Practical update of the Recommendations Published by the Psoriasis Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (GPS) on the Treatment of Psoriasis with Biologic Therapy. Part 1. Concepts and General Management of Psoriasis with Biologic Therapy. / Actualización práctica de las recomendaciones del Grupo de Psoriasis de la Academia Española de Dermatología y Venereología (GPS) para el tratamiento de la psoriasis con terapia biológica. Parte 1. «Conceptos y manejo general de la psoriasis con terapia biológica¼.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A new, updated AEDV Psoriasis Group consensus document on the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis was needed owing to the approval, in recent years, of a large number of new drugs and changes in the treatment paradigm. METHODOLOGY: The consensus document was developed using the nominal group technique and a scoping review. First, a designated coordinator selected a group of Psoriasis Group members for the panel. The coordinator defined the objectives and key points for the document and, with the help of a documentalist, conducted a scoping review of articles in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to January 2021. The review included systematic reviews and meta-analyses as well as clinical trials not included in those studies and high-quality real-world studies. National and international clinical practice guidelines and consensus documents on the management of moderate to severe psoriasis were also reviewed. Based on these reviews, the coordinator drew up a set of proposed recommendations, which were then discussed and modified in a nominal group meeting. After several review processes, including external review by other GPs members, the final document was drafted. RESULTS: The present guidelines include general principles for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and also define treatment goals and criteria for the indication of biologic therapy and the selection of initial and subsequent therapies. Practical issues, such as treatment failure and maintenance of response, are also addressed.

Implementation of Recommendations for the Management of Psoriasis During Preconception, Pregnancy, Postpartum, Breastfeeding, and Perinatal Care. / Implementación de las recomendaciones sobre las actuaciones a seguir durante la edad fértil, el embarazo, el posparto, la lactancia y el cuidado perinatal en pacientes con psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze degree of implementation of recommendations on the management of psoriasis during preconception, pregnancy, postpartum, breastfeeding, and perinatal care published by the Psoriasis Working Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (AEDV). METHODS: We designed a structured online survey consisting of closed questions. A link was emailed to all the members of the Psoriasis Working Group to collect their anonymous responses. We also collected sociodemographic, professional, and practice-related data related to the goals of the study and then compiled descriptive statistics to analyze the survey findings. RESULTS: We received 53 responses for analysis. Overall, 96% of respondents were familiar with the recommendations, but very few of them worked in multidisciplinary maternity care units or had access to specific protocols on the management of psoriasis before, during, and after pregnancy in their departments. Seventy percent of dermatologists regularly ask their patients about pregnancy plans, but only 46% ask both men and women. Women also receive more preconception advice than men (54% vs. 19%). Significant variations were observed in the type of advice given. Ninety percent of the dermatologists interrupt topical treatments during pregnancy, and nearly all suspend conventional systemic drugs with the exception of cyclosporin A. Most biologics are also being discontinued in the third trimester, with the exception of certolizumab pegol. Almost all the respondents indicated that they use topical treatments, phototherapy, and certolizumab pegol in breastfeeding mothers. The main barriers to implementing the working group's recommendations are a lack of time, a lack of support, and a lack of robust data. CONCLUSIONS: Although the AEDV psoriasis working group's recommendations are widely known, areas for improvement remain.

Phototherapy for Prurigo Nodularis: Our Experience and a Review of the Literature. / Fototerapia en el prurigo nodular. Experiencia propia y revisión de la literatura.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Prurigo nodularis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by highly pruritic nodular lesions that cause constant itching and scratching and significant quality-of-life impairment. It has been described in a range of conditions, including skin diseases (mainly atopic dermatitis) and metabolic, neurological, and psychiatric disorders. The pathophysiological mechanisms are largely unknown. Various modalities of phototherapy have been described as appropriate and safe treatments for achieving clinical control and alleviating symptoms. In this article, we describe our experience with phototherapy in patients with prurigo nodularis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective observational study of patients who received their first cycle of phototherapy to treat prurigo nodularis between March 2011 and October 2019. Information was collected on epidemiological and clinical characteristics, concomitant treatments, type and duration of phototherapy, maximum dose reached, and response to treatment. RESULTS: We studied 44 patients (30 women and 14 men) with a median age of 65.5years. The most common form of phototherapy used was narrowband UV-B phototherapy (34 cycles, 77.27%) followed by a combination of UV-B and UV-A phototherapy (8 cycles). Response to treatment was considered satisfactory (clearance rate of ≥75%) in 24 patients (55.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Phototherapy is a suitable treatment for prurigo nodularis in a considerable proportion of patients. It can be used as monotherapy or combined with other treatments.

Paradoxical Reactions to Biologic Therapy in Psoriasis: A Review of the Literature. / Reacciones paradójicas de los tratamientos biológicos utilizados en psoriasis: revisión de la literatura.

Biologic drugs, which are molecules designed to act on specific immune system targets, have been shown to be very effective in treating various dermatological, rheumatological, and systemic diseases. As a group, they have an acceptable safety profile, but their use has been associated with the onset of both systemic and organ-specific inflammatory conditions. True paradoxical reactions are immune-mediated disorders that would usually respond to the biologic agent that causes them. There is still debate about whether certain other adverse reactions can be said to be paradoxical. The hypotheses proposed to explain the pathogenesis of such reactions include an imbalance in cytokine production, with an overproduction of IFN-α and altered lymphocyte recruitment and migration (mediated in part by CXCR3), and the production of autoantibodies. Some biologic therapies favor granulomatous reactions. While most of the paradoxical reactions reported have been associated with the use of TNF-α inhibitors, cases associated with more recently introduced biologic therapies -such as ustekinumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab- are increasingly common. The study of paradoxical adverse events not only favors better management of these reactions in patients receiving biologic therapy, but also improves our knowledge of the pathogenesis of chronic inflammatory diseases and helps to identify potential therapeutic targets.

Redefining the therapeutic objective in psoriatic patients candidates for biological therapy.

The advances in psoriasis management currently allow achieving a good control of the disease. In particular, with the latest developed molecules, available evidence suggests that it is possible to pose an ambitious therapeutic goal, such as a Dermatology Life Quality Index 0/1, a Physician Global Assessment 0/1, or a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 90/100 response. However, patients often fail to achieve the complete clearance of their cutaneous lesions or the improvement of disease factors that impair their quality of life. To optimize the treatment of psoriasis, it is not enough to define precisely the therapeutic objective, but also to adapt the therapeutic strategy to make the necessary modifications in case of not achieving it at the time point (at the end of the induction phase, or every 3-6 months) to be agreed with the patient (the so-called treat-to-target approach). In the present report, based on the Delphi methodology, 11 dermatologists from the Spanish Psoriasis Group addressed key issues that could be involved in the achievement and maintenance of the therapeutic goals of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. The document provides 27 consensus statements intended to support clinical decision-making by healthcare professionals for patients who might be candidates to receive biologic therapy.

Reliability of the MDi Psoriasis® Application to Aid Therapeutic Decision-Making in Psoriasis. / Fiabilidad de una aplicación de ayuda a la toma de decisiones terapéuticas en el paciente con psoriasis (MDi Psoriasis®).

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic decisions in psoriasis are influenced by disease factors (e.g., severity or location), comorbidity, and demographic and clinical features. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the reliability of a mobile telephone application (MDi-Psoriasis) designed to help the dermatologist make decisions on how to treat patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. METHOD: We analyzed interobserver agreement between the advice given by an expert panel and the recommendations of the MDi-Psoriasis application in 10 complex cases of moderate to severe psoriasis. The experts were asked their opinion on which treatments were most appropriate, possible, or inappropriate. Data from the same 10 cases were entered into the MDi-Psoriasis application. Agreement was analyzed in 3 ways: paired interobserver concordance (Cohen's κ), multiple interobserver concordance (Fleiss's κ), and percent agreement between recommendations. RESULTS: The mean percent agreement between the total of 1210 observations was 51.3% (95% CI, 48.5-54.1%). Cohen's κ statistic was 0.29 and Fleiss's κ was 0.28. Mean agreement between pairs of human observers only, excluding the MDi-Psoriasis recommendations, was 50.5% (95% CI, 47.6-53.5%). Paired agreement between the recommendations of the MDi-Psoriasis tool and the majority opinion of the expert panel (Cohen's κ) was 0.44 (68.2% agreement). CONCLUSIONS: The MDi-Psoriasis tool can generate recommendations that are comparable to those of experts in psoriasis.

Solar urticaria: Epidemiology and clinical phenotypes in a Spanish series of 224 patients. / Urticaria solar. Epidemiología y fenotipos clínicos en una serie española de 224 pacientes.

BACKGROUND: Solar urticaria is a chronic inducible urticaria also classified as an idiopathic dermatosis. The objective of this paper is to define the phenotypic characteristics of solar urticaria and to evaluate its incidence. MATERIAL AND METHOD: This was a retrospective multicenter study in which data were gathered on the epidemiology and clinical, photobiologic, laboratory, and therapeutic characteristics of solar urticaria. RESULTS: A total of 224 patients (141 women and 83 men) were included from 9 photobiology units. The mean age of the patients was 37.9 years (range, 3-73 years). A history of atopy was detected in 26.7%, and the most common presentation was allergic rhinitis (16.5%). Clinical signs were limited to sun-exposed areas in 75.9% of patients. The light spectrum most commonly implicated was visible light only (31.7%), and in 21% of cases it was only possible to trigger solar urticaria with natural light. The treatments most widely used by photobiology experts were oral antihistamines (65.46%), followed by different forms of phototherapy (34%). Complete resolution was observed most often in patients with solar urticaria triggered exclusively by visible or natural light, with statistically significant differences with respect to other wavelengths (P<.05). No increase in the annual incidence of solar urticaria was observed. CONCLUSIONS: We have presented the largest series of solar urticaria published to date. The epidemiological, clinical, and photobiologic findings confirm previously reported data, although there was a particularly high rate of negative phototests in our series. Reactivity exclusively to visible or natural light was associated with a higher probability of resolution. No increasing trend was observed in the annual incidence.

Expert Recommendations on Treating Psoriasis in Special Circumstances (Part II). / Recomendaciones de expertos para el tratamiento de la psoriasis en situaciones especiales (II).

BACKGROUND: There is insufficient information on how best to treat moderate to severe psoriasis in difficult clinical circumstances. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We considered 5 areas where there is conflicting or insufficient evidence: pediatric psoriasis, risk of infection in patients being treated with biologics, psoriasis in difficult locations, biologic drug survival, and impact of disease on quality of life. Following discussion of the issues by an expert panel of dermatologists specialized in the management of psoriasis, participants answered a questionnaire survey according to the Delphi method. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 66 (70.9%) of the 93 items analyzed; the experts agreed with 49 statements and disagreed with 17. It was agreed that body mass index, metabolic comorbidities, and quality of life should be monitored in children with psoriasis. The experts also agreed that the most appropriate systemic treatment for this age group was methotrexate, while the most appropriate biologic treatment was etanercept. Although it was recognized that the available evidence was inconsistent and difficult to extrapolate, the panel agreed that biologic drug survival could be increased by flexible, individualized dosing regimens, continuous treatment, and combination therapies. Finally, consensus was reached on using the Dermatology Quality of Life Index to assess treatment effectiveness and aid decision-making in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: The structured opinion of experts guides decision-making regarding aspects of clinical practice for which there is incomplete or conflicting information.

Expert recommendations on treating psoriasis in special circumstances.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: A great amount of information on systemic and biologic therapies for moderate to severe psoriasis is now available. However, applying the evidence in numerous clinical scenarios has engendered debate; under these circumstances, the consensus of experts is useful. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A scientific committee systematically reviewed the literature relevant to 5 clinical scenarios. An online Delphi survey of dermatologists with experience treating moderate to severe psoriasis was then carried out in order to shed light on questions that remained unresolved by the available evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-three dermatologists responded to the survey and consensus was reached on 37 (56%) of the 66 statements proposed. These results led to consensus on various clinical situations even though firm evidence was lacking. Thus, intermittent therapeutic regimens and strategies for reducing the intensity of treatment are considered appropriate for optimizing biologic treatment and reducing costs. The measurement of drug and antidrug antibody levels should be included routinely when following patients on biologics to treat psoriasis. Concomitant psoriatic arthritis or a history of cardiovascular conditions will influence the choice of biologic; in these situations, an agent with anti-tumor necrosis factor properties will be preferred. Tailored management is important when the patient is pregnant or intends to conceive; drug half-life and disease severity are important factors to take into consideration in these scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of systematic review of the literature and structured discussion of expert opinion facilitates decision-making in specific clinical scenarios.

Obesity and psoriasis: inflammatory nature of obesity, relationship between psoriasis and obesity, and therapeutic implications.

Obesity, particularly abdominal obesity, is currently considered a chronic low-grade inflammatory condition that plays an active role in the development of the pathophysiologic phenomena responsible for metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease through the secretion of proinflammatory adipokines and cytokines. In recent years clear genetic, pathogenic, and epidemiologic links have been established between psoriasis and obesity, with important implications for health. The relationship between the 2 conditions is probably bidirectional, with obesity predisposing to psoriasis and psoriasis favoring obesity. Obesity also has important implications in the treatment of psoriasis, such as a greater risk of adverse effects with conventional systemic drugs and reduced efficacy and/or increased cost with biologic agents, for which dosage should be adjusted to the patient's weight.

Directrices españolas basadas en la evidencia para el tratamiento de la psoriasis con agentes biológicos, 2013. I. Consideraciones de eficacia y selección del tratamiento / Spanish Evidence-Based Guidelines on the Treatment of Psoriasis With Biologic Agents, 2013. Part 1: On Efficacy and Choice of Treatment

La terapia biológica representa una alternativa bien establecida en el manejo de la psoriasis moderada y grave. Sin embargo, su elevado coste, la experiencia relativamente limitada en su empleo clínico y la abundancia de publicaciones existentes hacen necesario el desarrollo de unas directrices basadas en la evidencia científica disponible y en el consenso de un grupo de expertos. El objetivo ideal del tratamiento de la psoriasis es conseguir y mantener a largo plazo un blanqueamiento completo o prácticamente completo o, en su defecto, una mínima afectación localizada y controlable con tratamientos tópicos. Aunque la evidencia disponible permite comparar de forma directa o indirecta la eficacia y las posibilidades de fracaso terapéutico primario o secundario de los diferentes fármacos según parámetros objetivos, las limitaciones en la extrapolación de los ensayos clínicos a la clínica diaria condicionan que la elección del fármaco y de la pauta de administración se realicen de forma individualizada en función de las características de cada paciente. La presente actualización de las directrices para el tratamiento de la psoriasis con agentes biológicos de la Academia Española de Dermatología y Venereología (AEDV) incorpora la información más reciente disponible a este respecto (AU)

Biologic therapy is a well-established strategy for managing moderate and severe psoriasis. Nevertheless, the high cost of such therapy, the relatively short span of clinical experience with biologics, and the abundance of literature now available on these agents have made evidence-based and consensus-based clinical guidelines necessary. The ideal goal of psoriasis treatment is to achieve complete or nearly complete clearing of lesions and to maintain it over time. Failing that ideal, the goal would be to reduce involvement to localized lesions that can be controlled with topical therapy. Although current evidence allows us to directly or indirectly compare the efficacy or risk of primary or secondary failure of available biologics based on objective outcomes, clinical trial findings cannot be directly translated to routine practice. As a result, the prescribing physician must tailor the treatment regimen to the individual patient. This update of the clinical practice guidelines issued by the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (AEDV) on biologic therapy for psoriasis incorporates information from the most recent publications on this topic (AU)

Acitretina: guía de uso en psoriasis / Guidelines for the Use of Acitretin in Psoriasis

La fototerapia y los tratamientos sistémicos clásicos (metotrexato, acitetrina, ciclosporina), junto con las denominadas terapias biológicas (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, ustekinumab), permiten al dermatólogo disponer de un arsenal terapéutico amplio que aumenta las posibilidades de control de pacientes con psoriasis grave y/o extensa. La acitretina sigue siendo de gran utilidad tanto en monoterapia como combinada con otros fármacos sistémicos (clásicos o «biológicos»), o en terapia secuencial. Se distingue por no ser inmunosupresor directo y mantener respuestas a muy largo plazo, lo que le confiere un papel relevante en el tratamiento de la psoriasis, que no siempre ha sido reconocido en las diversas guías terapéuticas de esta enfermedad. Se presenta una guía de uso de acitretina consensuada por los miembros del Grupo de Psoriasis de la Academia Española de Dermatología y Venereología, en la que se exponen de forma detallada aspectos de la farmacología del fármaco, sus indicaciones y contraindicaciones, su eficacia antipsoriásica, los efectos adversos asociados al fármaco, las acciones a tener en cuenta para aumentar la seguridad de su uso, y se propone diversas estrategias terapéuticas de aplicación en la práctica clínica habitual. El objetivo global es facilitar los criterios de indicación y manejo de la acitretina en pacientes con psoriasis (AU)

Phototherapy, classic systemic treatments (methotrexate, acitretin, and ciclosporin), and biologic agents (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab) constitute a broad therapeutic arsenal that increases the likelihood of achieving control of severe and extensive disease in patients with psoriasis. Acitretin continues to be a very valuable tool in both monotherapy, in which it is combined with other systemic treatments (classic or biologic), and in sequential therapy. Thanks to its lack of a direct immunosuppressive effect and its ability to achieve a long-term response, acitretin has an important role in the treatment of psoriasis, although this has not always been acknowledged in relevant treatment guidelines. We present consensus guidelines for the use of acitretin in psoriasis drawn up by the Psoriasis Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. These guidelines provide a detailed account of acitretin, including pharmacological properties, indications and contraindications, adverse effects, and factors that should be taken into account to enhance the safe use of this drug. They also propose treatment strategies for use in routine clinical practice. The overall aim of these guidelines is to define the criteria for the use and management of acetretin in psoriasis (AU)

Guidelines for the use of acitretin in psoriasis. Psoriasis Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Phototherapy, classic systemic treatments (methotrexate, acitretin, and ciclosporin), and biologic agents (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab) constitute a broad therapeutic arsenal that increases the likelihood of achieving control of severe and extensive disease in patients with psoriasis. Acitretin continues to be a very valuable tool in both monotherapy, in which it is combined with other systemic treatments (classic or biologic), and in sequential therapy. Thanks to its lack of a direct immunosuppressive effect and its ability to achieve a long-term response, acitretin has an important role in the treatment of psoriasis, although this has not always been acknowledged in relevant treatment guidelines. We present consensus guidelines for the use of acitretin in psoriasis drawn up by the Psoriasis Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. These guidelines provide a detailed account of acitretin, including pharmacological properties, indications and contraindications, adverse effects, and factors that should be taken into account to enhance the safe use of this drug. They also propose treatment strategies for use in routine clinical practice. The overall aim of these guidelines is to define the criteria for the use and management of acetretin in psoriasis.

Inmunogenicidad en terapia biológica. Implicaciones en Dermatología / Immunogenicity in Biologic Therapy: Implications for Dermatology

En la actualidad se conoce que todos los fármacos biológicos, incluidos los de estructura totalmente humana, son capaces de inducir una respuesta inmune por parte del huésped, conocida como inmunogenicidad. La presencia de anticuerpos antifármaco puede condicionar los niveles y la función del fármaco y, por lo tanto, el efecto terapéutico e incluso el perfil de seguridad en función de su mecanismo de acción —neutralizante o no neutralizante— y/o de un aclaramiento acelerado. La inmunogenicidad es un factor dinámico a tener en cuenta en la terapia biológica de la psoriasis, en particular en el tratamiento a largo plazo, y en la evaluación de la pérdida secundaria de respuesta. El conocimiento y manejo de la inmunogenicidad de los distintos tratamientos biológicos representa un instrumento útil no solo en la optimización de las estrategias terapéuticas para cada fármaco, sino también en el diseño de modelos predictivos de respuesta, e incluso en la personalización de la terapia (AU)

It is now known that all biologic drugs, even those that are fully human, are immunogenic, that is, they have the ability to induce an immune response in the treated patient. Since the presence of antidrug antibodies may influence the levels and function of the drug in the body, this immune response can alter the efficacy of the biologic treatment and even its safety profile, depending on the mechanism of action (neutralizing or non neutralizing) and/or an accelerated clearance of the drug. Immunogenicity is a dynamic factor that should be taken into account when prescribing biologic therapy in psoriasis, especially in the case of long-term treatment and when assessing secondary loss of response. An understanding of the immunogenicity of biologic therapies and how this can be managed is useful not only for optimizing the treatment strategy used with each drug, but also for designing predictive models of response and even for tailoring therapy on a case-by-case basis (AU)

Eficacia y seguridad en terapia con psoralen-UVA (PUVA) tópica en psoriasis palmoplantar. Experiencia en una serie de 48 pacientes / Effectiveness and Safety of Psoralen-UVA (PUVA) Topical Therapy in Palmoplantar Psoriasis: A Report on 48 Patients

Introducción: La psoriasis palmoplantar es una forma clínica de psoriasis con una baja prevalencia y una limitada extensión, pero con un marcado impacto en la funcionalidad del paciente y en su calidad de vida. Objetivos: Estudiar la eficacia, seguridad y factores predictores de respuesta de la PUVA-terapia en el tratamiento de la psoriasis palmoplantar. Material y métodos: Estudio clínico, abierto y retrospectivo en el que se analizaron las historias clínicas de todos los pacientes con psoriasis palmoplantar tratados con terapia PUVA tópica entre los años 2008 y 2011 en nuestro centro. Se recogieron datos sobre eficacia (utilizando el PGA como marcador) y seguridad, así como sobre aspectos clínicos, epidemiológicos y referentes al tratamiento. Resultados: Se incluyeron un total de 48 pacientes (33 mujeres y 15 hombres) con una edad media de 51 años. El tratamiento se consideró eficaz (PGA 0/1) en el 63% de pacientes. Se requirió el uso de fármacos sistémicos asociados a la terapia PUVA en el 47,9%, siendo el acitretino el fármaco más utilizado. El 25% presentó algún efecto adverso durante el tratamiento, que en su mayor parte consistió en eritema leve (18%). Discusión: En nuestra experiencia la terapia PUVA tópica representa una alternativa adecuada en el tratamiento de la psoriasis palmoplantar, con perspectivas de respuesta similares a las de otros tratamientos sistémicos y con mejor perfil de tolerancia y seguridad. La asociación terapéutica, en particular con acitretino, permite mejorar las posibilidades de respuesta y debería considerarse en caso de respuesta no satisfactoria después de unas 8-10 sesiones (AU)

Introduction: Palmoplantar psoriasis is an uncommon clinical form of psoriasis. Although localized to the palms and soles, it has a considerable impact on the patient's function and quality of life. Objectives: To study the effectiveness and safety of psoralen-UV-A (PUVA) therapy in palmoplantar psoriasis and investigate predictors of clinical response. Material and methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients with palmoplantar psoriasis treated with topical PUVA therapy at our hospital between 2008 and 2011. Data were collected on effectiveness (using physician global assessment [PGA] scores), safety, and a range of clinical, epidemiological, and treatment-related variables. Results: We studied 48 patients (33 women and 15 men) with a mean age of 51 years. Treatment was considered to be effective (PGA score of 0 or 1) in 63% of cases. In addition to PUVA, systemic therapy was required in 47.9% of patients; the drug most often used was acitretin. Adverse effects were reported for 25% of patients during treatment. The most common effect was mild erythema, present in 18% of cases. Conclusions: In our experience, topical PUVA is an appropriate treatment alternative for palmoplantar psoriasis; it offers similar response rates to systemic treatments, but has a better tolerance and safety profile. Associated systemic treatment, with acitretin in most cases, improved the probability of a satisfactory response to PUVA and should be considered in patients who do not respond adequately after 8 to 10 sessions (AU)

Effectiveness and safety of psoralen-UVA (PUVA) topical therapy in palmoplantar psoriasis: a report on 48 patients.

INTRODUCTION: Palmoplantar psoriasis is an uncommon clinical form of psoriasis. Although localized to the palms and soles, it has a considerable impact on the patient's function and quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To study the effectiveness and safety of psoralen-UV-A (PUVA) therapy in palmoplantar psoriasis and investigate predictors of clinical response. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients with palmoplantar psoriasis treated with topical PUVA therapy at our hospital between 2008 and 2011. Data were collected on effectiveness (using physician global assessment [PGA] scores), safety, and a range of clinical, epidemiological, and treatment-related variables. RESULTS: We studied 48 patients (33 women and 15 men) with a mean age of 51 years. Treatment was considered to be effective (PGA score of 0 or 1) in 63% of cases. In addition to PUVA, systemic therapy was required in 47.9% of patients; the drug most often used was acitretin. Adverse effects were reported for 25% of patients during treatment. The most common effect was mild erythema, present in 18% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, topical PUVA is an appropriate treatment alternative for palmoplantar psoriasis; it offers similar response rates to systemic treatments, but has a better tolerance and safety profile. Associated systemic treatment, with acitretin in most cases, improved the probability of a satisfactory response to PUVA and should be considered in patients who do not respond adequately after 8 to 10 sessions.