Jashin J. Wu, MD

Rankings of US residency programs based on academic achievement are a resource for fourth-year medical students applying for residency through the National Resident Matching Program. They also highlight the leading academic training programs in each medical specialty. Currently, the Doximity Residency Navigator (https://residency.doximity.com) provides rankings of US residency programs based on either subjective or objective criteria. The subjective rankings utilize current resident and recent alumni satisfaction surveys as well as nominations from board-certified Doximity members who were asked to nominate up to 5 residency programs in their specialty that offer the best clinical training. The objective rankings are based on measurement of research output, which is calculated from the collective h-index of publications authored by graduating alumni within the last 15 years as well as the amount of research funding awarded.¹

Aquino et al² provided a ranking of US dermatology residency programs using alternative objective data measures (as of December 31, 2008) from the Doximity algorithm, including National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Dermatology Foundation (DF) funding, number of publications by full-time faculty members, number of faculty lectures given at annual meetings of 5 societies, and number of full-time faculty members serving on the editorial boards of 6 dermatology journals. The current study is an update to those rankings utilizing data from 2014.

Methods

The following data for each dermatology residency program were obtained to formulate the rankings: number of full-time faculty members, amount of NIH funding received in 2014 (https://report.nih.gov/), number of publications by full-time faculty members in 2014 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/), and the number of faculty lectures given at annual meetings of 5 societies in 2014 (American Academy of Dermatology, the Society for Investigative Dermatology, the American Society of Dermatopathology, the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, and the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery). This study was approved by the institutional review board at Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

The names of all US dermatology residency programs were obtained as of December 31, 2014, from FREIDA Online using the search term dermatology. An email was sent to a representative from each residency program (eg, residency program coordinator, program director, full-time faculty member) requesting confirmation of a list of full-time faculty members in the program, excluding part-time and volunteer faculty. If a response was not obtained or the representative declined to participate, a list was compiled using available information from that residency program’s website.

National Institutes of Health funding for 2014 was obtained for individual faculty members from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools expenditures and reports (https://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm) by searching the first and last name of each full-time faculty member along with their affiliated institution. The search results were filtered to only include NIH funding for full-time faculty members listed as principal investigators rather than as coinvestigators. The fiscal year total cost by institute/center for each full-time faculty member’s projects was summated to obtain the total NIH funding for the program.

The total number of publications by full-time faculty members in 2014 was obtained utilizing a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using each faculty member’s first and last name. The authors’ affiliations were verified for each publication, and the number of publications was summed for all full-time faculty members at each residency program. If multiple authors from the same program coauthored an article, it was only counted once toward the total number of faculty publications from that program.

Program brochures for the 2014 meetings of the 5 societies were reviewed to quantify the number of lectures given by full-time faculty members in each program.

Each residency program was assigned a score from 0 to 1.0 for each of the 4 factors of academic achievement analyzed. The program with the highest number of faculty publications was assigned a score of 1.0 and the program with the lowest number of publications was assigned a score of 0. The programs in between were subsequently assigned scores from 0 to 1.0 based on the number of publications as a percentage of the number of publications from the program with the most publications.

A weighted ranking scheme was used to rank residency programs based on the relative importance of each factor. There were 3 factors that were deemed to be the most reflective of academic achievement among dermatology residency programs: amount of NIH funding received in 2014, number of publications by full-time faculty members in 2014, and number of faculty lectures given at society meetings in 2014; thus, these factors were given a weight of 1.0. The remaining factor— total number of full-time faculty members—was given a weight of 0.5. Values were totaled and programs were ranked based on the sum of these values. All quantitative analyses were performed using an electronic spreadsheet program.

Results

The overall ranking of the top 20 US dermatology residency programs in 2014 is presented in Table 1. The top 5 programs based on each of the 3 factors most reflective of academic achievement used in the weighted ranking algorithm are presented in Tables 2 through 4.

Comment

The ranking of US residency programs involves using data in an unbiased manner while also accounting for important subjective measures. In a 2015 survey of residency applicants (n=6285), the 5 most important factors for applicants in selecting a program were the program’s ability to prepare residents for future training or position, resident esprit de corps, faculty availability and involvement in teaching, depth and breadth of faculty, and variety of patients and clinical resources.³ However, these subjective measures are difficult to quantify in a standardized fashion. In its ranking of residency programs, the Doximity Residency Navigator utilizes surveys of current residents and recent alumni as well as nominations from board-certified Doximity members.¹

One of the main issues in utilizing survey data to rank residency programs is the inherent bias that most residents and alumni possess toward their own program. Moreover, the question arises whether most residents, faculty members, or recent alumni of residency programs have sufficient knowledge of other programs to rank them in a well-informed manner.

Wu et al⁴ used data from 2004 to perform the first algorithmic ranking of US dermatology programs, which was based on publications in 2001 to 2004, the amount of NIH funding in 2004, DF grants in 2001 to 2004, faculty lectures delivered at national conferences in 2004, and number of full-time faculty members on the editorial boards of the top 3 US dermatology journals and the top 4 subspecialty journals. Aquino et al² provided updated rankings that utilized a weighted algorithm to collect data from 2008 related to a number of factors, including annual amount of NIH and DF funding received, number of publications by full-time faculty members, number of faculty lectures given at 5 annual society meetings, and number of full-time faculty members who were on the editorial boards of 6 dermatology journals with the highest impact factors. The top 5 ranked programs based on the 2008 data were the University of California, San Francisco (San Francisco, California); Northwestern University (Chicago, Illinois); University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); Yale University (New Haven, Connecticut); and Stanford University (Stanford, California).²

The current ranking algorithm is more indicative of a residency program’s commitment to research and scholarship, with an assumption that successful clinical training is offered. Leading researchers in the field also are usually known to be clinical experts, but the current data does not take into account the frequency, quality, or methodology of teaching provided to residents. Perhaps the most objective measure reflecting the quality of resident education would be American Board of Dermatology examination scores, but these data are not publically available. Additional factors such as the percentage of residents who received fellowship positions; diversity of the patient population; and number and extent of surgical, cosmetic, or laser procedures performed also are not readily available. Doximity provides board pass rates for each residency program, but these data are self-reported and are not taken into account in their rankings.¹

The current study aimed to utilize publicly available data to rank US dermatology residency programs based on objective measures of academic achievement. A recent study showed that 531 of 793 applicants (67%) to emergency medicine residency programs were aware of the Doximity residency rankings.One-quarter of these applicants made changes to their rank list based on this data, demonstrating that residency rankings may impact applicant decision-making.⁵ In the future, the most accurate and unbiased rankings may be performed if each residency program joins a cooperative effort to provide more objective data about the training they provide and utilizes a standardized survey system for current residents and recent graduates to evaluate important subjective measures.

Conclusion

Based on our weighted ranking algorithm, the top 5 dermatology residency programs in 2014 were Harvard University (Boston, Massachusetts); University of California, San Francisco (San Francisco, California); Stanford University (Stanford, California); University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); and Emory University (Atlanta, Georgia).

Acknowledgments
We thank all of the program coordinators, full-time faculty members, program directors, and chairs who provided responses to our inquiries for additional information about their residency programs.

Rankings of US residency programs based on academic achievement are a resource for fourth-year medical students applying for residency through the National Resident Matching Program. They also highlight the leading academic training programs in each medical specialty. Currently, the Doximity Residency Navigator (https://residency.doximity.com) provides rankings of US residency programs based on either subjective or objective criteria. The subjective rankings utilize current resident and recent alumni satisfaction surveys as well as nominations from board-certified Doximity members who were asked to nominate up to 5 residency programs in their specialty that offer the best clinical training. The objective rankings are based on measurement of research output, which is calculated from the collective h-index of publications authored by graduating alumni within the last 15 years as well as the amount of research funding awarded.¹

Aquino et al² provided a ranking of US dermatology residency programs using alternative objective data measures (as of December 31, 2008) from the Doximity algorithm, including National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Dermatology Foundation (DF) funding, number of publications by full-time faculty members, number of faculty lectures given at annual meetings of 5 societies, and number of full-time faculty members serving on the editorial boards of 6 dermatology journals. The current study is an update to those rankings utilizing data from 2014.

Methods

The following data for each dermatology residency program were obtained to formulate the rankings: number of full-time faculty members, amount of NIH funding received in 2014 (https://report.nih.gov/), number of publications by full-time faculty members in 2014 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/), and the number of faculty lectures given at annual meetings of 5 societies in 2014 (American Academy of Dermatology, the Society for Investigative Dermatology, the American Society of Dermatopathology, the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, and the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery). This study was approved by the institutional review board at Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

The names of all US dermatology residency programs were obtained as of December 31, 2014, from FREIDA Online using the search term dermatology. An email was sent to a representative from each residency program (eg, residency program coordinator, program director, full-time faculty member) requesting confirmation of a list of full-time faculty members in the program, excluding part-time and volunteer faculty. If a response was not obtained or the representative declined to participate, a list was compiled using available information from that residency program’s website.

National Institutes of Health funding for 2014 was obtained for individual faculty members from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools expenditures and reports (https://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm) by searching the first and last name of each full-time faculty member along with their affiliated institution. The search results were filtered to only include NIH funding for full-time faculty members listed as principal investigators rather than as coinvestigators. The fiscal year total cost by institute/center for each full-time faculty member’s projects was summated to obtain the total NIH funding for the program.

The total number of publications by full-time faculty members in 2014 was obtained utilizing a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using each faculty member’s first and last name. The authors’ affiliations were verified for each publication, and the number of publications was summed for all full-time faculty members at each residency program. If multiple authors from the same program coauthored an article, it was only counted once toward the total number of faculty publications from that program.

Program brochures for the 2014 meetings of the 5 societies were reviewed to quantify the number of lectures given by full-time faculty members in each program.

Each residency program was assigned a score from 0 to 1.0 for each of the 4 factors of academic achievement analyzed. The program with the highest number of faculty publications was assigned a score of 1.0 and the program with the lowest number of publications was assigned a score of 0. The programs in between were subsequently assigned scores from 0 to 1.0 based on the number of publications as a percentage of the number of publications from the program with the most publications.

A weighted ranking scheme was used to rank residency programs based on the relative importance of each factor. There were 3 factors that were deemed to be the most reflective of academic achievement among dermatology residency programs: amount of NIH funding received in 2014, number of publications by full-time faculty members in 2014, and number of faculty lectures given at society meetings in 2014; thus, these factors were given a weight of 1.0. The remaining factor— total number of full-time faculty members—was given a weight of 0.5. Values were totaled and programs were ranked based on the sum of these values. All quantitative analyses were performed using an electronic spreadsheet program.

Results

The overall ranking of the top 20 US dermatology residency programs in 2014 is presented in Table 1. The top 5 programs based on each of the 3 factors most reflective of academic achievement used in the weighted ranking algorithm are presented in Tables 2 through 4.

Comment

The ranking of US residency programs involves using data in an unbiased manner while also accounting for important subjective measures. In a 2015 survey of residency applicants (n=6285), the 5 most important factors for applicants in selecting a program were the program’s ability to prepare residents for future training or position, resident esprit de corps, faculty availability and involvement in teaching, depth and breadth of faculty, and variety of patients and clinical resources.³ However, these subjective measures are difficult to quantify in a standardized fashion. In its ranking of residency programs, the Doximity Residency Navigator utilizes surveys of current residents and recent alumni as well as nominations from board-certified Doximity members.¹

One of the main issues in utilizing survey data to rank residency programs is the inherent bias that most residents and alumni possess toward their own program. Moreover, the question arises whether most residents, faculty members, or recent alumni of residency programs have sufficient knowledge of other programs to rank them in a well-informed manner.

Wu et al⁴ used data from 2004 to perform the first algorithmic ranking of US dermatology programs, which was based on publications in 2001 to 2004, the amount of NIH funding in 2004, DF grants in 2001 to 2004, faculty lectures delivered at national conferences in 2004, and number of full-time faculty members on the editorial boards of the top 3 US dermatology journals and the top 4 subspecialty journals. Aquino et al² provided updated rankings that utilized a weighted algorithm to collect data from 2008 related to a number of factors, including annual amount of NIH and DF funding received, number of publications by full-time faculty members, number of faculty lectures given at 5 annual society meetings, and number of full-time faculty members who were on the editorial boards of 6 dermatology journals with the highest impact factors. The top 5 ranked programs based on the 2008 data were the University of California, San Francisco (San Francisco, California); Northwestern University (Chicago, Illinois); University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); Yale University (New Haven, Connecticut); and Stanford University (Stanford, California).²

The current ranking algorithm is more indicative of a residency program’s commitment to research and scholarship, with an assumption that successful clinical training is offered. Leading researchers in the field also are usually known to be clinical experts, but the current data does not take into account the frequency, quality, or methodology of teaching provided to residents. Perhaps the most objective measure reflecting the quality of resident education would be American Board of Dermatology examination scores, but these data are not publically available. Additional factors such as the percentage of residents who received fellowship positions; diversity of the patient population; and number and extent of surgical, cosmetic, or laser procedures performed also are not readily available. Doximity provides board pass rates for each residency program, but these data are self-reported and are not taken into account in their rankings.¹

The current study aimed to utilize publicly available data to rank US dermatology residency programs based on objective measures of academic achievement. A recent study showed that 531 of 793 applicants (67%) to emergency medicine residency programs were aware of the Doximity residency rankings.One-quarter of these applicants made changes to their rank list based on this data, demonstrating that residency rankings may impact applicant decision-making.⁵ In the future, the most accurate and unbiased rankings may be performed if each residency program joins a cooperative effort to provide more objective data about the training they provide and utilizes a standardized survey system for current residents and recent graduates to evaluate important subjective measures.

Conclusion

Based on our weighted ranking algorithm, the top 5 dermatology residency programs in 2014 were Harvard University (Boston, Massachusetts); University of California, San Francisco (San Francisco, California); Stanford University (Stanford, California); University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); and Emory University (Atlanta, Georgia).

Acknowledgments
We thank all of the program coordinators, full-time faculty members, program directors, and chairs who provided responses to our inquiries for additional information about their residency programs.

Rankings of US residency programs based on academic achievement are a resource for fourth-year medical students applying for residency through the National Resident Matching Program. They also highlight the leading academic training programs in each medical specialty. Currently, the Doximity Residency Navigator (https://residency.doximity.com) provides rankings of US residency programs based on either subjective or objective criteria. The subjective rankings utilize current resident and recent alumni satisfaction surveys as well as nominations from board-certified Doximity members who were asked to nominate up to 5 residency programs in their specialty that offer the best clinical training. The objective rankings are based on measurement of research output, which is calculated from the collective h-index of publications authored by graduating alumni within the last 15 years as well as the amount of research funding awarded.¹

Aquino et al² provided a ranking of US dermatology residency programs using alternative objective data measures (as of December 31, 2008) from the Doximity algorithm, including National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Dermatology Foundation (DF) funding, number of publications by full-time faculty members, number of faculty lectures given at annual meetings of 5 societies, and number of full-time faculty members serving on the editorial boards of 6 dermatology journals. The current study is an update to those rankings utilizing data from 2014.

Methods

The following data for each dermatology residency program were obtained to formulate the rankings: number of full-time faculty members, amount of NIH funding received in 2014 (https://report.nih.gov/), number of publications by full-time faculty members in 2014 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/), and the number of faculty lectures given at annual meetings of 5 societies in 2014 (American Academy of Dermatology, the Society for Investigative Dermatology, the American Society of Dermatopathology, the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, and the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery). This study was approved by the institutional review board at Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

The names of all US dermatology residency programs were obtained as of December 31, 2014, from FREIDA Online using the search term dermatology. An email was sent to a representative from each residency program (eg, residency program coordinator, program director, full-time faculty member) requesting confirmation of a list of full-time faculty members in the program, excluding part-time and volunteer faculty. If a response was not obtained or the representative declined to participate, a list was compiled using available information from that residency program’s website.

National Institutes of Health funding for 2014 was obtained for individual faculty members from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools expenditures and reports (https://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm) by searching the first and last name of each full-time faculty member along with their affiliated institution. The search results were filtered to only include NIH funding for full-time faculty members listed as principal investigators rather than as coinvestigators. The fiscal year total cost by institute/center for each full-time faculty member’s projects was summated to obtain the total NIH funding for the program.

The total number of publications by full-time faculty members in 2014 was obtained utilizing a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using each faculty member’s first and last name. The authors’ affiliations were verified for each publication, and the number of publications was summed for all full-time faculty members at each residency program. If multiple authors from the same program coauthored an article, it was only counted once toward the total number of faculty publications from that program.

Program brochures for the 2014 meetings of the 5 societies were reviewed to quantify the number of lectures given by full-time faculty members in each program.

Each residency program was assigned a score from 0 to 1.0 for each of the 4 factors of academic achievement analyzed. The program with the highest number of faculty publications was assigned a score of 1.0 and the program with the lowest number of publications was assigned a score of 0. The programs in between were subsequently assigned scores from 0 to 1.0 based on the number of publications as a percentage of the number of publications from the program with the most publications.

A weighted ranking scheme was used to rank residency programs based on the relative importance of each factor. There were 3 factors that were deemed to be the most reflective of academic achievement among dermatology residency programs: amount of NIH funding received in 2014, number of publications by full-time faculty members in 2014, and number of faculty lectures given at society meetings in 2014; thus, these factors were given a weight of 1.0. The remaining factor— total number of full-time faculty members—was given a weight of 0.5. Values were totaled and programs were ranked based on the sum of these values. All quantitative analyses were performed using an electronic spreadsheet program.

Results

The overall ranking of the top 20 US dermatology residency programs in 2014 is presented in Table 1. The top 5 programs based on each of the 3 factors most reflective of academic achievement used in the weighted ranking algorithm are presented in Tables 2 through 4.

Comment

The ranking of US residency programs involves using data in an unbiased manner while also accounting for important subjective measures. In a 2015 survey of residency applicants (n=6285), the 5 most important factors for applicants in selecting a program were the program’s ability to prepare residents for future training or position, resident esprit de corps, faculty availability and involvement in teaching, depth and breadth of faculty, and variety of patients and clinical resources.³ However, these subjective measures are difficult to quantify in a standardized fashion. In its ranking of residency programs, the Doximity Residency Navigator utilizes surveys of current residents and recent alumni as well as nominations from board-certified Doximity members.¹

One of the main issues in utilizing survey data to rank residency programs is the inherent bias that most residents and alumni possess toward their own program. Moreover, the question arises whether most residents, faculty members, or recent alumni of residency programs have sufficient knowledge of other programs to rank them in a well-informed manner.

Wu et al⁴ used data from 2004 to perform the first algorithmic ranking of US dermatology programs, which was based on publications in 2001 to 2004, the amount of NIH funding in 2004, DF grants in 2001 to 2004, faculty lectures delivered at national conferences in 2004, and number of full-time faculty members on the editorial boards of the top 3 US dermatology journals and the top 4 subspecialty journals. Aquino et al² provided updated rankings that utilized a weighted algorithm to collect data from 2008 related to a number of factors, including annual amount of NIH and DF funding received, number of publications by full-time faculty members, number of faculty lectures given at 5 annual society meetings, and number of full-time faculty members who were on the editorial boards of 6 dermatology journals with the highest impact factors. The top 5 ranked programs based on the 2008 data were the University of California, San Francisco (San Francisco, California); Northwestern University (Chicago, Illinois); University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); Yale University (New Haven, Connecticut); and Stanford University (Stanford, California).²

The current ranking algorithm is more indicative of a residency program’s commitment to research and scholarship, with an assumption that successful clinical training is offered. Leading researchers in the field also are usually known to be clinical experts, but the current data does not take into account the frequency, quality, or methodology of teaching provided to residents. Perhaps the most objective measure reflecting the quality of resident education would be American Board of Dermatology examination scores, but these data are not publically available. Additional factors such as the percentage of residents who received fellowship positions; diversity of the patient population; and number and extent of surgical, cosmetic, or laser procedures performed also are not readily available. Doximity provides board pass rates for each residency program, but these data are self-reported and are not taken into account in their rankings.¹

The current study aimed to utilize publicly available data to rank US dermatology residency programs based on objective measures of academic achievement. A recent study showed that 531 of 793 applicants (67%) to emergency medicine residency programs were aware of the Doximity residency rankings.One-quarter of these applicants made changes to their rank list based on this data, demonstrating that residency rankings may impact applicant decision-making.⁵ In the future, the most accurate and unbiased rankings may be performed if each residency program joins a cooperative effort to provide more objective data about the training they provide and utilizes a standardized survey system for current residents and recent graduates to evaluate important subjective measures.

Conclusion

Based on our weighted ranking algorithm, the top 5 dermatology residency programs in 2014 were Harvard University (Boston, Massachusetts); University of California, San Francisco (San Francisco, California); Stanford University (Stanford, California); University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); and Emory University (Atlanta, Georgia).

Acknowledgments
We thank all of the program coordinators, full-time faculty members, program directors, and chairs who provided responses to our inquiries for additional information about their residency programs.

Biologic agents have provided patients with moderate to severe psoriasis with treatment alternatives that have improved systemic safety profiles and disease control¹; however, case reports of associated neurologic complications have been emerging. Tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitors have been associated with central and peripheral demyelinating disorders. Notably, efalizumab was withdrawn from the market for its association with fatal cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).^2,3 It is imperative for dermatologists to be familiar with the clinical presentation, evaluation, and diagnostic criteria of neurologic complications of biologic agents used in the treatment of psoriasis.

Leukoencephalopathy

Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy is a fatal demyelinating neurodegenerative disease caused by reactivation of the ubiquitous John Cunningham virus. Primary asymptomatic infection is thought to occur during childhood, then the virus remains latent. Reactivation usually occurs during severe immunosuppression and is classically described in human immunodeficiency virus infection, lymphoproliferative disorders, and other forms of cancer.⁴ A summary of PML and its association with biologics is found in Table 1.^5-13 Few case reports of TNF-α inhibitor–associated PML exist, mostly in the presence of confounding factors such as immunosuppression or underlying autoimmune disease.^10-13 Presenting symptoms of PML often are subacute, rapidly progressive, and can be focal or multifocal and include motor, cognitive, and visual deficits. Of note, there are 2 reported cases of ustekinumab associated with reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome, which is a hypertensive encephalopathy characterized by headache, altered mental status, vision abnormalities, and seizures.^14,15 Fortunately, this disease is reversible with blood pressure control and removal of the immunosuppressive agent.¹⁶

Demyelinating Disorders

Clinical presentation of demyelinating events associated with biologic agents are varied but include optic neuritis, multiple sclerosis, transverse myelitis, and Guillain-Barré syndrome, among others.^17-28 These demyelinating disorders with their salient features and associated biologics are summarized in Table 2.^17-20,22-28 Patients on biologic agents, especially TNF-α inhibitors, with new-onset visual, motor, or sensory changes warrant closer inspection. Currently, there are no data on any neurologic side effects occurring with the new biologic secukinumab.²⁹

Conclusion

Biologic agents are effective in treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, but awareness of associated neurological adverse effects, though rare, is important to consider. Physicians need to be able to counsel patients concerning these risks and promote informed decision-making prior to initiating biologics. Patients with a personal or strong family history of demyelinating disease should be considered for alternative treatment options before initiating anti–TNF-α therapy. Since the withdrawal of efalizumab, no new cases of PML have been reported in patients who were previously on a long-term course. Dermatologists should be vigilant in detecting signs of neurological complications so that an expedited evaluation and neurology referral may prevent progression of disease.

Biologic agents have provided patients with moderate to severe psoriasis with treatment alternatives that have improved systemic safety profiles and disease control¹; however, case reports of associated neurologic complications have been emerging. Tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitors have been associated with central and peripheral demyelinating disorders. Notably, efalizumab was withdrawn from the market for its association with fatal cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).^2,3 It is imperative for dermatologists to be familiar with the clinical presentation, evaluation, and diagnostic criteria of neurologic complications of biologic agents used in the treatment of psoriasis.

Leukoencephalopathy

Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy is a fatal demyelinating neurodegenerative disease caused by reactivation of the ubiquitous John Cunningham virus. Primary asymptomatic infection is thought to occur during childhood, then the virus remains latent. Reactivation usually occurs during severe immunosuppression and is classically described in human immunodeficiency virus infection, lymphoproliferative disorders, and other forms of cancer.⁴ A summary of PML and its association with biologics is found in Table 1.^5-13 Few case reports of TNF-α inhibitor–associated PML exist, mostly in the presence of confounding factors such as immunosuppression or underlying autoimmune disease.^10-13 Presenting symptoms of PML often are subacute, rapidly progressive, and can be focal or multifocal and include motor, cognitive, and visual deficits. Of note, there are 2 reported cases of ustekinumab associated with reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome, which is a hypertensive encephalopathy characterized by headache, altered mental status, vision abnormalities, and seizures.^14,15 Fortunately, this disease is reversible with blood pressure control and removal of the immunosuppressive agent.¹⁶

Demyelinating Disorders

Clinical presentation of demyelinating events associated with biologic agents are varied but include optic neuritis, multiple sclerosis, transverse myelitis, and Guillain-Barré syndrome, among others.^17-28 These demyelinating disorders with their salient features and associated biologics are summarized in Table 2.^17-20,22-28 Patients on biologic agents, especially TNF-α inhibitors, with new-onset visual, motor, or sensory changes warrant closer inspection. Currently, there are no data on any neurologic side effects occurring with the new biologic secukinumab.²⁹

Conclusion

Biologic agents are effective in treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, but awareness of associated neurological adverse effects, though rare, is important to consider. Physicians need to be able to counsel patients concerning these risks and promote informed decision-making prior to initiating biologics. Patients with a personal or strong family history of demyelinating disease should be considered for alternative treatment options before initiating anti–TNF-α therapy. Since the withdrawal of efalizumab, no new cases of PML have been reported in patients who were previously on a long-term course. Dermatologists should be vigilant in detecting signs of neurological complications so that an expedited evaluation and neurology referral may prevent progression of disease.

Biologic agents have provided patients with moderate to severe psoriasis with treatment alternatives that have improved systemic safety profiles and disease control¹; however, case reports of associated neurologic complications have been emerging. Tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitors have been associated with central and peripheral demyelinating disorders. Notably, efalizumab was withdrawn from the market for its association with fatal cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).^2,3 It is imperative for dermatologists to be familiar with the clinical presentation, evaluation, and diagnostic criteria of neurologic complications of biologic agents used in the treatment of psoriasis.

Leukoencephalopathy

Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy is a fatal demyelinating neurodegenerative disease caused by reactivation of the ubiquitous John Cunningham virus. Primary asymptomatic infection is thought to occur during childhood, then the virus remains latent. Reactivation usually occurs during severe immunosuppression and is classically described in human immunodeficiency virus infection, lymphoproliferative disorders, and other forms of cancer.⁴ A summary of PML and its association with biologics is found in Table 1.^5-13 Few case reports of TNF-α inhibitor–associated PML exist, mostly in the presence of confounding factors such as immunosuppression or underlying autoimmune disease.^10-13 Presenting symptoms of PML often are subacute, rapidly progressive, and can be focal or multifocal and include motor, cognitive, and visual deficits. Of note, there are 2 reported cases of ustekinumab associated with reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome, which is a hypertensive encephalopathy characterized by headache, altered mental status, vision abnormalities, and seizures.^14,15 Fortunately, this disease is reversible with blood pressure control and removal of the immunosuppressive agent.¹⁶

Demyelinating Disorders

Clinical presentation of demyelinating events associated with biologic agents are varied but include optic neuritis, multiple sclerosis, transverse myelitis, and Guillain-Barré syndrome, among others.^17-28 These demyelinating disorders with their salient features and associated biologics are summarized in Table 2.^17-20,22-28 Patients on biologic agents, especially TNF-α inhibitors, with new-onset visual, motor, or sensory changes warrant closer inspection. Currently, there are no data on any neurologic side effects occurring with the new biologic secukinumab.²⁹

Conclusion

Biologic agents are effective in treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, but awareness of associated neurological adverse effects, though rare, is important to consider. Physicians need to be able to counsel patients concerning these risks and promote informed decision-making prior to initiating biologics. Patients with a personal or strong family history of demyelinating disease should be considered for alternative treatment options before initiating anti–TNF-α therapy. Since the withdrawal of efalizumab, no new cases of PML have been reported in patients who were previously on a long-term course. Dermatologists should be vigilant in detecting signs of neurological complications so that an expedited evaluation and neurology referral may prevent progression of disease.

We applaud Kimball et al¹ on their report that adalimumab demonstrated clinical improvement in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) versus placebo in 2 phase 3 trials. Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic relapsing condition with painful subcutaneous abscesses, malodorous drainage, sinus tract formation, and scarring that typically occurs in the axillae and anogenital region. It impairs the quality of life for these patients, as evidenced by higher Dermatology Life Quality Index scores compared to psoriasis, pimples, hand rash, atopic eczema, or control.²

The exact pathogenesis of HS is unknown but likely involves a complex interaction of genetic, hormonal, immunologic, and environmental factors.³ The levels of inflammatory cytokines are elevated in HS lesions, specifically IL-1β, tumor necrosis factor α, IL-10, and CXCL9, as well as monokines from IFN-γ, IL-11, and IL-17A. Additionally, the dermis of affected regions contains IL-12– and IL-23–containing macrophages along with IL-17–producing T cells.³ These findings reveal many potential therapeutic targets for the treatment of HS.

PIONEER I and PIONEER II are similarly designed 36-week phase 3 trials of 633 patients with HS who were unresponsive to oral antibiotic treatment.¹ By week 12, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving adalimumab demonstrated clinical improvement (≥50% reduction in total abscess and nodule count) compared to placebo in both trials (PIONEER I: 41.8% vs 26.0%, P=.003; PIONEER II: 58.9% vs 27.6%, P<.001). Secondary end points (inflammatory-nodule count, pain score, and disease severity) were only achieved in PIONEER II. The difference in clinical improvement between the trials is likely due to higher baseline disease severity in the HS patients in PIONEER I versus PIONEER II. No new safety risks were reported and were in accordance with prior adalimumab trials for other diseases. Notably, 10 paradoxical psoriasislike eruptions were reported.¹

Adalimumab is the first and only US Food and Drug Administration–approved therapy for HS. Further understanding of the pathogenesis of HS may result in additional biologic treatments for HS. We encourage the manufacturers of other biologic therapies, such as infliximab,⁴ ustekinumab,⁵ anakinra,⁶ secukinumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab, to consider conducting further clinical trials in HS to enhance the therapeutic options available for this debilitating disease.

We applaud Kimball et al¹ on their report that adalimumab demonstrated clinical improvement in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) versus placebo in 2 phase 3 trials. Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic relapsing condition with painful subcutaneous abscesses, malodorous drainage, sinus tract formation, and scarring that typically occurs in the axillae and anogenital region. It impairs the quality of life for these patients, as evidenced by higher Dermatology Life Quality Index scores compared to psoriasis, pimples, hand rash, atopic eczema, or control.²

The exact pathogenesis of HS is unknown but likely involves a complex interaction of genetic, hormonal, immunologic, and environmental factors.³ The levels of inflammatory cytokines are elevated in HS lesions, specifically IL-1β, tumor necrosis factor α, IL-10, and CXCL9, as well as monokines from IFN-γ, IL-11, and IL-17A. Additionally, the dermis of affected regions contains IL-12– and IL-23–containing macrophages along with IL-17–producing T cells.³ These findings reveal many potential therapeutic targets for the treatment of HS.

PIONEER I and PIONEER II are similarly designed 36-week phase 3 trials of 633 patients with HS who were unresponsive to oral antibiotic treatment.¹ By week 12, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving adalimumab demonstrated clinical improvement (≥50% reduction in total abscess and nodule count) compared to placebo in both trials (PIONEER I: 41.8% vs 26.0%, P=.003; PIONEER II: 58.9% vs 27.6%, P<.001). Secondary end points (inflammatory-nodule count, pain score, and disease severity) were only achieved in PIONEER II. The difference in clinical improvement between the trials is likely due to higher baseline disease severity in the HS patients in PIONEER I versus PIONEER II. No new safety risks were reported and were in accordance with prior adalimumab trials for other diseases. Notably, 10 paradoxical psoriasislike eruptions were reported.¹

Adalimumab is the first and only US Food and Drug Administration–approved therapy for HS. Further understanding of the pathogenesis of HS may result in additional biologic treatments for HS. We encourage the manufacturers of other biologic therapies, such as infliximab,⁴ ustekinumab,⁵ anakinra,⁶ secukinumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab, to consider conducting further clinical trials in HS to enhance the therapeutic options available for this debilitating disease.

We applaud Kimball et al¹ on their report that adalimumab demonstrated clinical improvement in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) versus placebo in 2 phase 3 trials. Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic relapsing condition with painful subcutaneous abscesses, malodorous drainage, sinus tract formation, and scarring that typically occurs in the axillae and anogenital region. It impairs the quality of life for these patients, as evidenced by higher Dermatology Life Quality Index scores compared to psoriasis, pimples, hand rash, atopic eczema, or control.²

The exact pathogenesis of HS is unknown but likely involves a complex interaction of genetic, hormonal, immunologic, and environmental factors.³ The levels of inflammatory cytokines are elevated in HS lesions, specifically IL-1β, tumor necrosis factor α, IL-10, and CXCL9, as well as monokines from IFN-γ, IL-11, and IL-17A. Additionally, the dermis of affected regions contains IL-12– and IL-23–containing macrophages along with IL-17–producing T cells.³ These findings reveal many potential therapeutic targets for the treatment of HS.

PIONEER I and PIONEER II are similarly designed 36-week phase 3 trials of 633 patients with HS who were unresponsive to oral antibiotic treatment.¹ By week 12, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving adalimumab demonstrated clinical improvement (≥50% reduction in total abscess and nodule count) compared to placebo in both trials (PIONEER I: 41.8% vs 26.0%, P=.003; PIONEER II: 58.9% vs 27.6%, P<.001). Secondary end points (inflammatory-nodule count, pain score, and disease severity) were only achieved in PIONEER II. The difference in clinical improvement between the trials is likely due to higher baseline disease severity in the HS patients in PIONEER I versus PIONEER II. No new safety risks were reported and were in accordance with prior adalimumab trials for other diseases. Notably, 10 paradoxical psoriasislike eruptions were reported.¹

Adalimumab is the first and only US Food and Drug Administration–approved therapy for HS. Further understanding of the pathogenesis of HS may result in additional biologic treatments for HS. We encourage the manufacturers of other biologic therapies, such as infliximab,⁴ ustekinumab,⁵ anakinra,⁶ secukinumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab, to consider conducting further clinical trials in HS to enhance the therapeutic options available for this debilitating disease.

Currently, there is no widely accepted tool for assessing the severity of psoriasis in the clinical setting.^1-5 Moreover, there is still a need for a simple assessment tool to assist in evaluating a patient’s response to therapy in clinical practice.⁶

The body surface area (BSA) is a familiar and widely used measurement by clinicians. It is easily calculated by the rule of nines or with the patient’s open palm and thumb approximating 1% of the BSA.⁷ Body surface area is an uncomplicated concept for patients to understand and interpret. It also promotes patient empowerment and self-care by allowing patients to monitor short-term and long-term response to therapy.

The National Psoriasis Foundation Medical Board published treatment targets for plaque psoriasis. One of the conclusions states, “The acceptable response at 3 months postinitiation was either BSA 3% or less or BSA improvement 75% or more from baseline.”⁸

We propose a new nomenclature that a 75% improvement in BSA be recognized as BSA75, a 90% improvement in BSA as BSA90, and a 100% improvement in BSA as BSA100. These classifications would be analogous to corresponding improvements in the following psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) scores: PASI 75, PASI 90, PASI 100.⁹ A loss of BSA goals/milestones (ie, BSA75) could encourage and facilitate physician-patient conversations and further direct modifications to disease management and treatment therapy.

A potential drawback to the implementation of this novel categorization system is that other notable aspects of psoriasis would not be assessed, such as erythema, induration, or scale; subjective measurements; patient quality of life; patient symptoms; areas of involvement (eg, palms, soles of feet); and disease course. Nevertheless, the BSA75, BSA90, and BSA100 classifications can serve as practical, objective, and straightforward tools to monitor disease progression and treatment response in psoriasis patients, which may potentially promote improved patient outcomes in clinical practice.

Currently, there is no widely accepted tool for assessing the severity of psoriasis in the clinical setting.^1-5 Moreover, there is still a need for a simple assessment tool to assist in evaluating a patient’s response to therapy in clinical practice.⁶

The body surface area (BSA) is a familiar and widely used measurement by clinicians. It is easily calculated by the rule of nines or with the patient’s open palm and thumb approximating 1% of the BSA.⁷ Body surface area is an uncomplicated concept for patients to understand and interpret. It also promotes patient empowerment and self-care by allowing patients to monitor short-term and long-term response to therapy.

The National Psoriasis Foundation Medical Board published treatment targets for plaque psoriasis. One of the conclusions states, “The acceptable response at 3 months postinitiation was either BSA 3% or less or BSA improvement 75% or more from baseline.”⁸

We propose a new nomenclature that a 75% improvement in BSA be recognized as BSA75, a 90% improvement in BSA as BSA90, and a 100% improvement in BSA as BSA100. These classifications would be analogous to corresponding improvements in the following psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) scores: PASI 75, PASI 90, PASI 100.⁹ A loss of BSA goals/milestones (ie, BSA75) could encourage and facilitate physician-patient conversations and further direct modifications to disease management and treatment therapy.

A potential drawback to the implementation of this novel categorization system is that other notable aspects of psoriasis would not be assessed, such as erythema, induration, or scale; subjective measurements; patient quality of life; patient symptoms; areas of involvement (eg, palms, soles of feet); and disease course. Nevertheless, the BSA75, BSA90, and BSA100 classifications can serve as practical, objective, and straightforward tools to monitor disease progression and treatment response in psoriasis patients, which may potentially promote improved patient outcomes in clinical practice.

Currently, there is no widely accepted tool for assessing the severity of psoriasis in the clinical setting.^1-5 Moreover, there is still a need for a simple assessment tool to assist in evaluating a patient’s response to therapy in clinical practice.⁶

The body surface area (BSA) is a familiar and widely used measurement by clinicians. It is easily calculated by the rule of nines or with the patient’s open palm and thumb approximating 1% of the BSA.⁷ Body surface area is an uncomplicated concept for patients to understand and interpret. It also promotes patient empowerment and self-care by allowing patients to monitor short-term and long-term response to therapy.

The National Psoriasis Foundation Medical Board published treatment targets for plaque psoriasis. One of the conclusions states, “The acceptable response at 3 months postinitiation was either BSA 3% or less or BSA improvement 75% or more from baseline.”⁸

We propose a new nomenclature that a 75% improvement in BSA be recognized as BSA75, a 90% improvement in BSA as BSA90, and a 100% improvement in BSA as BSA100. These classifications would be analogous to corresponding improvements in the following psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) scores: PASI 75, PASI 90, PASI 100.⁹ A loss of BSA goals/milestones (ie, BSA75) could encourage and facilitate physician-patient conversations and further direct modifications to disease management and treatment therapy.

A potential drawback to the implementation of this novel categorization system is that other notable aspects of psoriasis would not be assessed, such as erythema, induration, or scale; subjective measurements; patient quality of life; patient symptoms; areas of involvement (eg, palms, soles of feet); and disease course. Nevertheless, the BSA75, BSA90, and BSA100 classifications can serve as practical, objective, and straightforward tools to monitor disease progression and treatment response in psoriasis patients, which may potentially promote improved patient outcomes in clinical practice.

To the Editor:

A 43-year-old woman with recently diagnosed diabetes mellitus and a history of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura on chronic oral steroids presented with a several-year history of small bumps and bilateral hyperpigmentation on the feet. On physical examination 2- to 3-mm dark brown, hyperkeratotic, firm papules were present on the medial aspects of the feet as well as the dorsal and medial aspects of the thumbs (Figure 1). There also were brown thickened firm plaques on the heels and soles of the feet. 

A punch biopsy of the medial aspect of the right foot was performed (Figure 2). Microscopic examination revealed acral skin with hyperkeratosis, parakeratosis, mild hypergranulosis, mild basilar pigmentation, and mild dermal fibrosis (Figure 2A). A periodic acid–Schiff stain for fungus was negative. An elastic van Gieson stain showed fragmentation of the dermal elastic fibers (Figure 2B). The patient was diagnosed with acrokeratoelastoidosis (AKE).

Acrokeratoelastoidosis is a rare autosomal-dominant genodermatosis characterized by firm yellow papules and plaques that appear along the margins of the hands and feet and increase in number over time.¹ Histopathologically, hyperkeratosis with hypergranulosis and acanthosis can be seen. Elastorrhexis, resulting in fragmentation of elastic fibers within the dermis, typically is present, a feature that distinguishes AKE from focal acral hyperkeratosis.² Also, the dermis may be normal with hematoxylin and eosin stain or slightly thickened with mild depression and thin elastic fibers. There is no reported racial or sex predilection, but rapid progression of the disease during pregnancy has been observed.³

The pathogenesis of AKE is not completely understood. However, it has been implicated that abnormalities in the secretion of elastic fibers from fibroblasts may be involved in disease pathogenesis.^4,5 Electron microscopy has demonstrated fibroblasts with dense granules at the periphery of their cytoplasm and an absence of surrounding elastic fibers. Genetic studies have linked underlying mutations in chromosome 2 to the disease.⁶ Defects in keratinization and overproduction of filaggrin also may be involved in the disease process.⁷

Most therapies generally are ineffective but have included urea, salicylic acid, prednisone, and tretinoin.⁸ Six-month treatment with etretinate 25 to 50 mg has shown promising results, though recurrences occurred with dosage reduction or discontinuation.⁹ Our patient demonstrated mild improvement with urea cream 30%.

To the Editor:

A 43-year-old woman with recently diagnosed diabetes mellitus and a history of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura on chronic oral steroids presented with a several-year history of small bumps and bilateral hyperpigmentation on the feet. On physical examination 2- to 3-mm dark brown, hyperkeratotic, firm papules were present on the medial aspects of the feet as well as the dorsal and medial aspects of the thumbs (Figure 1). There also were brown thickened firm plaques on the heels and soles of the feet. 

A punch biopsy of the medial aspect of the right foot was performed (Figure 2). Microscopic examination revealed acral skin with hyperkeratosis, parakeratosis, mild hypergranulosis, mild basilar pigmentation, and mild dermal fibrosis (Figure 2A). A periodic acid–Schiff stain for fungus was negative. An elastic van Gieson stain showed fragmentation of the dermal elastic fibers (Figure 2B). The patient was diagnosed with acrokeratoelastoidosis (AKE).

Acrokeratoelastoidosis is a rare autosomal-dominant genodermatosis characterized by firm yellow papules and plaques that appear along the margins of the hands and feet and increase in number over time.¹ Histopathologically, hyperkeratosis with hypergranulosis and acanthosis can be seen. Elastorrhexis, resulting in fragmentation of elastic fibers within the dermis, typically is present, a feature that distinguishes AKE from focal acral hyperkeratosis.² Also, the dermis may be normal with hematoxylin and eosin stain or slightly thickened with mild depression and thin elastic fibers. There is no reported racial or sex predilection, but rapid progression of the disease during pregnancy has been observed.³

The pathogenesis of AKE is not completely understood. However, it has been implicated that abnormalities in the secretion of elastic fibers from fibroblasts may be involved in disease pathogenesis.^4,5 Electron microscopy has demonstrated fibroblasts with dense granules at the periphery of their cytoplasm and an absence of surrounding elastic fibers. Genetic studies have linked underlying mutations in chromosome 2 to the disease.⁶ Defects in keratinization and overproduction of filaggrin also may be involved in the disease process.⁷

Most therapies generally are ineffective but have included urea, salicylic acid, prednisone, and tretinoin.⁸ Six-month treatment with etretinate 25 to 50 mg has shown promising results, though recurrences occurred with dosage reduction or discontinuation.⁹ Our patient demonstrated mild improvement with urea cream 30%.

To the Editor:

A 43-year-old woman with recently diagnosed diabetes mellitus and a history of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura on chronic oral steroids presented with a several-year history of small bumps and bilateral hyperpigmentation on the feet. On physical examination 2- to 3-mm dark brown, hyperkeratotic, firm papules were present on the medial aspects of the feet as well as the dorsal and medial aspects of the thumbs (Figure 1). There also were brown thickened firm plaques on the heels and soles of the feet. 

A punch biopsy of the medial aspect of the right foot was performed (Figure 2). Microscopic examination revealed acral skin with hyperkeratosis, parakeratosis, mild hypergranulosis, mild basilar pigmentation, and mild dermal fibrosis (Figure 2A). A periodic acid–Schiff stain for fungus was negative. An elastic van Gieson stain showed fragmentation of the dermal elastic fibers (Figure 2B). The patient was diagnosed with acrokeratoelastoidosis (AKE).

Acrokeratoelastoidosis is a rare autosomal-dominant genodermatosis characterized by firm yellow papules and plaques that appear along the margins of the hands and feet and increase in number over time.¹ Histopathologically, hyperkeratosis with hypergranulosis and acanthosis can be seen. Elastorrhexis, resulting in fragmentation of elastic fibers within the dermis, typically is present, a feature that distinguishes AKE from focal acral hyperkeratosis.² Also, the dermis may be normal with hematoxylin and eosin stain or slightly thickened with mild depression and thin elastic fibers. There is no reported racial or sex predilection, but rapid progression of the disease during pregnancy has been observed.³

The pathogenesis of AKE is not completely understood. However, it has been implicated that abnormalities in the secretion of elastic fibers from fibroblasts may be involved in disease pathogenesis.^4,5 Electron microscopy has demonstrated fibroblasts with dense granules at the periphery of their cytoplasm and an absence of surrounding elastic fibers. Genetic studies have linked underlying mutations in chromosome 2 to the disease.⁶ Defects in keratinization and overproduction of filaggrin also may be involved in the disease process.⁷

Most therapies generally are ineffective but have included urea, salicylic acid, prednisone, and tretinoin.⁸ Six-month treatment with etretinate 25 to 50 mg has shown promising results, though recurrences occurred with dosage reduction or discontinuation.⁹ Our patient demonstrated mild improvement with urea cream 30%.

The cardiovascular comorbidities associated with psoriasis have been well documented; however, the mechanism by which psoriasis increases the risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains unclear. Elevated systemic inflammatory cytokines and mediators may play a key role in their association, which prompts the questions: Do systemic medications have a protective effect? Do patients on systemic antipsoriatic treatment have a decreased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) compared with untreated patients?

We believe the shared inflammatory processes involved in psoriasis and atherosclerosis formation are potential targets for therapy in reducing the incidence of CVD and its associated complications. A growing amount of evidence suggests cardioprotective effects associated with antipsoriatic treatments such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and methotrexate. Gkalpakiotis et al¹ demonstrated a reduction in serum E-selectin (mean [standard deviation], 53.04 [23.54] ng/mL vs 35.32 [8.70] ng/mL; P<.001) and IL-22 (25.11 [19.9] pg/mL vs 12.83 [8.42] pg/mL; P<.001) after 3 months of adalimumab administration in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Both E-selectin and IL-22 are associated with the development of atherosclerosis, endothelial dysfunction, and an increased incidence of CVD. Similarly, Wu et al² demonstrated a statistically significant reduction (–5.04 mg/dL [95% confidence interval [CI], –8.24 to –2.12; P<.01) in C-reactive protein in patients with psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis after concurrent use of methotrexate and TNF inhibitors.

Solomon et al³ compared the rate of newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus among psoriasis and rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with TNF inhibitors, methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and other nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The authors’ findings suggest that those who take a TNF inhibitor (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.91) and hydroxychloroquine (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.80) are at lower risk for diabetes mellitus compared to those treated with nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Conversely, the methotrexate (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.53-1.13) cohort did not show a statistically significant reduction in diabetes risk.³

Pina et al⁴ revealed improvement in endothelial function after 6 months of adalimumab use in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. To evaluate the presence of subclinical endothelial dysfunction, the authors assessed brachial artery reactivity by measuring flow-mediated dilation and carotid artery stiffness by pulse wave velocity. Patients showed an increase in flow-mediated dilation (mean [SD], 6.19% [2.44%] vs 7.46% [2.43%]; P=.008) and reduction in pulse wave velocity (6.28 [1.04] m/s vs 5.69 [1.31] m/s; P=.03) compared to baseline measurements, indicating an improvement of endothelial function.⁴

Ahlehoff et al⁵ observed for improvements in subclinical left ventricular dysfunction in psoriasis patients after treatment with biologics. Using echocardiography, they assessed for changes in diastolic function and left ventricular systolic deformation (defined by global longitudinal strain). Of patients who received 3 months of biologic therapy (TNF inhibitor orIL-12/23 inhibitor) and maintained at minimum a psoriasis area and severity index 50 response, all demonstrated an improvement in diastolic function (mean [SD], 8.1 [2.1] vs 6.7 [1.9]; P<.001) and global longitudinal strain (mean [SD], –16.8% [2.1%] vs –18.3% [2.3%]; P<.001). Of note, patients who did not achieve a psoriasis area and severity index 50 response at follow-up did not exhibit an improvement in subclinical myocardial function.⁵

Moreover, a Danish nationwide study with up to 5-year follow-up evaluated the risk for MACE (ie, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke) in patients with severe psoriasis receiving systemic anti-inflammatory medications and nonsystemic therapies including topical treatments, phototherapy, and climate therapy.⁶ Compared to nonsystemic therapies, methotrexate use (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.34-0.83) was associated with a decreased risk for cardiovascular events. However, a protective decreased risk was not found among patients who used systemic cyclosporine (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.26-4.27) or retinoids (HR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.03-2.96). Any biological drug use had a comparable but nonsignificant reduction of cardiovascular events (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.30-1.10). After multivariable adjustment, TNF inhibitors were associated with a statistically significant decreased risk for cardiovascular events (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.22-0.98; P=.04) compared to nonsystemic therapies. The IL-12/23 inhibitor did not demonstrate this relationship (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.47-4.94).⁶

Lastly, Wu et al⁷ compared the risk for MACE (ie, myocardial infarction, stroke, unstable angina, transient ischemic attack) between patients with psoriasis who received TNF inhibitors or methotrexate. The TNF inhibitor and methotrexate cohorts were observed for a median of 12 months and 9 months, respectively. After adjusting for potential confounding factors, they found a 45% reduction (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.45-0.67) in cardiovascular event risk in the TNF inhibitor cohort compared with the methotrexate cohort. Notably, analyses also showed comparatively fewer cardiovascular events in the TNF inhibitor cohort throughout all time points—6, 12, 18, 24, 60 months—in the observation period. Regression analysis revealed an 11% reduction in cardiovascular events (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) with each additional 6 months of cumulative TNF inhibitor exposure.

The current sum of evidence suggests cardioprotective effects of TNF inhibitor and methotrexate use. However, given the cumulative systemic toxicity and inferior cutaneous efficacy of methotrexate, TNF inhibitors will likely play a more significant role going forward. The role of methotrexate may be for its simultaneous use with biologic therapies to limit immunogenicity. Newer biologic agents such as IL-12/23 and IL-17 inhibitors have not yet been as extensively studied for their effects on cardiovascular risk as their TNF inhibitor counterparts. However, because of their shared ability to target specific immunological pathways, it is plausible that IL-12/23 and IL-17 agents may exhibit cardioprotective effects.⁸

Patients with psoriasis should be counseled and educated about the increased risk for CVD and its associated morbidity and mortality risk. Screening for modifiable risk factors and recommending therapeutic lifestyle changes also is appropriate. Future studies should help define the role of specific systemic drugs in reducing the risk for CVD in patients with psoriasis. Despite the expanding amount of evidence in the current literature implicating the use of TNF inhibitors for cardiovascular risk prevention, there is still a need for long-term, randomized, placebo-controlled trials to provide more authoritative evidence-based recommendations.

The cardiovascular comorbidities associated with psoriasis have been well documented; however, the mechanism by which psoriasis increases the risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains unclear. Elevated systemic inflammatory cytokines and mediators may play a key role in their association, which prompts the questions: Do systemic medications have a protective effect? Do patients on systemic antipsoriatic treatment have a decreased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) compared with untreated patients?

We believe the shared inflammatory processes involved in psoriasis and atherosclerosis formation are potential targets for therapy in reducing the incidence of CVD and its associated complications. A growing amount of evidence suggests cardioprotective effects associated with antipsoriatic treatments such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and methotrexate. Gkalpakiotis et al¹ demonstrated a reduction in serum E-selectin (mean [standard deviation], 53.04 [23.54] ng/mL vs 35.32 [8.70] ng/mL; P<.001) and IL-22 (25.11 [19.9] pg/mL vs 12.83 [8.42] pg/mL; P<.001) after 3 months of adalimumab administration in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Both E-selectin and IL-22 are associated with the development of atherosclerosis, endothelial dysfunction, and an increased incidence of CVD. Similarly, Wu et al² demonstrated a statistically significant reduction (–5.04 mg/dL [95% confidence interval [CI], –8.24 to –2.12; P<.01) in C-reactive protein in patients with psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis after concurrent use of methotrexate and TNF inhibitors.

Solomon et al³ compared the rate of newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus among psoriasis and rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with TNF inhibitors, methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and other nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The authors’ findings suggest that those who take a TNF inhibitor (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.91) and hydroxychloroquine (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.80) are at lower risk for diabetes mellitus compared to those treated with nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Conversely, the methotrexate (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.53-1.13) cohort did not show a statistically significant reduction in diabetes risk.³

Pina et al⁴ revealed improvement in endothelial function after 6 months of adalimumab use in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. To evaluate the presence of subclinical endothelial dysfunction, the authors assessed brachial artery reactivity by measuring flow-mediated dilation and carotid artery stiffness by pulse wave velocity. Patients showed an increase in flow-mediated dilation (mean [SD], 6.19% [2.44%] vs 7.46% [2.43%]; P=.008) and reduction in pulse wave velocity (6.28 [1.04] m/s vs 5.69 [1.31] m/s; P=.03) compared to baseline measurements, indicating an improvement of endothelial function.⁴

Ahlehoff et al⁵ observed for improvements in subclinical left ventricular dysfunction in psoriasis patients after treatment with biologics. Using echocardiography, they assessed for changes in diastolic function and left ventricular systolic deformation (defined by global longitudinal strain). Of patients who received 3 months of biologic therapy (TNF inhibitor orIL-12/23 inhibitor) and maintained at minimum a psoriasis area and severity index 50 response, all demonstrated an improvement in diastolic function (mean [SD], 8.1 [2.1] vs 6.7 [1.9]; P<.001) and global longitudinal strain (mean [SD], –16.8% [2.1%] vs –18.3% [2.3%]; P<.001). Of note, patients who did not achieve a psoriasis area and severity index 50 response at follow-up did not exhibit an improvement in subclinical myocardial function.⁵

Moreover, a Danish nationwide study with up to 5-year follow-up evaluated the risk for MACE (ie, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke) in patients with severe psoriasis receiving systemic anti-inflammatory medications and nonsystemic therapies including topical treatments, phototherapy, and climate therapy.⁶ Compared to nonsystemic therapies, methotrexate use (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.34-0.83) was associated with a decreased risk for cardiovascular events. However, a protective decreased risk was not found among patients who used systemic cyclosporine (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.26-4.27) or retinoids (HR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.03-2.96). Any biological drug use had a comparable but nonsignificant reduction of cardiovascular events (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.30-1.10). After multivariable adjustment, TNF inhibitors were associated with a statistically significant decreased risk for cardiovascular events (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.22-0.98; P=.04) compared to nonsystemic therapies. The IL-12/23 inhibitor did not demonstrate this relationship (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.47-4.94).⁶

Lastly, Wu et al⁷ compared the risk for MACE (ie, myocardial infarction, stroke, unstable angina, transient ischemic attack) between patients with psoriasis who received TNF inhibitors or methotrexate. The TNF inhibitor and methotrexate cohorts were observed for a median of 12 months and 9 months, respectively. After adjusting for potential confounding factors, they found a 45% reduction (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.45-0.67) in cardiovascular event risk in the TNF inhibitor cohort compared with the methotrexate cohort. Notably, analyses also showed comparatively fewer cardiovascular events in the TNF inhibitor cohort throughout all time points—6, 12, 18, 24, 60 months—in the observation period. Regression analysis revealed an 11% reduction in cardiovascular events (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) with each additional 6 months of cumulative TNF inhibitor exposure.

The current sum of evidence suggests cardioprotective effects of TNF inhibitor and methotrexate use. However, given the cumulative systemic toxicity and inferior cutaneous efficacy of methotrexate, TNF inhibitors will likely play a more significant role going forward. The role of methotrexate may be for its simultaneous use with biologic therapies to limit immunogenicity. Newer biologic agents such as IL-12/23 and IL-17 inhibitors have not yet been as extensively studied for their effects on cardiovascular risk as their TNF inhibitor counterparts. However, because of their shared ability to target specific immunological pathways, it is plausible that IL-12/23 and IL-17 agents may exhibit cardioprotective effects.⁸

Patients with psoriasis should be counseled and educated about the increased risk for CVD and its associated morbidity and mortality risk. Screening for modifiable risk factors and recommending therapeutic lifestyle changes also is appropriate. Future studies should help define the role of specific systemic drugs in reducing the risk for CVD in patients with psoriasis. Despite the expanding amount of evidence in the current literature implicating the use of TNF inhibitors for cardiovascular risk prevention, there is still a need for long-term, randomized, placebo-controlled trials to provide more authoritative evidence-based recommendations.

The cardiovascular comorbidities associated with psoriasis have been well documented; however, the mechanism by which psoriasis increases the risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains unclear. Elevated systemic inflammatory cytokines and mediators may play a key role in their association, which prompts the questions: Do systemic medications have a protective effect? Do patients on systemic antipsoriatic treatment have a decreased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) compared with untreated patients?

We believe the shared inflammatory processes involved in psoriasis and atherosclerosis formation are potential targets for therapy in reducing the incidence of CVD and its associated complications. A growing amount of evidence suggests cardioprotective effects associated with antipsoriatic treatments such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and methotrexate. Gkalpakiotis et al¹ demonstrated a reduction in serum E-selectin (mean [standard deviation], 53.04 [23.54] ng/mL vs 35.32 [8.70] ng/mL; P<.001) and IL-22 (25.11 [19.9] pg/mL vs 12.83 [8.42] pg/mL; P<.001) after 3 months of adalimumab administration in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Both E-selectin and IL-22 are associated with the development of atherosclerosis, endothelial dysfunction, and an increased incidence of CVD. Similarly, Wu et al² demonstrated a statistically significant reduction (–5.04 mg/dL [95% confidence interval [CI], –8.24 to –2.12; P<.01) in C-reactive protein in patients with psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis after concurrent use of methotrexate and TNF inhibitors.

Solomon et al³ compared the rate of newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus among psoriasis and rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with TNF inhibitors, methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and other nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The authors’ findings suggest that those who take a TNF inhibitor (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.91) and hydroxychloroquine (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.80) are at lower risk for diabetes mellitus compared to those treated with nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Conversely, the methotrexate (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.53-1.13) cohort did not show a statistically significant reduction in diabetes risk.³

Pina et al⁴ revealed improvement in endothelial function after 6 months of adalimumab use in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. To evaluate the presence of subclinical endothelial dysfunction, the authors assessed brachial artery reactivity by measuring flow-mediated dilation and carotid artery stiffness by pulse wave velocity. Patients showed an increase in flow-mediated dilation (mean [SD], 6.19% [2.44%] vs 7.46% [2.43%]; P=.008) and reduction in pulse wave velocity (6.28 [1.04] m/s vs 5.69 [1.31] m/s; P=.03) compared to baseline measurements, indicating an improvement of endothelial function.⁴

Ahlehoff et al⁵ observed for improvements in subclinical left ventricular dysfunction in psoriasis patients after treatment with biologics. Using echocardiography, they assessed for changes in diastolic function and left ventricular systolic deformation (defined by global longitudinal strain). Of patients who received 3 months of biologic therapy (TNF inhibitor orIL-12/23 inhibitor) and maintained at minimum a psoriasis area and severity index 50 response, all demonstrated an improvement in diastolic function (mean [SD], 8.1 [2.1] vs 6.7 [1.9]; P<.001) and global longitudinal strain (mean [SD], –16.8% [2.1%] vs –18.3% [2.3%]; P<.001). Of note, patients who did not achieve a psoriasis area and severity index 50 response at follow-up did not exhibit an improvement in subclinical myocardial function.⁵

Moreover, a Danish nationwide study with up to 5-year follow-up evaluated the risk for MACE (ie, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke) in patients with severe psoriasis receiving systemic anti-inflammatory medications and nonsystemic therapies including topical treatments, phototherapy, and climate therapy.⁶ Compared to nonsystemic therapies, methotrexate use (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.34-0.83) was associated with a decreased risk for cardiovascular events. However, a protective decreased risk was not found among patients who used systemic cyclosporine (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.26-4.27) or retinoids (HR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.03-2.96). Any biological drug use had a comparable but nonsignificant reduction of cardiovascular events (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.30-1.10). After multivariable adjustment, TNF inhibitors were associated with a statistically significant decreased risk for cardiovascular events (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.22-0.98; P=.04) compared to nonsystemic therapies. The IL-12/23 inhibitor did not demonstrate this relationship (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.47-4.94).⁶

Lastly, Wu et al⁷ compared the risk for MACE (ie, myocardial infarction, stroke, unstable angina, transient ischemic attack) between patients with psoriasis who received TNF inhibitors or methotrexate. The TNF inhibitor and methotrexate cohorts were observed for a median of 12 months and 9 months, respectively. After adjusting for potential confounding factors, they found a 45% reduction (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.45-0.67) in cardiovascular event risk in the TNF inhibitor cohort compared with the methotrexate cohort. Notably, analyses also showed comparatively fewer cardiovascular events in the TNF inhibitor cohort throughout all time points—6, 12, 18, 24, 60 months—in the observation period. Regression analysis revealed an 11% reduction in cardiovascular events (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) with each additional 6 months of cumulative TNF inhibitor exposure.

The current sum of evidence suggests cardioprotective effects of TNF inhibitor and methotrexate use. However, given the cumulative systemic toxicity and inferior cutaneous efficacy of methotrexate, TNF inhibitors will likely play a more significant role going forward. The role of methotrexate may be for its simultaneous use with biologic therapies to limit immunogenicity. Newer biologic agents such as IL-12/23 and IL-17 inhibitors have not yet been as extensively studied for their effects on cardiovascular risk as their TNF inhibitor counterparts. However, because of their shared ability to target specific immunological pathways, it is plausible that IL-12/23 and IL-17 agents may exhibit cardioprotective effects.⁸

Patients with psoriasis should be counseled and educated about the increased risk for CVD and its associated morbidity and mortality risk. Screening for modifiable risk factors and recommending therapeutic lifestyle changes also is appropriate. Future studies should help define the role of specific systemic drugs in reducing the risk for CVD in patients with psoriasis. Despite the expanding amount of evidence in the current literature implicating the use of TNF inhibitors for cardiovascular risk prevention, there is still a need for long-term, randomized, placebo-controlled trials to provide more authoritative evidence-based recommendations.

At the 19th Annual Mount Sinai Winter Symposium, Dr. Jashin J. Wu spoke about psoriasis and internal disease. He discussed psoriasis and noncardiovascular comorbidities as well as cardiovascular comorbidities. Dr. Wu also addressed if treating psoriasis can improve cardiovascular disease.

At the 19th Annual Mount Sinai Winter Symposium, Dr. Jashin J. Wu spoke about psoriasis and internal disease. He discussed psoriasis and noncardiovascular comorbidities as well as cardiovascular comorbidities. Dr. Wu also addressed if treating psoriasis can improve cardiovascular disease.

At the 19th Annual Mount Sinai Winter Symposium, Dr. Jashin J. Wu spoke about psoriasis and internal disease. He discussed psoriasis and noncardiovascular comorbidities as well as cardiovascular comorbidities. Dr. Wu also addressed if treating psoriasis can improve cardiovascular disease.

What does your patient need to know at the first visit? Why is this information important?

At the first visit I discuss potential side effects. The ones that patients want to hear about are infection and cancer. Clinical studies do not seem to indicate an increased risk for infection. But is that what I tell the patient? No. I tell the patient that there may be a slightly increased risk for infection with biologics. I tell patients the prescribing information lists some rare and serious infections such as tuberculosis, hepatitis B reactivation, sepsis, invasive fungal infections, and opportunistic infections. I do say that if the patient is young and healthy, the risk is relatively low. I do tell the patient that we do check the things that we can check, such as screening for tuberculosis and hepatitis B virus.

Once a patient starts a biologic, I ask him/her to tell me or the primary care physician if he/she develops fevers, chills, weight loss, chronic cough, or an illness that lasts 1 week or more. I emphasize that high-risk patients—those who are elderly, have chronic kidney or liver disease, or have uncontrolled diabetes—should be more vigilant for signs of infection than otherwise-healthy patients.

The word cancer is scary for patients, so I mention that patients with psoriasis are more likely to develop lymphoma, which may be related to having psoriasis itself, not to therapies used to treat psoriasis. For tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, there is a warning about an increased risk for nonmelanoma skin cancers, which has been confirmed in some studies, so I tell patients that it is important to come in at least every 6 months to evaluate their psoriasis but also to check for skin cancers.

I also review with patients that many times their insurance company will require them to fail a traditional systemic therapy first before they can start a biologic. Also, monthly co-pays for a biologic likely will be higher than oral therapies they have used.

How do you keep patients compliant with treatment?

Patients usually want to be compliant on their own, as they will see how effective the biologic is and how clear their skin will become while on therapy. They will see that if they take a break for whatever reason (eg, ran out of medicine, went on vacation, loss of medical insurance), the psoriasis will return, perhaps with a vengeance.

I remind patients who are not compliant with biologic therapy that the body may produce antibodies against the biologic itself if there is a substantial break from therapy, which may make the biologic less effective over time.

If the patient wants to reduce the dose but not stop it completely, I recommend to increase the interval of the maintenance dosing by 1 day after each injection and see if the psoriasis slowly returns. If it does return, then he/she should reduce the interval of the maintenance dosing by 1 day and hold that interval.

What do you do if they refuse treatment?

I stress to patients that biologics are typically the best long-term treatment with the highest levels of effectiveness and safety for psoriasis. In the rare case of a patient refusing a biologic, I discuss other options such as oral therapy (eg, methotrexate, cyclosporine, acitretin, apremilast) or phototherapy. If the patient is a candidate for biologic therapy, topical therapy may not be adequate to treat a large body surface area affected.

What resources do you recommend to patients for more information?

The National Psoriasis Foundation has recently published an updated patient booklet, “Systemic Medications for Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis,” that I would encourage all patients to read for further information.

Suggested Reading

National Psoriasis Foundation. Systemic medications for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. https://www.psoriasis.org/sites/default/files/systemics_booklet.pdf. Accessed January 11, 2016.

What does your patient need to know at the first visit? Why is this information important?

At the first visit I discuss potential side effects. The ones that patients want to hear about are infection and cancer. Clinical studies do not seem to indicate an increased risk for infection. But is that what I tell the patient? No. I tell the patient that there may be a slightly increased risk for infection with biologics. I tell patients the prescribing information lists some rare and serious infections such as tuberculosis, hepatitis B reactivation, sepsis, invasive fungal infections, and opportunistic infections. I do say that if the patient is young and healthy, the risk is relatively low. I do tell the patient that we do check the things that we can check, such as screening for tuberculosis and hepatitis B virus.

Once a patient starts a biologic, I ask him/her to tell me or the primary care physician if he/she develops fevers, chills, weight loss, chronic cough, or an illness that lasts 1 week or more. I emphasize that high-risk patients—those who are elderly, have chronic kidney or liver disease, or have uncontrolled diabetes—should be more vigilant for signs of infection than otherwise-healthy patients.

The word cancer is scary for patients, so I mention that patients with psoriasis are more likely to develop lymphoma, which may be related to having psoriasis itself, not to therapies used to treat psoriasis. For tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, there is a warning about an increased risk for nonmelanoma skin cancers, which has been confirmed in some studies, so I tell patients that it is important to come in at least every 6 months to evaluate their psoriasis but also to check for skin cancers.

I also review with patients that many times their insurance company will require them to fail a traditional systemic therapy first before they can start a biologic. Also, monthly co-pays for a biologic likely will be higher than oral therapies they have used.

How do you keep patients compliant with treatment?

Patients usually want to be compliant on their own, as they will see how effective the biologic is and how clear their skin will become while on therapy. They will see that if they take a break for whatever reason (eg, ran out of medicine, went on vacation, loss of medical insurance), the psoriasis will return, perhaps with a vengeance.

I remind patients who are not compliant with biologic therapy that the body may produce antibodies against the biologic itself if there is a substantial break from therapy, which may make the biologic less effective over time.

If the patient wants to reduce the dose but not stop it completely, I recommend to increase the interval of the maintenance dosing by 1 day after each injection and see if the psoriasis slowly returns. If it does return, then he/she should reduce the interval of the maintenance dosing by 1 day and hold that interval.

What do you do if they refuse treatment?

I stress to patients that biologics are typically the best long-term treatment with the highest levels of effectiveness and safety for psoriasis. In the rare case of a patient refusing a biologic, I discuss other options such as oral therapy (eg, methotrexate, cyclosporine, acitretin, apremilast) or phototherapy. If the patient is a candidate for biologic therapy, topical therapy may not be adequate to treat a large body surface area affected.

What resources do you recommend to patients for more information?

The National Psoriasis Foundation has recently published an updated patient booklet, “Systemic Medications for Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis,” that I would encourage all patients to read for further information.

Suggested Reading

National Psoriasis Foundation. Systemic medications for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. https://www.psoriasis.org/sites/default/files/systemics_booklet.pdf. Accessed January 11, 2016.

What does your patient need to know at the first visit? Why is this information important?

At the first visit I discuss potential side effects. The ones that patients want to hear about are infection and cancer. Clinical studies do not seem to indicate an increased risk for infection. But is that what I tell the patient? No. I tell the patient that there may be a slightly increased risk for infection with biologics. I tell patients the prescribing information lists some rare and serious infections such as tuberculosis, hepatitis B reactivation, sepsis, invasive fungal infections, and opportunistic infections. I do say that if the patient is young and healthy, the risk is relatively low. I do tell the patient that we do check the things that we can check, such as screening for tuberculosis and hepatitis B virus.

Once a patient starts a biologic, I ask him/her to tell me or the primary care physician if he/she develops fevers, chills, weight loss, chronic cough, or an illness that lasts 1 week or more. I emphasize that high-risk patients—those who are elderly, have chronic kidney or liver disease, or have uncontrolled diabetes—should be more vigilant for signs of infection than otherwise-healthy patients.

The word cancer is scary for patients, so I mention that patients with psoriasis are more likely to develop lymphoma, which may be related to having psoriasis itself, not to therapies used to treat psoriasis. For tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, there is a warning about an increased risk for nonmelanoma skin cancers, which has been confirmed in some studies, so I tell patients that it is important to come in at least every 6 months to evaluate their psoriasis but also to check for skin cancers.

I also review with patients that many times their insurance company will require them to fail a traditional systemic therapy first before they can start a biologic. Also, monthly co-pays for a biologic likely will be higher than oral therapies they have used.

How do you keep patients compliant with treatment?

Patients usually want to be compliant on their own, as they will see how effective the biologic is and how clear their skin will become while on therapy. They will see that if they take a break for whatever reason (eg, ran out of medicine, went on vacation, loss of medical insurance), the psoriasis will return, perhaps with a vengeance.

I remind patients who are not compliant with biologic therapy that the body may produce antibodies against the biologic itself if there is a substantial break from therapy, which may make the biologic less effective over time.

If the patient wants to reduce the dose but not stop it completely, I recommend to increase the interval of the maintenance dosing by 1 day after each injection and see if the psoriasis slowly returns. If it does return, then he/she should reduce the interval of the maintenance dosing by 1 day and hold that interval.

What do you do if they refuse treatment?

I stress to patients that biologics are typically the best long-term treatment with the highest levels of effectiveness and safety for psoriasis. In the rare case of a patient refusing a biologic, I discuss other options such as oral therapy (eg, methotrexate, cyclosporine, acitretin, apremilast) or phototherapy. If the patient is a candidate for biologic therapy, topical therapy may not be adequate to treat a large body surface area affected.

What resources do you recommend to patients for more information?

The National Psoriasis Foundation has recently published an updated patient booklet, “Systemic Medications for Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis,” that I would encourage all patients to read for further information.

Suggested Reading

National Psoriasis Foundation. Systemic medications for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. https://www.psoriasis.org/sites/default/files/systemics_booklet.pdf. Accessed January 11, 2016.