Phase 3 Trial of Nemolizumab in Patients with Prurigo Nodularis.

BACKGROUND: Prurigo nodularis is a chronic, debilitating, and severely pruritic neuroimmunologic skin disease. Nemolizumab, an interleukin-31 receptor alpha antagonist, down-regulates key pathways in the pathogenesis of prurigo nodularis. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned adults with moderate-to-severe prurigo nodularis to receive an initial 60-mg dose of nemolizumab followed by subcutaneous injections of 30 mg or 60 mg (depending on baseline weight) every 4 weeks for 16 weeks or matching placebo. The primary end points were an itch response (a reduction of ≥4 points on the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale [PP-NRS; scores range from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating more severe itch]) and an Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) response (a score of 0 [clear] or 1 [almost clear] on the IGA [scores range from 0 to 4] and a reduction from baseline to week 16 of ≥2 points). There were five key secondary end points. RESULTS: A total of 274 patients underwent randomization; 183 were assigned to the nemolizumab group, and 91 to the placebo group. Treatment efficacy was shown with respect to both primary end points at week 16; a greater percentage of patients in the nemolizumab group than in the placebo group had an itch response (56.3% vs. 20.9%; strata-adjusted difference, 37.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 26.3 to 48.5), and a greater percentage in the nemolizumab group had an IGA response (37.7% vs. 11.0%; strata-adjusted difference, 28.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 18.8 to 38.2) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Benefits were observed for the five key secondary end points: itch response at week 4 (41.0% vs. 7.7%), PP-NRS score of less than 2 at week 4 (19.7% vs. 2.2%) and week 16 (35.0% vs. 7.7%), and an improvement of 4 or more points on the sleep disturbance numerical rating scale (range, 0 [no sleep loss] to 10 [unable to sleep at all]) at week 4 (37.2% vs. 9.9%) and week 16 (51.9% vs. 20.9%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). The most common individual adverse events were headache (6.6% vs. 4.4%) and atopic dermatitis (5.5% vs. 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Nemolizumab monotherapy significantly reduced the signs and symptoms of prurigo nodularis. (Funded by Galderma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04501679; EudraCT number, 2019-004789-17.).

Comparison of Perceptions of Skin Condition, Product Use and Allergen Reactivity Between People with Psoriasis and Controls in the European Dermato-Epidemiology Network (EDEN) Fragrance Study.

Psoriasis, a chronic inflammatory skin disease, goes beyond visible symptoms and affects the general well-being of patients. The aim of this study is to understand how patients with psoriasis perceive their skin characteristics and reactivity to allergens. The study population includes 11,283 participants within the European Dermato-Epidemiology Network (EDEN) Fragrance study, covering several European regions. The study compared perceptions of skin dryness, sensitivity, product avoidance and reactivity to allergens between patients with psoriasis and controls, evaluating the potential influence of psoriasis severity. The results showed that subjects with psoriasis reported dry skin (71.1%) and sensitive skin (49.4%) more often than did controls (51.6% and 38.5%, respectively). Psoriasis patients were more likely to avoid specific products. Interestingly, there were no significant differences in patch-test results between the 2 groups and the severity of psoriasis did not have a consistent impact on these perceptions. In conclusion, people with psoriasis tend to perceive their skin as drier and more sensitive. Notably, the severity of psoriasis did not consistently influence these perceptions and objective reactivity to allergens did not align with subjective perception. Understanding these aspects is crucial for tailoring treatments to improve the well-being of patients with psoriasis, which warrants further research to explore subjective perceptions of skin well-being in patients with psoriasis.

Short-, mid- and long-term efficacy of dupilumab in moderate to severe atopic dermatitis: a real life multicenter Italian study on 2576 patients.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of dupilumab in atopic dermatitis (AD) have been defined in clinical trials but limited real-world evidence on long term treatment outcomes are currently available to inform clinical decisions. OBJECTIVES: to describe long-term effectiveness and safety of dupilumab up to 48 months in patients with moderate-to-severe AD. METHODS: a multicenter, retrospective, dynamic cohort study was conducted to assess long term effectiveness and safety of dupilumab in patients with moderate to severe AD in a real-world setting. Predictors of minimal disease activity (MDA) optimal treatment target criteria (defined as the simultaneous achievement of EASI90, itch NRS score ≤1, sleep NRS score ≤1 and DLQI ≤1) were investigated. RESULTS: 2576 patients were enrolled from June 2018 to July 2022. MDA optimal treatment target criteria were achieved by 506 (21.91%), 769 (40.63%), 628 (50.36%), 330 (55.37%) and 58 (54.72%) of those that reached 4, 12, 24, 36 and 48 months of follow-up, respectively. Logistic regression revealed a negative effect on MDA achievement for conjunctivitis and food allergy at all timepoints. Adverse events (AE) were mild and were observed in 373 (15.78%), 166 (7.02%), 83 (6.43%), 27 (4.50%) and 5 (4.55%) of those that reached 4, 12, 24, 36 and 48 months of follow-up. Conjunctivitis was the most frequently reported AE during the available follow-up. AE led to treatment discontinuation in <1% of patients during the evaluated time periods. CONCLUSION: High long-term effectiveness and safety of dupilumab were confirmed in this dynamic cohort of patients with moderate to severe AD, regardless of clinical phenotype and course at baseline. Further research will be needed to investigate the effect of Th2 comorbidities and disease duration on the response to dupilumab and other newer therapeutics for AD.

PRAME Updated: Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Therapeutic Role in Skin Cancer.

Preferentially Expressed Antigen in Melanoma (PRAME), a member of the cancer/testis antigen family, is central to the field of skin cancer diagnostics and therapeutics. As a nuclear receptor and transcriptional regulator, PRAME plays a critical role in inhibiting retinoic acid signalling, which is essential for cell differentiation and proliferation. Its aberrant overexpression in various malignancies, particularly cutaneous melanoma, is associated with more aggressive tumour phenotypes, positioning PRAME as both a diagnostic and prognostic marker. In melanoma, PRAME is typically highly expressed, in contrast to its weak or absent expression in benign nevi, thereby improving the accuracy of differential diagnoses. The diagnostic value of PRAME extends to various lesions. It is significantly expressed in uveal melanoma, correlating to an increased risk of metastasis. In acral melanomas, especially those with histopathological ambiguity, PRAME helps to improve diagnostic accuracy. However, its expression in spitzoid and ungual melanocytic lesions is inconsistent and requires a comprehensive approach for an accurate assessment. In soft tissue sarcomas, PRAME may be particularly helpful in differentiating melanoma from clear cell sarcoma, an important distinction due to their similar histological appearance but different treatment approaches and prognosis, or in detecting dedifferentiated and undifferentiated melanomas. In non-melanoma skin cancers such as basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and Merkel cell carcinoma, the variable expression of PRAME can lead to diagnostic complexity. Despite these challenges, the potential of PRAME as a therapeutic target in melanoma is significant. Emerging immunotherapies, including T-cell-based therapies and vaccines targeting PRAME, are being investigated to exploit its cancer-specific expression. Ongoing research into the molecular role and mechanism of action of PRAME in skin cancer continues to open new avenues in both diagnostics and therapeutics, with the potential to transform the management of melanoma and related skin cancers.

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.

Variables associated with joint involvement and development of a prediction rule for arthritis in patients with psoriasis. An analysis of the Italian PsoReal database.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist to predict the development of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with psoriasis (PsO). OBJECTIVE: To analyze factors associated with incident PsA in patients with PsO, and to develop a predictive algorithm for progression to arthritis using a full set of variables and a restricted one applicable to administrative data. METHODS: Cohort study within the PsoReal registry in Italy. Multivariable generalized linear models were used to assess factors associated with PsA and to derive a predictive model. RESULTS: Among 8895 patients, 226 PsA cases were identified (incidence 1.9 per 100 patient-years). Independent predictors in the full model were as follows: female sex, age 40 to 59 years, body mass index ≥ 25, chronic-plaque PsO features, presence of palmoplantar pustulosis, hospitalization for PsO in the last 5 years, and previous use of systemic PsO therapy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.74). Female sex, age 40 to 59 years, hospitalization for PsO, and previous use of systemic PsO therapy were independent predictors in the restricted model (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.72). LIMITATIONS: Lack of other potential predictors for PsA. CONCLUSION: Our models could be used by clinicians and health authorities when planning intervention and population surveillance. Future studies should confirm our models using larger datasets and additional variables.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their benefits and harms. SEARCH METHODS: For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2022: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety). MAIN RESULTS: This update includes an additional 12 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 179, and randomised participants to 62,339, 67.1% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.6 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (56%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (152) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (65/179) had high risk of bias, 24 unclear risk, and most (90) low risk. Most studies (138/179) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 49.16, 95% CI 20.49 to 117.95), bimekizumab (RR 27.86, 95% CI 23.56 to 32.94), ixekizumab (RR 27.35, 95% CI 23.15 to 32.29), risankizumab (RR 26.16, 95% CI 22.03 to 31.07). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab and ixekizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than secukinumab. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than brodalumab and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab), and anti-IL23 drugs except tildrakizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than ustekinumab, three anti-TNF alpha agents, and deucravacitinib. Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab. Adalimumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with very low- to moderate-certainty evidence for all the comparisons. The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.6 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was very low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Adverse events in patients treated with Jak-inhibitors for alopecia areata: A systematic review.

Recently, the impressive efficacy of JAK-inhibitors (JAK-I) in alopecia areata (AA) has been described in several studies; however, to date, there is limited information on the safety of JAK-I in AA patients. For this reason, on 18 August 2022, a systematic review was performed to collect the premarketing and postmarketing data on the safety of JAK-I in patients treated for AA, evaluating for each molecule the reported adverse events (AEs) in indexed literature and their frequency. The keywords 'alopecia areata' AND 'Jak-inhibitors OR Janus-kinase Inhibitors' were searched on PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases. Of 407 studies retrieved, 28 papers met the requirements and were used in our review, including five RCTs and 23 case series; overall, 1719 patients were included, and the safety of 6 JAK-I was assessed (baricitinib, brepocitinib, deuruxolitinib, ritlecitinib, ruxolitinib and tofacitinib). Systemic JAK-I were well-tolerated, most of the AEs were mild, and the withdrawal rate for AEs was very low and inferior to placebo in controlled studies (1.6% vs. 2.2%). Laboratory abnormalities represented 40.1% of AEs associated with oral JAK-I, which mostly included the rise in cholesterol, transaminase, triglycerides, creatine phosphokinase (CPK) and sporadic cases of neutro/lymphocytopenia. The remaining AEs involved the respiratory tract (20.8%), the skin (17.2%), the urogenital (3.8%), or the gastroenterological (3.4%) tract. Increased rates of infections involved not only the upper (19.0%) and lower (0.3%) respiratory tract, but also the urogenital system (3.6%) and the skin (4.6%). Isolated cases of grade 3 to 4 AEs have been reported, including myocardial infarction, hypertensive urgencies, cellulitis, rhabdomyolysis, neutropenia and high elevation of creatinine kinase. No fatal outcomes were reported. AEs reported with topical formulation included scalp irritation and folliculitis. The main limit of this review is the lack of data related to postmarketing surveillance, which should be maintained on a long-term basis.

Treatment of retronychia: A systematic review and suggested treatment algorithm.

Retronychia is an inflammatory disorder typical of the great toes characterized by arrested nail growth, ingrowth of the nail plate into the proximal nail fold and paronychia. There is no standardized treatment for retronychia, and its management should be weighed based on the severity stage, treatment modality, and clinical outcome. In this paper, a systematic review of the literature was performed to assess all published data regarding the treatment of retronychia. A total of 231 patients from 24 studies were included in the analysis. Conservative management was adopted in mild-intermediate forms, consisting of medical (topical or intralesional high-potency corticosteroids) and podiatric treatment (taping, clipping back the onycholytic plate, orthosis), leading to a global cure rate of 41.2%, with no reported side effects. Non-conservative management, that is, chemical or surgical avulsion of the nail plate, proved resolutive in 71.2% of cases. Surgical avulsion of the nail plate produced the highest cure rate (78.2%), but was burdened by 9.6% of long-term sequelae, mainly nail dystrophies. A decision-making algorithm was designed to give clinicians treatment indications based on the severity stage of retronychia, treatment invasiveness, and possible clinical outcomes.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety. SEARCH METHODS: For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2021: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety). MAIN RESULTS: This update includes an additional 19 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 167, and randomised participants to 58,912, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.5 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (57%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (140) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (57/167) had high risk of bias; 23 unclear risk, and most (87) low risk. Most studies (127/167) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions, except anti-IL23. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23 and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 50.19, 95% CI 20.92 to 120.45), bimekizumab (RR 30.27, 95% CI 25.45 to 36.01), ixekizumab (RR 30.19, 95% CI 25.38 to 35.93), risankizumab (RR 28.75, 95% CI 24.03 to 34.39). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab and risankizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than other anti-IL17 drugs (secukinumab and brodalumab) and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab and brodalumab) and anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab) except tildrakizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents (adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept). Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab; adalimumab and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low- to moderate-certainty for all the comparisons (except methotrexate versus placebo, which was high-certainty). The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.5 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports from regulatory agencies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Incidence rates of hospitalization and death from COVID-19 in patients with psoriasis receiving biological treatment: A Northern Italy experience.

INTRODUCTION: Whether biologic therapies enhance the risk of coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) or affect the disease outcome in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis remains to be ascertained. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the incidence of hospitalization and death for COVID-19 in a large sample of patients with plaque psoriasis receiving biologic therapies compared with the general population. METHODS: This is a retrospective multicenter cohort study including patients with chronic plaque psoriasis (n = 6501) being treated with biologic therapy and regularly followed up at the divisions of dermatology of several main hospitals in the Northern Italian cities of Verona, Padua, Vicenza, Modena, Bologna, Piacenza, Turin, and Milan. Incidence rates of hospitalization and death per 10,000 person-months with exact mid-p 95% CIs and standardized incidence ratios were estimated in the patients with psoriasis and compared with those in the general population in the same geographic areas. RESULTS: The incidence rate of hospitalization for COVID-19 was 11.7 (95% CI, 7.2-18.1) per 10,000 person-months in patients with psoriasis and 14.4 (95% CI, 14.3-14.5) in the general population; the incidence rate of death from COVID-19 was 1.3 (95% CI, 0.2-4.3) and 4.7 (95% CI, 4.6-4.7) in patients with psoriasis and the general population, respectively. The standardized incidence ratio of hospitalization and death in patients with psoriasis compared with those in the general population was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.57-1.45; P = .82) and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.07-1.38; P = .19), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our data did not show any adverse impact of biologics on COVID-19 outcome in patients with psoriasis. We would not advise biologic discontinuation in patients on treatment since more than 6 months and not infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 to prevent hospitalization and death from COVID-19.

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.

The safety profile of hydroxychloroquine: major cutaneous and extracutaneous adverse events.

Hydroxychloroquine is an established therapy for several rheumatological disorders, and very recently it has been proposed as a possible treatment for the new coronavirus disease 2019 even if recent randomised trials did not prove any benefit. Notably, hydroxychloroquine has been associated with a heterogeneous range of cutaneous and extra-cutaneous adverse events. We carried out a narrative review of the literature up to November 1st, 2020, related to the safety of hydroxychloroquine. In particular, cutaneous and extra-cutaneous adverse events associated with hydroxychloroquine were reviewed. The following databases were consulted: PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar and ResearchGate. The research of articles was conducted by using the following search terms: ''hydroxychloroquine," ''adverse event/effect,'' "cutaneous", "skin", "cardiotoxicity", "retinopathy", gastrointestinal and neurological toxicity". The main indication for which hydroxychloroquine was used in the reports was an immune mediated disorder. Adverse events were described mostly in females over 50 years of age. The most common cutaneous adverse effect was maculopapular and erythematous rash occurring within 4 weeks of initiating hydroxychloroquine and disappearing within few weeks of discontinuation. Gastrointestinal symptoms and headache were the most frequent extracutaneous manifestations. Rarer cutaneous manifestations include hyperpigmentation, psoriasiform dermatitis, photodermatitis, stomatitis, melanonychia and hair loss. More severe conditions were acute generalised exanthematous pustulosis, drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, and among extra-cutaneous adverse events cardiotoxicity and retinopathy. Since hydroxychloroquine is widely prescribed in rheumatology, it is important for rheumatologists to be familiar with its safety profile.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety. SEARCH METHODS: For this living systematic review we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to September 2020: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers to the same date. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to eligible RCTs. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse events). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons, according to CINeMA, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer on treatment hierarchy: 0% (treatment is the worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (treatment is the best for effectiveness or safety). MAIN RESULTS: We included 158 studies (18 new studies for the update) in our review (57,831 randomised participants, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (58%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 20 treatments. In all, 133 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (53/158) as being at high risk of bias; 25 were at an unclear risk, and 80 at low risk. Most studies (123/158) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report their source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in reaching PASI 90. At class level, in reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the non-biological systemic agents. At drug level, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, risankizumab and guselkumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab, and etanercept. Ustekinumab and adalimumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than etanercept; ustekinumab was more effective than certolizumab, and the clinical effectiveness of ustekinumab and adalimumab was similar. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and three non-biological drugs: fumaric acid esters (FAEs), ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab, and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar, except for ixekizumab which had a better chance of reaching PASI 90 compared with secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab. The clinical effectiveness of these seven drugs was: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 50.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 20.96 to 120.67, SUCRA = 93.6; high-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 32.48, 95% CI 27.13 to 38.87; SUCRA = 90.5; high-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.76, 95% CI 23.96 to 34.54; SUCRA = 84.6; high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86; SUCRA = 81.4; high-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 25.79, 95% CI 21.61 to 30.78; SUCRA = 76.2; high-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.52, 95% CI 21.25 to 30.64; SUCRA = 75; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 23.55, 95% CI 19.48 to 28.48; SUCRA = 68.4; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as mirikizumab, tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to moderate certainty for all the comparisons. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the evidence for all the interventions was of low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials directly comparing active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between non-biological systemic agents and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Prevalence of contact allergies in the population compared to a tertiary referral patch test clinic in Jena/Germany.

BACKGROUND: The contact allergy prevalences in patch-tested patients are usually higher than those in the population, owing to morbidity-driven selection. OBJECTIVES: To examine the differences between two samples, one from the population, one from the patch test clinic, in one area of Germany (Jena, Thuringia). METHODS: Between August 2008 and October 2011, a total of 519 participants of the population-based european dermato-epidemiology network (EDEN) fragrance study were patch tested in Jena using a TRUE Test baseline series extended with some pet.-based (fragrance) allergen preparations. Between 2007 and 2012 (inclusive), 1906 routine patients were patch tested for suspected allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in the Jena University Hospital Department; of these 1694 (83.2%) with the German baseline series using pet./aq.-based, investigator-loaded allergens. RESULTS: In the population (clinical) sample, 19.6% (41.1%) were sensitized to at least one of the allergens considered. The most common baseline series allergens in the population/clinical sample were nickel (10.5%/13.2%), fragrance mix (FM) II (2.9%/6.7%), FM I (2.3%/8.3%), and cobalt (1.6%/5%). The clinical sample was slightly older (71.5% vs 55.9% age 40+) and included less males (36% vs 49.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Results are quite similar, although prevalences are usually higher in the clinical setting, with the exception of p-tert-butylphenol formaldehyde resin.

Skin exposure to scented products used in daily life and fragrance contact allergy in the European general population - The EDEN Fragrance Study.

BACKGROUND: Fragrances are widely used in scented products used in daily life with the potential to induce skin sensitization. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate exposure to scented products and to explore associations between exposure and fragrance contact allergy. METHODS: A cross-sectional study on individuals from 18 to 74 years of age, who were randomly selected from the general population in five European countries. A random sample (N = 3119) was patch tested and interviewed on exposure to scented products. RESULTS: Female participants were strongly associated with exposure to scented products relative to male participants. Participants age 40 years and older showed an inverse association with exposure to scented products. Compared to Sweden, The Netherlands followed by Germany showed the highest overall exposure to scented products. Sensitive skin was associated with exposure to scented products and with fragrance allergy. In univariable regression analysis, exposure to leave-on products and to specific scented product subgroups was significantly associated with fragrance allergy. CONCLUSION: Exposure to scented products depends primarily on sex and age. Female sex and sensitive skin are relevant indicators for developing fragrance allergy. Because aggregate exposure, especially to scented leave-on products, may enhance the prevalence of contact allergy to fragrances, further investigations into exposure amounts and frequencies is warranted.

Markers of microbial exposure lower the incidence of atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: The hygiene hypothesis proposes that reduced exposure to infectious agents in early life would explain the increase of allergic and autoimmune diseases observed over the past decades in high-income countries. METHODS: We conducted a matched case-control study on incident atopic dermatitis (AD). Cases were 426 outpatient children with a first diagnosis of incident AD. Controls were 426 children attending a pediatric/dermatological visit for nonatopic disorders matched to cases (1:1). Particular attention was paid to the time elapsed between the markers of microbial exposure and disease onset, and we considered for controls the same time window of exposures from birth as his/her matched case. Odds ratios (ORs) were computed using multivariable conditional logistic regression models, according to center, sex, age, and period of enrollment, and including as potential confounders a family history of any allergy in parents, type of delivery, having siblings, keeping pets, age at weaning, and having had ≥4 infections. RESULTS: The OR of AD first occurrence was 0.35 (P-value = .039) for children who had experienced ≥4 infections compared with those with no infections. A decreasing trend in risk was observed with increasing number of siblings (P-value = .023), the protective effect reaching about 40% for children with 2 or more siblings (OR = 0.62; P-value = .048). Pet keeping, in particular daily contact with dogs, was inversely associated with AD risk (OR = 0.40; P-value = .004). CONCLUSIONS: These results support the hygiene hypothesis in its broad sense. Early-life environmental exposures, including pathogens and commensals, act as "microbes contact carriers" influencing immune system balance early in life.

Drug discontinuation in pregnant women with psoriasis: The PSO-MOTHER cohort study.

PURPOSE: To analyse the drug use pattern in women with psoriasis before, during and after pregnancy. METHODS: All children born (2009-2016) in a central Italian region (Lazio) to mothers with a diagnosis of psoriasis were identified. Drug use patterns (biologicals, systemic, and topical), and discontinuation and switching of drug therapies before, during, and after pregnancy were studied. Findings were compared with data from a population exposed to similar drug therapies (eg, antirheumatic drugs). RESULTS: Among 3499 deliveries by women affected by psoriasis, 1876 (53.6%) were diagnosed with this condition before the Last Menstrual Period (LMP). Of these, 525 (27.9%) had at least one drug prescription for psoriasis therapy during 6 months before LMP. For each class of drugs considered, there was a general decrease in its use during pregnancy. Considering the two trimesters preceding LMP and the three trimesters of pregnancy, the following percentages of prescriptions were observed: from 10.5% to 0% for biologicals, 7.2% to 2.5% for the conventional systemic drugs, and 51.1% to 9.4% for the topical treatments. After delivery, previous treatments were resumed. Similar results were observed for rheumatoid arthritis, a chronic condition. CONCLUSIONS: Majority of drugs come with warnings regarding potential embryo-fetotoxicity, which might play a role in the decision to continue treatments during pregnancy. According to our study pregnancy appears to have a significant influence on drug prescriptions of different pharmacological treatments for psoriasis.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. This is the baseline update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2017, in preparation for this Cochrane Review becoming a living systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our research using the following databases to January 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and the conference proceedings of a number of dermatology meetings. We also searched five trials registers and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) reports (until June 2019). We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant RCTs. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse effects (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse effects). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes, according to GRADE, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. MAIN RESULTS: We included 140 studies (31 new studies for the update) in our review (51,749 randomised participants, 68% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (59%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 19 treatments. In all, 117 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (57/140) as being at high risk of bias; 42 were at an unclear risk, and 41 at low risk. Most studies (107/140) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report the source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90. At class level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents. At drug level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, infliximab, all of the anti-IL17 drugs (ixekizumab, secukinumab, bimekizumab and brodalumab) and the anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab, but not tildrakizumab) were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and 3 anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept. Adalimumab and ustekinumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than certolizumab and etanercept. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and between two conventional drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness for these seven drugs was similar: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 29.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 19.94 to 43.70, Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) = 88.5; moderate-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.12, 95% CI 23.17 to 34.12, SUCRA = 88.3, moderate-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 27.67, 95% CI 22.86 to 33.49, SUCRA = 87.5, high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86, SUCRA = 83.5, low-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.84, 95% CI 20.90 to 31.95; SUCRA = 81; moderate-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 23.97, 95% CI 20.03 to 28.70, SUCRA = 75.4; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 21.96, 95% CI 18.17 to 26.53, SUCRA = 68.7; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to very low certainty for just under half of the treatment estimates in total, and moderate for the others. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were very similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab were the best choices for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence (low-certainty evidence for bimekizumab). This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. Indeed, we found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, but the evidence for all the interventions was of very low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials comparing directly active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between conventional systemic and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.