1000/1000
Hot
Most Recent
Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated skin and joint disease, with a plethora of comorbidities, characterized by a certain genetic predisposition, and a complex pathogenesis based on the IL-23/IL-17 pathway.
Class of Drugs | Drug | TBC | HIV | HBV | HCV |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
TNF-a inhibitors | Etanercept | + | ++ | + | ++ |
Adalimumab | - + | ++ | + | + | |
Infliximab | - + | ++ | + | + | |
Certolizumab | - + | ++ | + | + | |
IL-23 inhibitors | Guselkumab | ++ | ?+ | ?+ | ?+ |
Tildrakizumab | ++ | ?+ | ?+ | ?+ | |
Risankizumab | ++ | ?+ | ?+ | ?+ | |
IL-17 inhibitors | Secukinumab | ++ | - + | ?+ | ?+ |
Ixekizumab | ++ | - + | ?+ | ?+ | |
Brodalumab | ++ | - + | ?+ | ?+ | |
IL-12/23 inhibitors | Ustekinumab | ++ | ++ | ?+ | ?+ |
PDE4 inhibitors | Apremilast | ++ | ++ | ?+ | ?+ |
JAK inhibitors | Tofacitinib | + | ? | ? | ? |
It is known that people affected by HIV suffer a higher incidence of skin disorders, often associated with elevated morbidity [11]. Most notably, psoriasis affects HIV pa- tients much more acutely than the general population, and usually for a longer period of time [11]. Moreover, the treatment choice for psoriasis in HIV infection is limited by systemic immunosuppression associated with some systemic and biological treatment regimens [59]. As is known, the pathogenesis of psoriasis is associated with the activation of T-cells and the treatments that reduce the T-cell count improve psoriasis. On the other hand, HIV infection is characterized by a progressive decrease in CD4+ T-cell count, and it could seem paradoxical that psoriasis exacerbations are more frequent in this subset of patients than the general population [60]; however, when psoriasis is associated with HIV infection, it is more severe due to the low control of the immune response: it was shown that with a CD4+ T-cell count <200/μL, there is a risk 9-fold greater of a severe form [61]. Moreover, HIV infection is characterized by an increased CD8+ T-cell number with an inverted CD4+/CD8+ ratio suggestive of a chronic inflammatory status, which could lead to the onset of psoriasis [61]. In fact, these patients should be managed in collaboration with infectious disease specialists for close monitoring of plasma viral load and CD4+ T-cell count. As preliminary screening for the use of immunosuppressant drugs for the treatment of psoriasis, an HIV serological testing with fourth generation enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method combining the research for both antibodies and p24 antigen should be performed. If positive, HIV infection should be confirmed by either wester-blotting or NAT. The staging of the infection includes CD4 cells count and plasma HIV-RNA. Biological drugs should not be administered if the CD4+ T-cell count is lower than 200/μL [21].
The use of TNF-a inhibitors in HIV patients has been associated with an increased risk of opportunistic infections [62]. In a study by Cepeda et al. [63], 8 patients were treated with etanercept or infliximab and none of them developed either opportunistic or infectious diseases. Moreover, the CD4+ T-cell count remained stable. Adalimumab was also shown to have a good safety profile in a study by Lindsey et al. [64], with increment of the CD4+ T-cell count. In a study evaluating the use of etanercept in HIV-1-associated tuberculosis, there were no increased infectious complications in those 16 HIV-infected individuals receiving etanercept compared with the 42 HIV-infected control patients [65]. In an Italian experience by Bardazzi et al. [66], none of the 8 patients treated with TNF-a inhibitors (6 with etanercept and 2 with adalimumab) developed infectious diseases or had to interrupt the treatment because of severe immune suppression [66]. All the patients reached PASI 75% after 3 months and showed overall stable levels of CD4+ T-cell count. The data presented allow to deem TNFis as safe in the setting of HIV infection, when respecting the contra-indication of a CD-4+ T-cell count lower than 200 cells/μL.
There are few published studies regarding the use of IL-23 inhibitors in HIV patients. Bartos et al. [67] did not report any adverse events in one HIV-patient successfully treated with guselkumab with CD4+ counts slightly decreased after 1 year.
The literature evaluating the treatment with secukinumab of patients who are HIV- positive is limited. In a case report by Di Lernia et al. [68], a 48-year-old HIV-positive woman was successfully treated with secukinumab, with no adverse reports reported, and remained free of psoriatic lesion at follow-up visit at 12 months. Moreover, in a case series by Pangilinan et al. [69], 2 HIV-positive patients affected by erythrodermic psoriasis were treated with secukinumab and ixekizumab and registered a great improvement of PASI with no adverse events occurrences [69]. However, the well-known risk of fungal infections related to IL-17 use limits their use in immunodeficient patients, such as those who are HIV-affected [59].
There are numerous reports of successful administration of ustekinumab in HIV- positive patients affected by psoriasis [66][70]. Bardazzi et al. treated 4 patients for a mean duration therapy of 34.8 months with ustekinumab and adverse events were not reported, including serious and opportunistic infections [66]. It is demonstrated that the CD4+ T-cell count as well as the viral load not only remain stable, but also improve in some cases [66][71]. Ustekinumab not only shows a good safety profile but also seems to achieve good therapeutic outcomes, with an improvement of PASI and patients’ quality of life, making it among the first-line drugs [66].
Several case reports have been published recently regarding the use of apremilast in HIV patients affected by psoriasis [72][73][74][75]. Neither opportunistic nor serious infectious disease were reported. Moreover, apremilast was shown to be safe and succesful in complex patients co-infected with HIV and either HCV or HBV [74][75]. Due to its “low” immunosuppressive properties, apremilast should be considered a first-line treatment in HIV patients.
No data were published during the last three years about the use of tofacitinib in patients with HIV infection and psoriasis.
While the association between psoriasis and hepatitis C has been demonstrated, hep- atitis B risk of infection seems not to be correlated to psoriasis [76][77]. In a multivariate analysis by Cohen et al. [76] it was found that the prevalence of psoriasis was not significantly associated with hepatitis B (OR = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.93–1.60). Before starting a systemic therapy with immune suppressive drugs, patients must be screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, looking for the presence of antibodies directed against HBV core (HBcAb) and HBV surface antigen (HBsAb). Moreover, HBV surface antigen (HBsAg) should be searched. If HBsAg results are positive, with the absence of HBsAb, it indicates that the patient has either recently been infected with HBV or at all [78]. Plasma HBV-DNA should be measured and treatment for the infection should be started. If HBcAb is found positive, in absence of HBsAg, this is called “occult hepatitis B” [78]. It must be determined if we are in presence of an active or inactive carrier by measuring plasma HBV-DNA, quantitative HBsAg, HBeAg, HBeAb (IgG). When plasma HBV-DNA is detectable, treatment with entecavir or tenofovir should be started before biological treatment [78]. Biological treatment should be initiated when plasma HBV-DNA is either undetectable or at least lower than 2000 UI/mL [79]. If plasma HBV-DNA is not detectable, it is recommended to start lamivudine (100 mg/daily) 2 weeks before biological drugs and continue up to the end of therapy. HBcAb appears with acute infection and persists for life, prophylaxis is not required when Abs are the only sign of the infection, but clinical and laboratory monitoring is recommended [79]. The isolated presence of HBsAb indicates either recovery or immunity because of vaccination and no measures are required [21].
TNF-α plays an important role in the clearance of hepatitis B virus from infected hepa- tocytes, therefore TNFi may lead to hepatitis reactivation or disease worsening. An analysis of 257 HBsAg or anti-HBc-positive patient receiving TNFi showed HBV reactivation in 39% of HBsAg positive patients compared with 5% of isolated anti-HBc positive patients [80]. HBV reactivation was more frequent in patients who did not undergo antiviral prophylaxis compared with patients who did (62% vs. 23%). Patients with HBcAb positivity pose a lower risk of viral reactivation compared with patients with HBsAg positivity [80]. All the molecules belonging to TNFα inhibitors have been shown to be associated with drug-induced liver injury; therefore, it is highly recommended to monitor the liver enzymes during the therapy [81]. If the patient is HBsAg+/anti-HBc+, antiviral prophylaxis should be commenced concomitantly or 1–2 weeks before TNFi therapy is initiated. The duration of treatment should be decided with the hepatologist [80]. On the other side, when the patient is HBsAg-/anti-HBc-, vaccination should be considered 2 weeks before starting biological therapy. However, a consultation with hepatologist and a triple serology screen- ing with LFTs is highly recommended before starting the TNFi therapy in order to have a serologic risk stratification between nonimmune, immune due to vaccination, resolved previous hepatitis infection, acute infection, chronic infection, and occult infection and decide an appropriate initiation of antiviral prophylaxis and/or vaccination.
The role of IL-23 in immune response to hepatotropic viruses is still unclear [82]. According to literature, only two cases of patients (one pediatric), both treated with ustekinumab and then guselkumab and having respectively HBsAg negativity and HBsAg/anti- HBcAg positivity have been reported. Of note, the pediatric case had most likely acquired HBV and was considered to be in a chronic inactive carrier state. In both cases, no reactivation occurred, liver enzymes remained stable, and HBV-DNA of pediatric patient progressively decreased to become undetectable [82][83]. Ustekinumab seems to be associated with a moderate risk of reactivation, according to the few data available in literature (10 studies, 3 patients with HBV reactivation, one also using MTX, only one receiving prophylaxis with lamivudine) [84].
The hypothesis of a possible beneficial role of Il-17 inhibitors on the development of liver fibrosis still needs to be confirmed [84]. Regarding the real-world data, few cases have been reported. In one prospective study performed on 49 HBV patients, only 4 reactivations were reported out of 22 HBsAg+ treated patients and only one out of 24 in HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ subjects. No reactivation was found in the three remaining HBsAg+ patients receiving antiviral treatment [85]. Cases of chronic or resolved HBV infection in patients undergoing secukinumab therapy have been reported [86][87], but none were found to have hepatitis or virus reactivation. A good safety profile was shown also for ixekizumab: 2 reports in the literature (one with active HBV infection and concurrently treated with entecavir and one with both markers of past HBV infection and anti-HCV positivity and no signs of reactivation) suggest the drug as safe in this setting [88][89]. No cases of reactivation of HBV have been reported in randomized controlled trials of brodalumab and its safety has not been yet established in HBV or HCV patients by real-world data [84].
Given the mechanism of action, apremilast represents a safe option in conditions in which immunosuppression is contraindicated and has no hepatotoxic effects [90]. In addition, the anti-fibrotic action showed in animal models by inhibiting pro-fibrotic factors such as TGFβ and IL-13, highlighted a potentially positive impact on liver fibrosis [84]. Only one case in literature has been described of a patient with chronic viral hepatitis B treated with apremilast with no concomitant antiviral treatment [75]. The liver function tests consistently remained within normal ranges after 1 year, and HBV-DNA was always negative.
No data were published during the last three years about the use of tofacitinib in patients with HBV infection and psoriasis.
Several studies showed a higher prevalence of HCV infection in patients with psoriasis [76][77][91]. In a large cohort study by Cohen et al. [76] among 12.000 patients, it was shown that the prevalence of hepatitis C in psoriatic patients was 1.03%, compared to 0.56% in controls. This could be explained by the increased cutaneous levels of cathelicidin, TLR9, and IFNc of HCV-positive psoriatic patients in comparison to HCV-negative psoriatics, suggesting that HCV infection may predispose patients to developing psoriasis [92]. HCV infection is diagnosed when anti-HCV antibodies are detected. A patient with a positive result must undergo HCV-RNA testing, or HCV-core-antigen testing whenever HCV-RNA assays are unavailable or not affordable, to diagnose an active infection [93]. If HCV-RNA is positive, it is mandatory to test liver functions and to start antiviral treatment with direct-acting antivirals (DAA), which are effective in eradicating the infection; biological therapies should not be commenced if cirrhosis is not controlled [79]. Unlike HBV reactivation, HCV reactivation is quite uncommon, occurring primarily with immunosuppressive drugs administered to chronically infected patients who were not carefully evaluated and did not receive antiviral therapy [94].
The suppression of TNF-α by biological agents was considered to be a possible threat to viral replication and possible chronic HCV infection. On the contrary, a high production of TNF-α was found in patients chronic HCV infections, with implications for liver injury [95]. Among TNFi, the use of etanercept seems to be safer, as it is a less potent inhibitor of TNF-α activity and less able to induce complement-dependent cytotoxicity and transmembrane TNF-α apoptosis [5]. Moreover, the antiviral effects of interferon and ribavirin were increased by etanercept in treatment-naïve patients with chronic HCV infection that presented a high sustained virologic response and a low frequency of adverse events [96]. On the other side, the progression of the cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma could po- tentially be accelerated through the immunosuppression induced by TNF-α-inhibitors [5]. Di Nuzzo et al. [97] reported two cases of hepatocellular carcinoma that developed in HCV patients with psoriasis with the cirrhotic disease during long-term etanercept treatment. In addition, adalimumab showed a safe profile in HCV-positive individuals affected by psoriasis. In a recent study on 20 HCV patients with psoriasis treated with adalimumab for a median of 40 months, the log-rise of plasma HCV viral load was found only in 3 patients. The increase was not associated with concurrent hepatic cytolysis or cholestasis indexes and none of the patients reached the criteria for HCV reactivation [98]. To summarize, caution should be used in the administration of TNFα inhibitors in compensated patients, who need to be monitored by ultrasound imaging; but they are not suitable for patients with decompensated liver disease because of their increased risk of potentially serious infections [97].
Data on the safety of IL-23 inhibitors are limited, although their profile appears to be favorable [84].
Studies investigating the safety profile of IL-17 inhibitors in the context of HCV infection are limited to small case series with a short follow-up. In a study by Chiu et al. evaluating the safety profile of secukinumab among patients affected by psoriasis and concomitant HBV or HCV, one of 14 (7.1%) patients reported increased HCV replication [85]. On the other hand, a patient with psoriasis and concomitant HBV-HCV infection was successfully treated with secukinumab and no adverse effects or reactivation were reported [86]. Overall, because robust data on the safety of secukinumab on HCV are lacking, it seems wise to consider patients with HCV infection receiving secukinumab as those who are treated with TNF-α inhibitors [84].
Limited data are available on patients with concurrent HCV infections treated with ustekinumab. In a study by Chiu et al. [99] evaluating 4 HCV patients affected by psoriasis under ustekinumab treatment, there was one reactivation and two cases of a slight rise in HCV-RNA. In two case reports, no reactivation was reported in psoriatic patients with concomitant HCV treated with ustekinumab. Moreover, long-term remission was maintained [100][101].
Few cases of HCV patients affected by psoriasis and treated with apremilast are described in the literature [74][102]. No cases of reactivation or elevation of liver enzymes are reported. The molecule is considered a safe option for patients with several conditions, such as active cancer or infection, for which conventional immunosuppressive therapy is contraindicated [90].
No data were published during the last three years about the use of tofacitinib in patients with HCV infection and psoriasis.
Hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) are more and more important on the scene of infectious diseases [19]. Although psoriasis has been shown to be an independent risk factor for serious and opportunistic infections, it has also been demonstrated that the introduction of a treatment with biologic drugs increases the risk of infection of about 55% [15][19][103]. Moreover, the intravenous administration and the use of port-a-cath, increase the chance of developing bloodstream infections whenever the personnel handling the device has not been correctly trained [104]. An increased rate of HAIs is also correlated with the advanced age of the patients and hospital admission frequency [19]. In addition, psoriasis alone doubles the hospitalization rate for infection [19]. This could be also related to the fact that psoriatic patients are shown to have a 2.5-fold risk of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes [19]. Moreover, IL-17 and IL-23 are pro-inflammatory cytokines involved in the defense of extracellular bacteria and fungi. Therefore, when IL-17 production is decreased, recurrent infections with Staphylococcus aureus and Candida albicans might be seen. Phase 2 and 3 studies on anti-IL-17 and anti-IL-23 did not show any increased risk of serious infections [105][106]; however, post-marketing studies highlighted an increased risk of opportunistic infections such as esophageal candidiasis, herpes zoster, pneumonia, and even Mycobacterium avium complex infections, especially with the use of anti-IL-23 drugs [107]. Hence, it is of utmost importance to attentively evaluate each patient for their infectious risk before beginning a treatment.
Whether psoriasis itself could confer susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 virus infection is not known [108][109]. What is known is that systemic treatments, including synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), have been associated with increased risk of infection, including respiratory tract viral infection [110][111]. In addition, patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis are frequently affected by cardiometabolic comorbidities, such as obesity, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension, all representing negative prognostic factors for pneumonia by SARS-CoV-2 infection [112]. For these reasons, initiation of biologic therapy is not recommended in active SARS-CoV-2 infection and the transition to safer alternatives may be considered to avoid serious complications [113]. Several studies have assessed the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with psoriasis receiving systemic biological treatments and, apparently, there is no increased susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection [112][114][115]. Studies have also been made reporting the risk of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and mortality due to COVID-19 in psoriasis patients treated with systemic therapies. No hospitalization or death was documented in 980 patients with psoriasis on biologics in a large cohort study by Gisondi et al. [116]. Moreover, several case reports and retrospective studies have been made about the course of COVID-19 in psoriasis patients receiving biological therapies [114][117][118][119]. In all the cases, full recovery from COVID-19 was reported after biologic treatment interruption. Favorable outcomes and no severe adverse effects were registered in patients that did not interrupt the biologic treatment, such as adalimumab and ustekinumab [118][119]. Other studies have shown that in presence of severe viral symptoms with high fever develop, the discontinuation of IL-17 inhibitors should be considered [120][121]. On the other hand, although IL-17 has an important role in mucosal immunity, preliminary studies by Wan et al. [122] and Tathiparthi et al. [123] did not prove any increased risk of either severe infection or negative outcome. Moreover, apremilast was shown having a good safety profile in COVID-19 affected patients, in fact, it does not favor either infection or cytokine storm, and it does not increase the risk of pulmonary fibrosis [124]. Factors to consider when selecting systemic treatment during COVID19-infection are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Factors to consider when selecting systemic treatment during COVID19-infection.
Class of drugs |
Drug |
COVID19 |
TNF-a inhibitors |
Etanercept |
++ |
|
Adalimumab |
++ |
|
Infliximab |
++ |
|
Certolizumab |
++ |
IL-23 inhibitors |
Guselkumab |
++ |
|
Tildrakizumab |
++ |
|
Risankizumab |
++ |
IL-17 inhibitors |
Secukinumab |
- + |
|
Ixekizumab |
- + |
|
Brodalumab |
- + |
IL-12/23 inhibitors |
Ustekinumab |
++ |
PDE4 inhibitors |
Apremilast |
++ |
JAK inhibitors |
Tofacitinib |
? |