There is, I think, something ethereal about i —the square root of minus one. I remember first hearing about it at school. It seemed an odd beast at that time—an intruder hovering on the edge of reality.

Usually familiarity dulls this sense of the bizarre, but in the case of i it was the reverse: over the years the sense of its surreal nature intensified. It seemed that it was impossible to write mathematics that described the real world in …

I and i

The 11th edition of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine welcomes Anthony Fauci to its editorial staff, in addition to more than 85 new contributors. While the organization of the book is similar to previous editions, major emphasis has been placed on disorders that affect multiple organ systems. Important advances in genetics, immunology, and oncology are emphasized. Many chapters of the book have been rewritten and describe major advances in internal medicine. Subjects that received only a paragraph or two of attention in previous editions are now covered in entire chapters. Among the chapters that have been extensively revised are the chapters on infections in the compromised host, on skin rashes in infections, on many of the viral infections, including cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr virus, on sexually transmitted diseases, on diabetes mellitus, on disorders of bone and mineral metabolism, and on lymphadenopathy and splenomegaly. The major revisions in these chapters and many

Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a clinically approved cancer therapy, based on a photochemical reaction between a light activatable molecule or photosensitizer, light, and molecular oxygen. When these three harmless components are present together, reactive oxygen species are formed. These can directly damage cells and/or vasculature, and induce inflammatory and immune responses. PDT is a two-stage procedure, which starts with photosensitizer administration followed by a locally directed light exposure, with the aim of confined tumor destruction. Since its regulatory approval, over 30 years ago, PDT has been the subject of numerous studies and has proven to be an effective form of cancer therapy. This review provides an overview of the clinical trials conducted over the last 10 years, illustrating how PDT is applied in the clinic today. Furthermore, examples from ongoing clinical trials and the most recent preclinical studies are presented, to show the directions, in which PDT is headed, in the near and distant future. Despite the clinical success reported, PDT is still currently underutilized in the clinic. We also discuss the factors that hamper the exploration of this effective therapy and what should be changed to render it a more effective and more widely available option for patients.

/pdf/oncologic-photodynamic-therapy-basic-principles-current-xdslr0c749.pdf

Oncologic photodynamic therapy: Basic principles, current clinical status and future directions

Background
Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head to head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.

Objectives
To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional systemic agents (acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, methotrexate), small molecules (apremilast, tofacitinib, ponesimod), anti-TNF alpha (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab), anti-IL12/23 (ustekinumab), anti-IL17 (secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab), anti-IL23 (guselkumab, tildrakizumab), and other biologics (alefacept, itolizumab) for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

Search methods
We searched the following databases to December 2016: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) reports. We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant RCTs. We searched the trial results databases of a number of pharmaceutical companies and handsearched the conference proceedings of a number of dermatology meetings.

Selection criteria
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic and biological treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate to severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent.

Data collection and analysis
Three groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI) 90) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse effects). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes, according to GRADE; we evaluated evidence as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing.

Main results
We included 109 studies in our review (39,882 randomised participants, 68% men, all recruited from a hospital). The overall average age was 44 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo controlled (67%), 23% were head-to-head studies, and 10% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and placebo. We have assessed all treatments listed in the objectives (19 in total). In all, 86 trials were multicentric trials (two to 231 centres). All of the trials included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment at less than 24 weeks after randomisation); in fact, all trials included in the network meta-analysis were measured between 12 and 16 weeks after randomisation. We assessed the majority of studies (48/109) as being at high risk of bias; 38 were assessed as at an unclear risk, and 23, low risk.

Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90.

In terms of reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents. Small molecules were associated with a higher chance of reaching PASI 90 compared to conventional systemic agents.

At drug level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, all of the anti-IL17 agents and guselkumab (an anti-IL23 drug) were significantly more effective than the anti-TNF alpha agents infliximab, adalimumab, and etanercept, but not certolizumab. Ustekinumab was superior to etanercept. No clear difference was shown between infliximab, adalimumab, and etanercept. Only one trial assessed the efficacy of infliximab in this network; thus, these results have to be interpreted with caution. Tofacitinib was significantly superior to methotrexate, and no clear difference was shown between any of the other small molecules versus conventional treatments.

Network meta-analysis also showed that ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, certolizumab, and ustekinumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90: the most effective drug was ixekizumab (risk ratio (RR) 32.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 23.61 to 44.60; Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) = 94.3; high-certainty evidence), followed by secukinumab (RR 26.55, 95% CI 20.32 to 34.69; SUCRA = 86.5; high-certainty evidence), brodalumab (RR 25.45, 95% CI 18.74 to 34.57; SUCRA = 84.3; moderate-certainty evidence), guselkumab (RR 21.03, 95% CI 14.56 to 30.38; SUCRA = 77; moderate-certainty evidence), certolizumab (RR 24.58, 95% CI 3.46 to 174.73; SUCRA = 75.7; moderate-certainty evidence), and ustekinumab (RR 19.91, 95% CI 15.11 to 26.23; SUCRA = 72.6; high-certainty evidence).

We found no significant difference between all of the interventions and the placebo regarding the risk of serious adverse effects (SAEs): the relative ranking strongly suggested that methotrexate was associated with the best safety profile regarding all of the SAEs (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.99; SUCRA = 90.7; moderate-certainty evidence), followed by ciclosporin (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.01 to 5.10; SUCRA = 78.2; very low-certainty evidence), certolizumab (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.36; SUCRA = 70.9; moderate-certainty evidence), infliximab (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.00; SUCRA = 64.4; very low-certainty evidence), alefacept (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.55; SUCRA = 62.6; low-certainty evidence), and fumaric acid esters (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.99; SUCRA = 57.7; very low-certainty evidence). Major adverse cardiac events, serious infections, or malignancies were reported in both the placebo and intervention groups. Nevertheless, the SAEs analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to very low certainty for just over half of the treatment estimates in total, moderate for the others. Thus, the results have to be considered with caution.

Considering both efficacy (PASI 90 outcome) and acceptability (SAEs outcome), highly effective treatments also had more SAEs compared to the other treatments, and ustekinumab, infliximab, and certolizumab appeared to have the better trade-off between efficacy and acceptability.

Regarding the other efficacy outcomes, PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1, the results were very similar to the results for PASI 90.

Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for a third of the interventions.

Authors' conclusions
Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, certolizumab, and ustekinumab are the best choices for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate to severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. At class level, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents, too. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured between 12 to 16 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficiently relevant for a chronic disease. Moreover, low numbers of studies were found for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 44 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice.

Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. Indeed, we found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs. Methotrexate appeared to have the best safety profile, but as the evidence was of very low to moderate quality, we cannot be sure of the ranking. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies as well.

In terms of future research, randomised trials comparing directly active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between conventional systemic and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naive patients, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents.

/pdf/systemic-pharmacological-treatments-for-chronic-plaque-2dhth415p9.pdf

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.

Androgenetic alopecia, commonly known as male pattern baldness, is the most common type of progressive hair loss disorder in men. The aim of this paper is to review recent advances in understanding the pathophysiology and molecular mechanism of androgenetic alopecia. Using the PubMed database, we conducted a systematic review of the literature, selecting studies published from 1916 to 2016. The occurrence and development of androgenetic alopecia depends on the interaction of endocrine factors and genetic predisposition. Androgenetic alopecia is characterized by progressive hair follicular miniaturization, caused by the actions of androgens on the epithelial cells of genetically susceptible hair follicles in androgen-dependent areas. Although the exact pathogenesis of androgenetic alopecia remains to be clarified, research has shown that it is a polygenetic condition. Numerous studies have unequivocally identified two major genetic risk loci for androgenetic alopecia, on the X-chromosome AR⁄EDA2R locus and the chromosome 20p11 locus. Candidate gene and genome-wide association studies have reported that single-nucleotide polymorphisms at different genomic loci are associated with androgenetic alopecia development. A number of genes determine the predisposition for androgenetic alopecia in a polygenic fashion. However, further studies are needed before the specific genetic factors of this polygenic condition can be fully explained.

/pdf/androgenetic-alopecia-a-review-3mgwd4zoaw.pdf

Androgenetic alopecia: a review.

Minoxidil, a vasodilator medication known for its ability to slow or stop hair loss and promote hair regrowth,was first introduced, exclusively as an oral drug, to treat high blood pressure. It was however discovered to have the importantside-effect of increasing growth or darkening of fine body hairs; this led to the development of a topical formulationas a 2% concentration solution for the treatment of female androgenic alopecia or 5% for treating male androgenicalopecia. Measurable changes disappear within months after discontinuation of treatment. The mechanism by which itpromotes hair growth is not fully understood. Minoxidil is a potassium channel opener, causing hyperpolarization of cellmembranes and it is also a vasodilator, it is speculated that, by widening blood vessels and opening potassium channels, itallows more oxygen, blood and nutrients to the follicle. This can also cause follicles in the telogen phase to shed, usuallysoon to be replaced by new, thicker hairs in a new anagen phase. It needs to be applied regularly, once or twice daily, forhair gained to be maintained, and side effects are common. The most common adverse reactions of the topical formulationare limited to irritant and allergic contact dermatitis on the scalp. There have been cases of allergic reactions to the nonactiveingredient propylene glycol, which is found in some topical solution especially if they are galenic. Increased hairloss which can occur during Minoxidil use, is due to the synchronization of the hair cycle that the treatment induces. Inthis review, we described its mechanism of action, use in dermatology and some patents related to alternative treatment ofallergic reactions due to its use.

Minoxidil use in dermatology, side effects and recent patents.

(1) Background: Non-melanoma skin cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in humans. The process of skin carcinogenesis is still not fully understood. However, several studies have been conducted to better explain the mechanisms that lead to malignancy; (2) Methods: We reviewed the more recent literature about the pathogenesis of non-melanoma skin cancer focusing on basal cell carcinomas, squamous cell carcinoma and actinic keratosis; (3) Results: Several papers reported genetic and molecular alterations leading to non-melanoma skin cancer. Plenty of risk factors are involved in non-melanoma skin cancer pathogenesis, including genetic and molecular alterations, immunosuppression, and ultraviolet radiation; (4) Conclusion: Although skin carcinogenesis is still not fully understood, several papers demonstrated that genetic and molecular alterations are involved in this process. In addition, plenty of non-melanoma skin cancer risk factors are now known, allowing for an effective prevention of non-melanoma skin cancer development. Compared to other papers on the same topic, our review focused on molecular and genetic factors and analyzed in detail several factors involved in non-melanoma skin cancer.

/pdf/non-melanoma-skin-cancer-pathogenesis-overview-1gc72geoj5.pdf

Non Melanoma Skin Cancer Pathogenesis Overview

Non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in humans. Several different non-melanoma skin cancers have been reported in the literature, with several histologic variants that frequently cause important differential diagnoses with other cutaneous tumors basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common malignant skin tumor, with different histologic variants that are associated with a greater or less aggressive behavior and that usually may be confused with other primitive skin tumors. Actinic keratosis, Bowen’s disease, keratoacanthoma, and invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) correspond to the other line of NMSC, that may have only local tumoral behavior, easy to treat and with local management (as in the case of actinic keratosis (AK), Bowen’s disease, and keratoacanthoma) or a more aggressive behavior with a potential metastatic spread, as in case of invasive SCC. Therefore, histopathology serves as the gold standard during daily clinical practice, in order to improve the therapeutical approaches to patients with NMSC and to understand the distinct histopathological features of NMSC. Here, we reported the main pathological features of different non-melanoma skin cancers.

https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/5/4/71/pdf

Histology of Non-Melanoma Skin Cancers: An Update

Finasteride 1 mg is indicated for the treatment of men with androgenetic alopecia (AGA). However, more than 5 years efficacy and safety has not been previously reported. To assess the efficacy over 10 years in different age groups of men with AGA. 118 men, between 20 and 61 years, with AGA receiving finasteride (1 mg/day), were enrolled in this uncontrolled study. Efficacy evaluation was assessed with standardized global photographs at T0,T1,T2,T5,T10. Statistical analysis was made using frequency tables and evaluating the chi-square index with its p-value. Better improvements are observed in patients older than 30 years (42.8% aged between 20 and 30 years did not improve also after 10 years) or with higher AGA grades (58.9% for AGA grade IV and 45.4% for AGA grade V had the first improvement just after 1 year). In 21% of cases, the treatment continuation beyond 5 years provided better results. Side effects were referred by 6% of the patients; nevertheless, some of them went on with treatment because of the great results. In our opinion, the result after the first year can help in predicting the effectiveness of the treatment. Its efficacy was not reduced as time goes on; in fact, a big proportion of subjects unchanged after 1 year, improved later on, maintaining a positive trend.

Finasteride, 1 mg daily administration on male androgenetic alopecia in different age groups: 10-year follow-up.

Imiquimod is an immune response modifier that stimulates the patient's own immune system to release various chemical substances, such as interferon and interleukin-12. Although, approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration since 1997 as a topical treatment for genital and perianal warts, investigators have found that this product may offer an alternative treatment for a wide variety of medical conditions, such as for actinic keratoses, molluscum contagiosum, genital herpes, and various skin tumours. Clinical trials are now demonstrating the beneficial effects that its administration may have in treating other immune-related, dermatologic disorders. Understanding the pharmacology of this kind of drug is another step to fully understanding the power of the human immune system. Local reactions occur most frequently and include itching, burning, pain, soreness, flaking, erosions, and crusting. Since, it is administered locally; only a small amount of drug should reach systemic circulation, if used correctly. However, uncommon systemic side effects have been reported including headache, flu-like symptoms, fatigue, nausea, and myalgia. This article reviews imiquimod use in dermatology including its off-label use, side effects, future developments, new molecules related to dermatology and relevant patents.

Carmen Cantisani

Papers

Minoxidil use in dermatology, side effects and recent patents.

Non Melanoma Skin Cancer Pathogenesis Overview

Histology of Non-Melanoma Skin Cancers: An Update

Finasteride, 1 mg daily administration on male androgenetic alopecia in different age groups: 10-year follow-up.

Imiquimod 5% Cream Use in Dermatology, Side Effects and Recent Patents