Systemic Treatment Of Psoriasis Vulgaris Research Articles

Systematic review and critical appraisal of psoriasis clinical practice guidelines: a Global Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP).

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) developed with rigorous methods can help optimize clinical care for patients with psoriasis. To conduct an updated systematic review and comprehensive critical appraisal of global psoriasis CPGs. A search of MEDLINE and Embase for psoriasis CPGs published between 1 January 2015 and 31 March 2021 was performed. Other guideline repositories were also searched for relevant CPGs. Descriptive analysis was conducted to summarize included guidelines. Three critical appraisal tools were used to assess the quality of included CPGs: the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument, Lenzer et al.'s red flags, and the US Institute of Medicine's (IOM) criteria of trustworthiness. We included 33 psoriasis CPGs, with 25 openly accessible. Most CPGs were from high sociodemographic index countries in North America and Europe. Five CPGs received 'excellent quality' appraisals across all six AGREE II domains. Stakeholder involvement, rigour of development and applicability were the three domains with the lowest appraisal scores for AGREE II. Twenty-two CPGs raised at least one red flag indicative of potential bias. By the IOM's standards, external review of the guideline draft prior to publication and clear updating procedures were most often not addressed by guidelines, and only three CPGs were assessed as having higher overall trustworthiness. Most psoriasis guidelines were unable to consistently demonstrate high quality across multiple appraisal tools. The EuroGuiDerm guideline on the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris was the only CPG to receive 'excellent quality' across all six AGREE II domains, to raise no Lenzer's red flags, and to have higher trustworthiness by IOM criteria.

German S3-Guideline on the treatment of Psoriasis vulgaris, adapted from EuroGuiDerm - Part 2: Treatment monitoring and specific clinical or comorbid situations.

German S3-Guideline on the treatment of Psoriasis vulgaris, adapted from EuroGuiDerm - Part 2: Treatment monitoring and specific clinical or comorbid situations.

EuroGuiDerm Guideline on the systemic treatment of Psoriasis vulgaris - Part 2: specific clinical and comorbid situations.

This evidence- and consensus-based guideline on the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris was developed following the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. The second part of the guideline provides guidance for specific clinical and comorbid situations such as treating psoriasis vulgaris patient with concomitant psoriatic arthritis, concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, a history of malignancies or a history of depression or suicidal ideation. It further holds recommendations for concomitant diabetes, viral hepatitis, disease affecting the heart or the kidneys as well as concomitant neurological disease. Advice on how to screen for tuberculosis and recommendations on how to manage patients with a positive tuberculosis test result are given. It further covers treatment for pregnant women or patients with a wish for a child in the near future. Information on vaccination, immunogenicity and systemic treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic is also provided.

EuroGuiDerm Guideline on the systemic treatment of Psoriasis vulgaris - Part 1: treatment and monitoring recommendations.

This evidence- and consensus-based guideline on the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris was developed following the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. The first part of the guideline includes general information on the scope and purpose, health questions covered, target users and strength/limitations of the guideline. Suggestions for disease severity grading and treatment goals are provided. It presents the general treatment recommendations as well as detailed management and monitoring recommendations for the individual drugs. The treatment options discussed in this guideline are as follows: acitretin, ciclosporin, fumarates, methotrexate, adalimumab, apremilast, brodalumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, guselkumab, infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, secukinumab, tildrakizumab and ustekinumab.

Methods report: European S3-Guideline on the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris - Update Apremilast and Secukinumab - EDF in cooperation with EADV and IPC.

Methods report: European S3-Guideline on the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris - Update Apremilast and Secukinumab - EDF in cooperation with EADV and IPC.

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

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

European S3-Guidelines on the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris--Update 2015--Short version--EDF in cooperation with EADV and IPC.

European S3-Guidelines on the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris--Update 2015--Short version--EDF in cooperation with EADV and IPC.

Methods Report: European S3-Guidelines on the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris--update 2015--EDF in cooperation with EADV and IPC.

Methods Report: European S3-Guidelines on the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris--update 2015--EDF in cooperation with EADV and IPC.

On the development of the European S3 guidelines on the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris: structure and challenges

The development of evidence based guidelines is a demanding and time consuming process. Therefore it is important to share the knowledge and discuss the structure of these guidelines in detail. To present a method report on the development process of the European evidence based guidelines on the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris with the aim to offer guidance to other guidelines groups with lesser experience and to critically appraise the methodology of the guidelines development process. The guidelines are based on the previously evaluated literature from three European national evidence based guidelines and an additional systematic search and evaluation of new literature. Further steps included a structured consensus conference and a DELPHI procedure to develop the recommendations, as well as several internal and external reviews. All steps were coordinated by the Division of evidence based medicine in cooperation with a group of methodologists. A total of 114 studies were included, serving as base for the efficacy chapters of the intervention. The recommendations, based on the efficacy and the level of evidence of the included studies were discussed and finally consented by the guidelines group. After subsequent reviews the guidelines were presented to the European Dermatology Forum, European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology and Union Européenne des Médicins Spécialistes for approval and published in October 2009. The development of European evidence based guidelines requires a coordinated structure which can be achieved by the integration of an experienced group of methodologists. Nevertheless further improvements are imaginable and might be considered for an update or other European evidence based guidelines.

Erratum

Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and VenereologyVolume 24, Issue 1 p. 117-118 Free Access Erratum This article corrects the following: European S3-Guidelines on the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris D Pathirana, AD Ormerod, P Saiag, C Smith, PI Spuls, A Nast, J Barker, JD Bos, G-R Burmester, S Chimenti, L Dubertret, B Eberlein, R Erdmann, J Ferguson, G Girolomoni, P Gisondi, A Giunta, C Griffiths, H Hönigsmann, M Hussain, R Jobling, S-L Karvonen, L Kemeny, I Kopp, C Leonardi, M Maccarone, A Menter, U Mrowietz, L Naldi, T Nijsten, J-P Ortonne, H-D Orzechowski, T Rantanen, K Reich, N Reytan, H Richards, HB Thio, P Van De Kerkhof, B Rzany, Volume 23Issue s2Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology pages: 1-70 First Published online: August 26, 2009 First published: 07 December 2009 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3083.2009.03504.xCitations: 1AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Large parts of the text in ‘European S3-Guidelines on the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris’1 are background texts which are helpful to get an overview on the intervention or drug. Despite several review processes some inconsistency and errors might remain. In the following erratum we point out some errors of this guideline that might lead to: (i) an incorrect interpretation of the safety of some products compared to others, or (ii) incorrect dosing. These background text errors do not have an impact on the evidence-based recommendations for the efficacy. The corrections are as follows: Page 31: right column, line 11 To be added as an additional sentence: However, with adalimumab being the newest available biologic at present there is insufficient long-term data on the safety of this drug in patients with plaque-type psoriasis. Page 34: table 27, line 4 Recommended maintenance dose 2 × 25 or 2 × 50 mg weekly To read: Recommended maintenance dose 2 × 25 or 1 × 50 mg weekly Page 35: left column, line 4–5 If PASI 75 (or minimum PASI 50) is not achieved after 12 weeks: 2 × 50 mg weekly up to 24 weeks To read: If PASI 75 (or minimum PASI 50) is not achieved after 12 weeks: 1 × 50 mg weekly up to 24 weeks; enbrel may also be used beyond 24 weeks in some patients Page 35: right column, lines 9–11 An increased dose (i.e. 100 mg biweekly) demonstrated no further benefit, with 50% of the patients on this dose having a PASI 75 after 12 weeks.152 To read: A dose of 100 mg once weekly demonstrated no further benefit, with 50% of the patients on this dose having a PASI 75 after 12 weeks.152 Page 35: right column, lines 37–39 …the mean improvement of these scores in the etanercept 100 mg biweekly group was comparable (i.e. 66% and 72%, respectively).152 To read: ...the mean improvement of these scores in the etanercept 100 mg weekly group was comparable (i.e. 66% and 72%, respectively).152 Page 38: left column, subchapter other safety aspects, lines 3–4 Infliximab and etanercept have been known to induce de novo, or worsen pre-existing, heart failure. To read: Infliximab and etanercept have been known to worsen pre-existing heart failure. Reference 1 Pathirana D, Ormerod AD, Saiag P et al. European S3-Guidelines on the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2009; 23(Suppl. 2): 1– 70. Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume24, Issue1January 2010Pages 117-118 ReferencesRelatedInformation

European S3‐Guidelines on the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris

Of the 131 studies on monotherapy or combination therapy assessed, 56 studies on the different forms of phototherapy fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in the guidelines. Approximately three-quarters of all patients treated with phototherapy attained at least a PASI 75 response after 4 to 6 weeks, and clearance was frequently achieved (levels of evidence 2 and 3). Phototherapy represents a safe and very effective treatment option for moderate to severe forms of psoriasis vulgaris. The onset of clinical effects occurs within 2 weeks. Of the unwanted side effects, UV erythema from overexposure is by far the most common and is observed frequently. With repeated or long-term use, the consequences of high, cumulative UV doses (such as premature aging of the skin) must be taken into consideration. In addition, carcinogenic risk is associated with oral PUVA and is probable for local PUVA and UVB. The practicability of the therapy is limited by spatial, financial, human, and time constraints on the part of the physician, as well as by the amount of time required by the patient. From the perspective of the cost-bearing institution, phototherapy has a good cost-benefit ratio. However, the potentially significant costs for, and time required of, the patient must be considered.