Photodynamic therapy versus topical imiquimod versus topical fluorouracil for treatment of superficial basal-cell carcinoma: a single blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial: a critical appraisal.

AIM: Arits et al. aimed to assess whether the effectiveness of imiquimod and fluorouracil is not inferior to methyl aminolaevulinic acid (MAL) photodynamic therapy (PDT) in patients with superficial basal cell carcinoma. SETTING AND DESIGN: This single-blind, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial was conducted at one coordinating academic hospital and six peripheral dermatological departments in the Netherlands between March 2008 and August 2010. STUDY EXPOSURE: Patients with a superficial basal cell carcinoma were randomly assigned to be treated with PDT (two treatments); or imiquimod 5% cream, once daily five times a week for 6 weeks; or fluorouracil 5% cream twice daily for 4 weeks. Follow-up visits were planned after 3 months and 1 year. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was defined as the probability that a patient was free of tumour reoccurrence at both 3 and 12 months' follow-up. Secondary outcomes were aesthetic outcome of the treated area, compliance and adverse reactions. RESULTS: In total 911 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 601 were randomized: 202 to receive MAL-PDT, 198 to receive imiquimod cream and 201 to receive fluorouracil cream. The proportions (95% confidence intervals) of patients tumour free at both 3 and 12 months were 72·8% (66·8-79·4) for MAL-PDT, 83·4% (78·2-88·9) for imiquimod cream and 80·1% (74·7-85·9) for fluorouracil cream. For patients treated with MAL-PDT, moderate-to-severe pain and burning sensation were reported most often during the treatment itself. For the creams, moderate-to-severe local swelling, erosion, crust formation and itching of the skin were mentioned most often. CONCLUSIONS: Arits et al. conclude that topical fluorouracil was noninferior and imiquimod was superior to MAL-PDT for treatment of superficial basal cell carcinoma. Imiquimod cream is suggested as the preferred treatment.

Summary of the Dutch S3-guidelines on the treatment of psoriasis 2011. Dutch Society of Dermatology and Venereology.

This document provides a summary of the Dutch S3-guidelines on the treatment of psoriasis. These guidelines were finalized in December 2011 and contain unique chapters on the treatment of psoriasis of the face and flexures, childhood psoriasis as well as the patient's perspective on treatment. They also cover the topical treatment of psoriasis, photo(chemo)therapy, conventional systemic therapy and biological therapy.

Switching from etanercept to adalimumab is effective and safe: results in 30 patients with psoriasis with primary failure, secondary failure or intolerance to etanercept.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge on the sequential treatment of psoriasis with biologics with regard to efficacy and safety is sparse. This also applies to the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in patients previously treated with etanercept. The relationship between the reasons for discontinuation of etanercept and the response to adalimumab is not clear in psoriasis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in patients with psoriasis with primary failure, secondary failure or intolerance to etanercept in daily practice. METHODS: Data were extracted from two prospective registries from all patients with psoriasis with failure on etanercept treatment, who switched to adalimumab therapy. Thirty patients fulfilled these criteria. All patients were naive to biologics when etanercept was initiated. Primary endpoints were the percentage of patients achieving a 50% or 75% improvement of the baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score (PASI 50 and PASI 75, respectively) at weeks 12, 24 and 48. Secondary endpoints were the percentage of patients achieving PASI 90, the mean percentage improvement in the PASI score from baseline and the adverse event rate. RESULTS: Compared with the baseline PASI score before the start of etanercept, the mean percentage improvement in PASI and the PASI 50/75/90 response rates to adalimumab until week 48 were comparable to those achieved with etanercept. In the patients failing on etanercept, PASI 75 was achieved by 27%, 36% and 54% at weeks 12, 24 and 48 of adalimumab treatment, respectively. The majority of patients showed a beneficial response to adalimumab, irrespective of the reason for discontinuation of etanercept. Previous treatment with etanercept did not increase the adverse event rate nor change the nature of the side-effects. CONCLUSIONS: Adalimumab seems to be an effective and safe treatment option for patients with psoriasis who failed on etanercept treatment irrespective of the reason for discontinuation.

National registries of systemic treatment for psoriasis and the European 'Psonet' initiative.

About 11 million people suffer from psoriasis in Europe. This chronic condition may have a dramatic impact on quality of life. About 20% of patients may need systemic treatment to effectively control their disease activity. The introduction of biological agents greatly increased the options of systemic therapies for psoriasis. However, clinical experience with newer systemic therapies is relatively limited, and available data are mostly derived from short-term phase III trials. Except for PUVA and ciclosporin, long-term safety data from formal postmarketing studies are also largely lacking conventional treatment options. Registries provide one mechanism to monitor the long-term safety and effectiveness of treatment in the 'natural environment'. Several European countries have established registries to collect data on systemic psoriasis treatment. Even though different in some aspects of study design and monitoring, the registries share a number of common features: they include all the biological drugs and sometimes all the licensed systemic agents for psoriasis, and they observe the patients for a defined period of time irrespective of the drug given. Combining the results from these registries would increase their power and impact. We are developing an international collaboration called 'Psonet' that will perform a joint analysis of data from 9 individual national psoriasis registries.

Review and expert opinion on prevention and treatment of infliximab-related infusion reactions.

Infliximab (Remicade; Schering-Plough, Kenilworth, NJ, U.S.A.) is a chimeric monoclonal antibody that acts as a tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitor. Infliximab is registered for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn disease, ulcerative colitis, ankylosing spondylitis and plaque-type psoriasis. Like other foreign protein-derived agents, infliximab may lead to infusion reactions during and after infusion. Infusion reactions occur in 3-22% of patients with psoriasis treated with infliximab. Most of these reactions are mild or moderate and only few are severe. Nevertheless, they may lead to discontinuation of treatment. As infliximab for psoriasis is prescribed as a last resort and is in most cases very effective, discontinuation of treatment is undesirable. With proper care and prevention of the infusion reactions the need to discontinue treatment with infliximab can be diminished. The objective of this article is to present a guideline for the management of infliximab-related infusion reactions, based on the best available evidence. This guideline can be used in patients with psoriasis as well as in dermatology patients receiving infliximab for off-label indications such as hidradenitis suppurativa or pyoderma gangrenosum.