European S3‐Guideline on the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris – Update Apremilast and Secukinumab – <scp>EDF</scp> in cooperation with <scp>EADV</scp> and <scp>IPC</scp>

Nast, Alexander; Spuls, Phyllis I.; Kraaij, G. van der; Gisondi, Paolo; Paul, C.; Ormerod, Anthony; Saïag, Philippe; Smith, Catherine; Daudén, E.; Jong, E.M.G.J. de; Feist, Eugen; Jobling, Ray; Maccarone, Mara; Mrowietz, Ulrich; Papp, Kim; Reich, Kristian; Rosumeck, Stefanie; Talme, Toomas; Thio, Hok Bing; Kerkhof, P. van de; Werner, Ricardo Niklas; Dressler, Corinna

doi:10.1111/jdv.14454

Cited by 120 publications

(143 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

129

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A variety of biologics for PsV became available recently, and newer drugs generally have better efficacy without an increase in side‐effects . This led to increased use of the newer drugs with the expectation of better improvement of the skin symptoms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sustainability and switching of biologics for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis at Fukuoka University Psoriasis Registry

Bayaraa

Imafuku

2019

The Journal of Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biologics are efficacious for treating psoriasis vulgaris (PsV) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), but sometimes must be terminated or changed for various reasons including ineffectiveness or adverse events. To find the optimal choice of biologics for treating psoriasis, we analyzed the real‐world data on drug survival and the reason for terminating or switching biologics. Medical records from patients with PsV or PsA, who visited the Department of Dermatology, Fukuoka University Hospital from 2010 to 2017, were analyzed. Two hundred and eleven patients received biologics, and 147 patients (69.7%) were treated with only one biologic, while 64 patients (30.3%) were switched to different products. Frequently used biologics in PsV were ustekinumab (UST), infliximab and adalimumab when calculated by patient‐year. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) use decreased while UST and interleukin (IL)‐17 inhibitors increased in newly introduced patients. UST showed the highest survival rate as a first‐line drug, but the advantage was lost in the second reagent's group. The major reasons for terminating/switching biologics were as follows: primary ineffectiveness (26.4%), secondary loss of efficacy (36.5%), patient's preference, including referral to nearby hospital, or stopped visiting (22.6%), side‐effects (7.7%), comorbidities (3.4%) and economic burden (2.4%). In PsA patients, TNFi are more frequently employed than in PsV patients, although switching to UST or IL‐17 inhibitors showed an increasing trend. Biologic reagents were changed mostly because of primary or secondary loss of efficacy, which affected drug survival. Further research is needed to find the optimal choice of biologics with larger samples at multiple facilities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Biologic administration was terminated in only two patients because of malignancy. There is no clear evidence that biologic products will cause growth in malignant tumors . Another patient had colon cancer, but restarted biologics 1.5 years after surgery because of a severe exacerbation of psoriasis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainability and switching of biologics for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis at Fukuoka University Psoriasis Registry

Bayaraa

Imafuku

2019

The Journal of Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The topic ranked highest by EADV members – ‘Systemic drug treatment in dermatology during pregnancy and for women wishing to have children in the near future’ – poses an interdisciplinary challenge. While the topic is partially covered for psoriasis in the 2017 update of the eponymous European evidence‐ and consensus‐based (S3) guideline, there is at present no guideline that focuses solely on systemic treatments relevant to dermatology in this population. This is unfortunate given evidence suggesting that the use of prescription and over‐the‐counter medication in pregnancy is widespread and increasing .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritizing topics in guideline development: results of a two‐phase online survey of dermatologist members of the EADV

Nast

Gaskins

Eisert

et al. 2018

Acad Dermatol Venereol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Most clinical guidelines in dermatology are encyclopaedic, covering a disease and its aetiology, diagnosis, treatment and prevention in their entirety. The usability and uptake of guideline recommendations might be improved by guidelines that are more concise and address specific questions ranked by users according to their perceived importance. Objective To survey the largest association of dermatologists in Europe, identify which questions in their everyday practice they felt would benefit from short, evidence‐based guidance and rank these systematically. Methods A two‐phase online survey using a structured ranking approach and the members directory of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV). Results The first survey yielded 265 suggestions, indicating a response rate of 3.7%. We grouped all responses according to themes and subsequently combined these into a list of 35 broader topics. These were presented to all members of the EADV in the second survey (response rate: 9.7%), which yielded a list of the top 10 topics participants felt were most in need of guidance. The first three were ‘Systemic drug treatment in dermatology during pregnancy and for women wishing to have children in the near future’, ‘alopecia areata’ and ‘interpretation of laboratory results in connective tissue diseases’. Conclusion Our two‐phase survey of EADV members and a structured ranking process were practical to implement and yielded a list of the top 10 topics in dermatology and venereology for guideline development. Guideline dissemination needs to be improved, and practical, more concise guidelines may facilitate efforts to do so.

show abstract

“…24,25 PASI response to treatment is measured as percentage reduction in PASI score from the baseline. [27][28][29] Hence, PASI 90 was used as a threshold to estimate cost per responder in this analysis. 26 In view of this criteria, patients were divided into responders (PASI ≥75), partial responders (PASI 50 to 74) or non-responders (PASI <50) at key treatment decision stages in the model (at week 16 and 52).…”

Section: Patient Population Response Definitions and Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost‐effectiveness of secukinumab as first biologic treatment, compared with other biologics, for moderate to severe psoriasis in Germany

Augustin

McBride²,

Gilloteau

et al. 2018

Acad Dermatol Venereol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

European S3‐Guideline on the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris – Update Apremilast and Secukinumab – EDF in cooperation with EADV and IPC

Cited by 120 publications

References 26 publications

Sustainability and switching of biologics for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis at Fukuoka University Psoriasis Registry

Sustainability and switching of biologics for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis at Fukuoka University Psoriasis Registry

Prioritizing topics in guideline development: results of a two‐phase online survey of dermatologist members of the EADV

Cost‐effectiveness of secukinumab as first biologic treatment, compared with other biologics, for moderate to severe psoriasis in Germany

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About