the need for consistent input into registries to generate real-world evidence to support guideline development, and the necessity of educating patients on the benefits of reporting outcomes to generate real-world data. The enormous quality-of-life burden and psychological impact of psoriasis, as well as the clinical needs of patients must be better understood, including by healthcare commissioners, so that funding priorities are assessed appropriately. CONCLUSION: This unique initiative identified a practical 'Call-to-Action Framework' which, if implemented, could help improve the standard of care for patients with psoriasis.

Despite improvements in the management of psoriasis, there is room for the standard of care for patients to be improved further. The aim of the 'Epicensus' programme is to help realise improvements by bringing together three important stakeholder groups involved in the care of patients with psoriasis: dermatologists, payors and patient representatives. First, unmet needs were explored with these stakeholders and eight themes for change were identified: 1) improve healthcare systems to better support multidisciplinary team working and digital services; 2) optimise real-world data generation and use; 3) improve patient access; 4) elevate quality-of-life measures as the most important outcomes; 5) involve patients in people-centred and personalised approaches to care; 6) improve the relevance and reach of guidelines; 7) education; 8) multistakeholder engagement. Next, a panel of experts representing the three stakeholder groups took part in a consensus process (Delphi) to reach agreement on statements relating to each of the eight themes. The statements describe current problems and what needs to be changed to raise the standard of care for patients with psoriasis. Some of the problems identified are similar to those that existed a decade ago, showing that simply recognising what needs to change is not enough to bring about improvements: action must be taken. Therefore, the Epicensus participants met to produce specific 'Calls to Action'­ practical steps described in this publication that, if put into practice, should contribute to an improvement in the standard of care for patients with psoriasis.

Influence of information provided prior to switching from Humira to biosimilar adalimumab on UK patients' satisfaction: a cross-sectional survey by patient organisations.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the perceptions and experiences of people with specific immune-mediated inflammatory diseases during the process of switching from Humira to biosimilar adalimumab. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: An anonymised, self-administered, web-based survey. PARTICIPANTS: The participants were drawn from members and non-members of either the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society, Crohn's and Colitis UK, or Psoriasis Association. Birdshot Uveitis Society and Olivia's Vision also signposted to the survey links. RESULTS: A total of 899 people living with various immune mediated inflammatory diseases participated in this survey. Thirty-four per cent of respondents reported poor overall satisfaction with their biosimilar adalimumab after the switch, associated with complaints related to the switching process including lack of shared decision making, scarcity of information provided by or signposted to by the department instigating the switch as well as lack of training with the new injection device. Where training with the new device had been provided, there were significantly reduced reports of pain when injecting the new biosimilar (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.55), side effects (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.47) and difficulty in using the new injection device (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41). Self-reported side effects were reduced by (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.38) when written information was provided by healthcare professionals and by (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.42) with provision of verbal information. Difficulty in using the new injection device was also reduced by provision of satisfactory information such as written documents (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.63) or by verbal communication with healthcare professionals (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.73). Finally, provision of satisfactory written or verbal information was associated with a reduction in any negative perception regarding symptom control with the new biosimilar by (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.004 to 0.57) and by (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.84), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patient reported experiences of the process of switching from originator to biosimilar emphasise the importance of clear communication, training and information in order to optimise perception and maximise achievable outcomes with the new treatment.

Association of Clinical and Demographic Factors With the Severity of Palmoplantar Pustulosis.

Importance: Although palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) can significantly impact quality of life, the factors underlying disease severity have not been studied. Objective: To examine the factors associated with PPP severity. Design, Setting, and Participants: An observational, cross-sectional study of 2 cohorts was conducted. A UK data set including 203 patients was obtained through the Anakinra in Pustular Psoriasis, Response in a Controlled Trial (2016-2019) and its sister research study Pustular Psoriasis, Elucidating Underlying Mechanisms (2016-2020). A Northern European cohort including 193 patients was independently ascertained by the European Rare and Severe Psoriasis Expert Network (2014-2017). Patients had been recruited in secondary or tertiary dermatology referral centers. All patients were of European descent. The PPP diagnosis was established by dermatologists, based on clinical examination and/or published consensus criteria. The present study was conducted from October 1, 2014, to March 15, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, smoking status, Palmoplantar Pustulosis Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PPPASI), measuring severity from 0 (no sign of disease) to 72 (very severe disease), or Physician Global Assessment (PGA), measuring severity as 0 (clear), 1 (almost clear), 2 (mild), 3 (moderate), and 4 (severe). Results: Among the 203 UK patients (43 men [21%], 160 women [79%]; median age at onset, 48 [interquartile range (IQR), 38-59] years), the PPPASI was inversely correlated with age of onset (r = -0.18, P = .01). Similarly, in the 159 Northern European patients who were eligible for inclusion in this analysis (25 men [16%], 134 women [84%]; median age at onset, 45 [IQR, 34-53.3] years), the median age at onset was lower in individuals with a moderate to severe PGA score (41 years [IQR, 30.5-52 years]) compared with those with a clear to mild PGA score (46.5 years [IQR, 35-55 years]) (P = .04). In the UK sample, the median PPPASI score was higher in women (9.6 [IQR, 3.0-16.2]) vs men (4.0 [IQR, 1.0-11.7]) (P = .01). Likewise, moderate to severe PPP was more prevalent among Northern European women (57 of 134 [43%]) compared with men (5 of 25 [20%]) (P = .03). In the UK cohort, the median PPPASI score was increased in current smokers (10.7 [IQR, 4.2-17.5]) compared with former smokers (7 [IQR, 2.0-14.4]) and nonsmokers (2.2 [IQR, 1-6]) (P = .003). Comparable differences were observed in the Northern European data set, as the prevalence of moderate to severe PPP was higher in former and current smokers (51 of 130 [39%]) compared with nonsmokers (6 of 24 [25%]) (P = .14). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that PPP severity is associated with early-onset disease, female sex, and smoking status. Thus, smoking cessation intervention might be beneficial.

A small population, randomised, placebo-controlled trial to determine the efficacy of anakinra in the treatment of pustular psoriasis: study protocol for the APRICOT trial.

BACKGROUND: Palmoplantar pustulosis is a rare but painful and debilitating disease. It consistently ranks the highest of all psoriasis phenotypic variants in terms of symptoms and functional impairment. Management of plaque-type psoriasis has been revolutionised in the last 10 years with the advent of biologic therapies, but treatment options for pustular psoriasis remain profoundly limited. On the basis of mechanistic findings which suggest a key pathogenic role for interleukin (IL)-1 in pustular psoriasis, we hypothesise that anakinra (IL-1 blockade) will be an efficacious treatment for pustular psoriasis. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a two-stage, adaptive, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial to test the hypothesis that anakinra, self-administered daily by subcutaneous injection over 8 weeks, will deliver therapeutic benefit in palmoplantar pustular psoriasis, a localised form of pustular psoriasis typically involving the palms and/or soles. Safety outcomes will be collected for 20 weeks. A total of 64 participants will be randomised to anakinra or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. At the end of stage 1, a decision to progress to stage 2 will be made. This decision will take place after 24 participants have been randomised and followed for 8 weeks and will be based on the ordering of the observed mean outcome values in both treatment arms. At the end of stage 1, the reliability of outcome measurements and method to collect the data will also be assessed, and the primary outcome will be confirmed for stage 2. DISCUSSION: We have undertaken an adaptive approach in which we will gain proof-of-concept data prior to completing a powered efficacy trial because pustular psoriasis is a rare disease, no validated outcome measures to detect change exist, and limited safety data for anakinra exist in this population. To our knowledge, this will be the first randomised controlled trial that will provide valuable evidence for the efficacy and safety of IL-1 blockade for treatment in pustular psoriasis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13127147 . Registered on 1st August 2016. EudraCT, 2015-003600-23 . Registered on 1st April 2016.

Psoriasis today: experiences of healthcare and impact on quality of life in a major UK cohort.

AIM: To establish how people with psoriasis in the United Kingdom today experience living with their condition including diagnosis, treatment, healthcare provision and impact on daily life. BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is a debilitating long-term inflammatory skin disease which can result in severe itching, discomfort and soreness, and may be associated with problems beyond the specific symptoms related to the skin. For many it is accompanied by difficult-to-manage treatment regimes, emotional distress and a negative impact on their quality of life and psychosocial functioning. To date there is little published information about the health experiences of people in the United Kingdom with psoriasis. METHODS: A postal self-administered questionnaire was completed by members of the Psoriasis Association and the responses analysed (n = 1564). FINDINGS: The findings suggest some similarities to surveys in other nations, but specifically highlighted that patients feel under-informed and are dissatisfied with current treatment regimes. Responses provided an insight into aspects of the condition that treatments should be targeting. Specific areas of negative impact on psychosocial functioning were identified, including the lack of available support for those experiencing emotional distress. The research provides important information about how the care of patients with psoriasis can be improved, especially at primary care level. This includes: improved training in psoriasis knowledge and awareness at general practitioner level and greater use of dermatology specialist nurses in primary care settings; more effective and manageable treatment regimes that target visible areas and general well-being; greater support for emotional distress and psychosocial functioning.

Cost-effectiveness analysis at the development phase of a potential health technology: examples based on tissue engineering of bladder and urethra.

OBJECTIVES: We demonstrate the use of health economics to guide investment decisions in regenerative medicine. Our examples are based on proposed tissue engineering applications in the urinary tract. We show that health economics have a role in strengthening the supply side, not just the demand side of the health economy. METHODS: We reviewed the epidemiology and treatment of the clinical conditions where TE of urothelium may be considered using literature identified from a range of sources including electronic databases, article bibliographies and references, online articles and expert opinion in the field. RESULTS: Careful analysis of current best treatment suggested that urethral defects and bladder resection for cancer offered the most propitious applications of TE. The headroom for engineered urethral tissue was estimated at pound sterling186. This is unlikely to be large enough to support the launch of a TE product populated with viable cells. The headroom for TE bladder, on the other hand, was estimated at around pound sterling16 268. However, the market size is limited reducing potential profitability. CONCLUSIONS: The Headroom Method can help inform instrumental decisions concerning new treatments without having to build a complex model with very wide parameter uncertainty.